Off-Topic: Israel-Lebanon & Terrorism in general

[jamesmcdonnell]

to compare L Ron Hubbard and Mohammad is a bit ridiculous. L Ron Hubbard founded a religion in order to make money, he didn't have any beliefs whatsoever, and according to legend did it for a bet.

Just because Islam is later than Christianity why does that make it less Valid. A prophet is just a messenger, someone who brings a message to the people. Whether Jesus and Mohammad were anything more than men who made some statements is of course down to your personal beliefs.

[yiddo14]

Maybe boxrec should have a seperate off topic forum where people can air their(mostly biased)views on these such topics???

all I wanna do is talk about boxing......

[pundit]

Too much written in the meantime and I can't respond to all of it. However, some points.

- I see no point in throwing toegether the current Israel-Hezbollah conflict with the war on terror or the situation in Iraq. These are different issues and they should be discussed on their own merits. I restrict myself to Israel-Hezbollah in the following.

- a really bad misrepresentation is "Lebanon has a right to build up defence capacity". Instead, an illegal guerilla also within the Lebanese political and legal framework is building up offensive capacity. The Lebanese army can do nothing about though because it is too weak; hence Israel has every right to defend itself agasint it. Jamesmcdonnell, the point here is that the longer Hezbollah sits unchecked in Southern Lebanon supplied by Iran with weaponry, the bigger the damage they can instill in future. Hence Israel SHOULD attack as long as Hezbolllah's destructiv capacity is relaitvley small.

- why do the surrounding lands want to destroy Israel? First, this is a wrong statement. Radical minoriites such as Hezbollah want to do so, but by no means al of Israel's neighbors. As for these minorities, you better ask them yourselves. From my perspective, one reason part is blatant intolerance. Another is that Israel provides an opportunity to divert agressive energy to the outside that would better be invested in reforming their own, disfunctional countries. Misguided policies by Israel at times of its history (e.g., under Netanyahu) explain perhaps a little bit, but they are not the main reason.

- Terence's version of history is so incomplete that it throws much more shadow than light on the issue; and my interest in discussing it is in fact rather limited. As said, Hezbollah itself could have written most of it. Here are only a few selected refutations:
a) The UN separation plan (that seems to be lacking from this version) included resettlement of both Jews and Arabs.
b) Yes, some Arabs were driven out by the Israeli army in 1948. Few have clean hands in this conflcit. But then please don't forget to mention that (i) the war was started by the neighboring Arab states who did not accept the UN's separation plan, and (ii) most Palestinians left because they believed the - betrayed - promises by the neighboring states that they would soon return. Where they did not believe this promises, such as in Nazareth, there is a large Arab-Israeli community to this day (and ask them whether they prefer to live in Israel or would rather live in one of the neighboring countries in a 50-year old refugee camp).
c) The region was a hort of instability long before Israel existed; and a removal of Israel would certainly not mean an end of this. A Brit should know that better than me.
d) As for the longer-term context, sure Christian crusaders destroyed Islamic cultures, in the Middle East but e.g. also Spain. But the same has happened the other way round, for example when the Turks took Constaninople in the 15th century. Or by Muslims vs. other Muslims, see the conflict between Shiites and Sunnites that hasn't subsided in 1200 years. What does all this help in assessing the current conflict? Well, nothing. It's not only irrelevant, but it serves the sole purpose to create horrobily over-simplified and highly ideologically loaded offender-victim relationships.

P

[Lefthookhappy19]

I totally dispute the number of civilians killed by Israel. The Lebanese goverment and Arab tv giving out these numbers will do everything in their power to villianise Israel. They've killed civilians, but I bet a ton where Hezbollah fighters.

Im sick of this bullshit history. Lets talk about what happening now. Talking about Israel being illegal is totally stupid. If everyone focuses on the past then nothing will ever get done.

[pundit]

I totally dispute the number of civilians killed by Israel. The Lebanese goverment and Arab tv giving out these numbers will do everything in their power to villianise Israel. They've killed civilians, but I bet a ton where Hezbollah fighters.

Add to this that it is Hezbollah whose fighters are hiding between civilians. Israel is aiming at an armed, attacking guerilla. Hezbollah is aiming at unarmed Isareli civilians, and it is using unarmed Lebanese civilians as shields.

[E]

Forced conversions:
In Persia: The Jews were forced to convert by a series of discriminatory laws applied over the course of two centuries. They suffered from the restrictions laid down by OMAR, and were excluded from public office. Having no representation in government, unable to build any new schools or synagogues, subject to special taxes and occasional outbursts of religious violence -- the peasant community largely converted by the end of the 9th century. Because of heavy taxation on cultivated land, a unique change occurred in the Jewish community. For the first time a small minority of Jews left agriculture and concentrated in the larger towns, especially Baghdad, Basra and Mosul where they became traders and craftsmen. The peasants, however, intermarried and became the core of what we call today "The Kurds".

You wrote this E.

So, yes if you like Mohammed allowed Jews and Christians to live in 'his' state; but only if they were happy to live as second class citizens an pay extortionate taxes. (hmmm sounds like discriminatory apartheid to me; but no doubt that is acceptable to you as long as it is imposed by your 'civilized and cultured' muslims.) And why do you refer to Mohammed as 'The Prophet?" to 5 billion humans he is nothing of the sort.

You also wrote this.

The crusades were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world were conquered by Muslim armies. In brief, by the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul.

Then strangely you wrote this.

?????? Why do you keep bringing examples of Christian wrong-doing as a defence to Muslim wrong doing? One wrong does not justify another. I am irreligious and am against all religious bigotry and primitive belief. But it is not the Amish, the Sikh, the Hindu, the Jewish, the animist etc tec who wishes to destroy my way of life and freedoms.

Why do you keep throwing up, wrongly sourced, examples of Islamic aggression to defend Western wrong-doing?

I could point out more contradictions but I think you have already established that you a hypocrite.

Zionists are not trying to kill me, my family and friends

E Zionists are not trying to kill you right? So I am to assume you have no Arab friends who at this moment in time are being killed, or attempting to be killed by Israel? If you did what would your position be? Don't be so one-dimensional, the effects of the Zionist actions are playing a part in the threat (largely exaggerated) to your family, it is the ripple effect. On that subject your family, one would presume, are fairly safe. On the other hand how many Arabs will die today in Iraq and Lebanon. Look at how vitriolic you become at the idea of a shadowy threat, imagine what you would do if the threat was real. Intellectually you are a reactionary, so I dread to think what you would do if you was Lebanese or, god forbid, a Palestinian. You want revenge based on threat, what revenge would you take based on action E. You are also trying to make this emotive, another shallow tactic.

Forced conversions in Iran in the 9th century eh E? Isn't it true that the greatest persecution of Jews in that area occurred under Zoroastrianism (which is now studenty hippy-dippy trip)? Why is there still a large number of JEWS (not Zionists and not Muslims) living in Iran and practising as Jews by following Judaism? Why are you going so far back to find persecution? A tenet of Islam is that other faiths pay reparations, however the fact they are not Muslim means they do not pay Zakat, maybe the other tax is a means of bridging that gap without forcing conversion. Do you dispute that Jews, Christians and, mostly, Muslims turned Iraq into a centre of education for the whole world? Where has that knowledge gone now?

You talk about conversion in remote areas of Indonesia and neglect to mention that this stems from a incident between two individuals and the broader Muslim population played a part in trying to help curtail the problem and that part of the problem is not a Muslim agenda but a desire for independence in certain regions. You also forget to mention that some of the so-called forced conversion is hyped up by Christian missionaries and stems from the fact that under Indonesian law marriage entails conversion by one of the parties to the recognised religions, which include Islam AND Christianity.

If you know the Koran so well show these scriptures and let someone who really reads the book show that you are bending them to your perspective (which I will do provisionally shortly and fully when I am at home). Show the passages. I told you about the conversion tax. Some of what you are saying is actually a mis-reading of Shariah law, do you now suppose all of the Shariah is found in that book.

And why do you refer to Mohammed as 'The Prophet?" to 5 billion humans he is nothing of the sort.

I refer to Mohammed as The Prophet, you refuse to do so, I also (and all Muslims by word of the Koran do so) recognise the claims for Jesus even though I am not religious. You do not recognise Mohammed, nor do the West in general and many Christians fail to do so, yet Muslims do not renounce Christ, they embrace him, hardly a sign of intolerance is it. In fact your stated refusal to recognise Mohammed speaks of your conceit. In the Koran the other religions are explicitly referred to as fellow people of the books.

as I understand; Iraq and Afghanistan. (oh and neither of which I support)
As opposed to the following involving Islam;
Kashmir/India
UK
USA
Spain
(and in fact could hypothetically include any western nation, though attacks may not yet have happened)
Sudan
Nigeria
Ivory Coast
East Timor
Kurdistan
Philippines
Uganda
Palestine/Israel
Chechenya

In the other places, scratching Israel as we caused that, Uganda has seen Muslims as the victims since the 1970's and they actually tried to put space between them and the murderous non-Islamic regimes. In fact scratch the African areas off as it is a truism that Islam took off in Africa due to the cultural similarities and Africa accepted it after years of Christianity trying to destroy the tribal influences. Islam is a tribal religion and is like wildfire in Africa, conflict is stirred up by Western involvement and interference. A fried of mine was a Christian, Nigerian, and his take on a lot of the problems there is that a mixture of tribal cultism and Islam has led to cults who have a mystic take and then started attacking orthodox Mosques. It was violence against Muslims and the backlash against the Miss Word contest was a case of trying to force Western ideals on a country who have a very large and mixed religious population. Amir Khan was a arrested in Bolton for dangerous driving, perhaps you need to add Bolton to that list? Oh and check out the genocide of Muslims, in Chechnya. I think the Russians did a lot of bad there.

Do yo know what a conflict is? It is not an isolated attack every few years so scratch Spain, the UK, the USA, scrub Palestine and Israel as we caused that one (unless you want to discuss the US bombs being sent over there and return back to the cause of that conflict).

Of course Muslims want Shariah courts, it is a tenet of Islam, please learn about something before you judge it. Shariah also incorporates a respect for the host nations laws by its own law, Shariah courts would be almost feudal based courts involving small numbers. For Shariah read community morality, an area where we lack.

Muslims think the world belongs to Allah and everyone should be a Muslim in their 'ideal' world.

Actually in Islam Allah has no physical manifestation and cannot own anything. In fact it not dissimilar to Buddha Nature and as a consequence it advocates respect for the Earth and its inhabitants. Allah does not own the Earth. Plus in Islam the other faiths are seen as one interpretation of the monistic faith. Christians are tolerated as misguided but people of the book.

James repelled you about the Crusades and there is little to add but this. A Crusade, by its very definition, is sent over seas so how can it defend against aggression. Christianity flourished in Europe, in the East it was a minority and an accepted one at that. Why do you think they had Muslim aid in preserving the Christian texts? Because Jesus is considered a Muslim Prophet.

I will look at the so-called Koranic snippets. I said Nick Griffin because interestingly he was filmed reading similar excerpts and it turned out he gleaned them from the web and they were erroneous translations based on a wartime Koran wrongly interpreted. Like all those who say that Islamic paradise is a place with Allah and all the rest. Actually it is an oasis in a dry place that is promised, think about it, it is a desert religion.

Well I am not going to write another post as long as before; it took me too long....

But simply put Terence; you take the classic position of the selective critic. IE you take comments out of context and only respond to selective comments as oppose to the sections where you are struggling to put up a coherent argument.

There is no cohesion to your position - just a selective and simplistic overview of history and a very superficial treatment of my argument.

Now, I'm off to make a post about boxing..... you can continue your barely concealed justification of Islamist murder of western civilians who have nothing to do with the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan and most of whom despise Blair an Bush.

[pundit]

Btw, I see that most of you here are critical towards Tony Blair. I personally have a lot of respect for him and Britian's role in general in all this. Blair tried to keep the Western World together when it was drifting apart, with an autistic, narcissic and arrogant US government on the one side; and European governments on the other who were not prepared to take any responsiblity but played populist messages to their domestic audiences instead. When this attempt failed Blair sided with the US, because he was preapred to take responsibility, AND he thought he could affect the conduct of the war on terror. He went wrong there - the Bush government wouldn't listen to anyone. This was tragic. But I still believe Blair tried in principle to do the right thing, and it's not him who messed up - it's this gang of incompetent amateurs in the White House.

Btw, I was also impressed with how the Brits uprooted the terror attack attempt yesterday. The British police and secret services seem to have found the right mixture of building trust and cooperating with the moderate majority of the British Muslim community, and fighting the radical, terrorism-supporting minority. I have not the slightest confidence in the US Department of Homeland Security to achieve the same. After all, they were not even capable of evacuating people out of flooded New Orleans.

[jamesmcdonnell]

For all the talk of religious extremism I feel that most people miss the common denominator which is the genesis of almost all human conflict - poverty and class.

Islam is seen to be a violent aggressive organisation, a label which I'm not surprised it has earnt but in my years at university where the class of 120 BMS students was at least 50% muslim, these people where no more aggressive than I, they would condemn islam extremism as fast as anyone yet still adhered to every Islamic rule. I doubt it's a coincidence that these people were on the whole, from at least middle earning families. Also these people had prospects. If people live in a place with no money and no prospects they always turn to extremism, Nazi Germany, poor whitw BNP voters, Some British muslims etc etc.

Islam maybe the route from which these individuals indulge in their violence but desire to join such groups was motivated in start through lack of potential, prospects and living in poverty. We see the same in black U.S gangs, nobody is gonna say that black men have violent tendencies, but the situation lends more than a helping hand to their outlook on life. When people have nothing it's very easy to minipulate them into believing anything.

Islam can and often is a peacefull religion, however in the Isreal Vs the Middle East case the population of Israels surrounding countries have very little - to resent Israel would be very easy, to be corrupted would be very easy and that task is made ten times easier when you see an Isreali bomb kill any member of your family, or an Israeli soldier rape your wife.
Islam is the vehicle, but poverty is the real driving force.

And with the Hizbullah incident, don't you think it a triffle odd that even with primitive weapons the majority of Israels casualties have been soldiers whilst with all Israels mighty array of weapons (the biggest budget allowance for 'defence' a nucleur programme that would make G.Bush spunk in his pants and a army of trained soldiers that amounts to almost 600,000) have slain hundreds more civilians including children, that Hizbullah fighters? Odd it isn't. Intentional is what it is.

Thios is my feeling exactly. The current situation is driven not by conflicting ideologies, but conflicting agendas.

All of the middle eastern conflicts of recent times, are over oil, the suez crisis ultimately was about being able to transport oil and other goods.

To believe that this whole war is as a result of some agenda contained in Islam is very naive. The fact is there are always radical and aggresive segments within major organised religions, christianity certainly had it's time, and is being used as the moral justification by our leaders today.

No bush and blair do not represent all of us, but neither do Hizbolla or Al Quaida represent all muslims, nor the Zionist movement represent all jews.

The supposed conflict of ideologies is a veil used to justify conflict over resources and power. The palestinians are in danger of being 'driven into the sea' and their fellow Arab states are using their cause as an excuse to engage in a war with a west which they see as invasive and power hungry, and rightly so.

As oil becomes more and more difficult and exensive to extract, these conflicts are going to escalate.

The disenfranchised , poverty stricked and brianwashed are going to tbe footsoliders in these conflicts, who do you think make ujp the armed forces in most nations, rich middle class kids with prospects, or dirt poor folk who see an opportunity.

Money is what is fuelling this entire conflict, religion is just the method of indoctrination which gets people to fight, especially in the Arab world where there are many more people living near the poverty line.

You don't see Osama blowing himself up do you?

[E]

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.

[Ric]

but the fact remains Hezbollah are a terrorist organisation killing civilians whilst the Israeli's are a professional army killing civilians.

Now this is what I call an over-simplification.

Definition of "terrorism":
the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum; ....

(There is no exception for a "professional army killing civilians.")
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html ... -000-.html

[westside hoop]

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 have been reading this board for a few months now but have never felt the urge to post until reading some of this shite.

Billy, would you not think it should be something you should have researched if you were sent out there on a tour of duty. That is what is wrong in this country...you let other people do your thinking for you. You should have educated yourself before going out there to take orders from other people. The fact that you agreed to help out an occupying force in a foreign land without knowing anything about the main reason for the conflict makes me think you are just another puppet. Sickening to see someone willing to do such a thing.

As for Pundit's point about having a lot of respect for Tony Blair but none for Bush that is just crazy. Blair is totally incapable of making up his own mind or having his own opinion. Bush is pulling his strings and Blair has no clue how to handle him. He will go down in history as aiding Bush's illegal occupation of many nations, basically Bush's bitch and he is still being heralded as a legendary leader in this country...what a joke.

The fact that some of you on here are supporting the Israeli stance on this matter is just crazy. If a nation took over part of this country in the past I know for a fact that you would want it back. The Leb was occupied and parts of it are still occupied by an illegal force which is fully backed by the Americans. What many don't realise is that this like the majority of conflicts in the midle east is 100% fueled by the Americans. We all know Israel is funded by them but Hezbollah is getting most of its ammunition from the previously US funded Iran. In the 80's while the US were arming Saddam's Iraq, they were also providing Iran with Missiles. Some of these were then sent onto Hezbollah to try to get them to release US hostages in the Leb. Iran is still supplying them to this day with weapons they got form the US. This goes to show how stupid the Americans are and they continue to be. They have created this situation and should not be given the chance to ruin these nations any more. If Israel retreated out of the areas of Lebanon and Palestine which it is illegally occupying and released all the prisioners which they have captured while invading these lands that whole area would be a much more peaceful area.

I know people who have spent time in both Palestine and Lebanon and it is unbelievable hearing their stories. I don't think anyone can relate to these people without reading about the goings on in these countries at the hands of the Israeli army. Absolutely disgusting behaviour which sickens me to even think about it. Some of what these peolpe have to put up with on a daily basis all at the hands of a US funded force is a disgrace. If anyone is interested in learnign more about this check out the movie My name is Rachel Corrie.

In short....Bush and Blair need to stop supporting the illegal occupation of lands in and around Israel. Open their eyes to the fact that them supporting Israel is making matters much worse and that treating Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organisations rather than political organisations, which both have shown they are capable of being, is not the way forward. Look at Northern Ireland for an example of this. Not perfect but much better than these situations. Open your eyes lads and realise that Blair is tarring you all with the same brush in the eyes of the international community. I don't like living in this country in fear of some madmen blowing themselves but but what is it going to take before Blair opens his eyes and realises his foreign policy is putting us all in the firing line.

RIP Rachel Corrie

[Taki...]

It's worth noting that the war with Iraq was based on the premise that Iraqi were ignoring/flouting UN resolutions. Fact is that Israel has been ignoring UN resolutions regarding the occupation of lands illegally for decades...

Here are some relevant (considering the current problems) examples:

Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".

As you can see Israel is not exactly whiter than white when it comes to Lebanon.

[jamesmcdonnell]

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.

Yeah that's great, let's go in there, shoot the fornicate out of the place destroy the infrastructure of the country, leave it in a state of civil war, and then piss off and leave them to it, way to go.

Billy, nothing against you personally, if you are a solider I am sure you have been under fire and having a shit time. I have nothing against the foot soldiers, they have just been sent there to do a job of work, and by definition a solider follows orders, you are not trained to question what you are told to do by your superiors.

I am sure it's hard for you to be sympathetic when you are being shot at, bombed and generally fearing for you life. Remember though, nobody asked the British Army into Afghanistan or Iraq, our governments

I agree we should leave these places, but we cannot just abandon the guiltless civilians who will be at the mercy of the warlords and tribal armies who are now waiting for the western armies to leave to carve those countries up.

The Taliban only came to power in Afghanistan because they were funded and armed by the CIA, and armed by the US and Britain to fight the Russians.

Governments are in the business of power broking, and people like yourself are merely expendable pawns sent to do their dirty work. I can understand your feelings, but your anger should be directed at the people who sent you there, not the people you have been sent to engage who never asked for a war.

[pundit]

As for Pundit's point about having a lot of respect for Tony Blair but none for Bush that is just crazy. Blair is totally incapable of making up his own mind or having his own opinion.

That's your personal view which to me looks rather absurd.

Bush is pulling his strings and Blair has no clue how to handle him.

That's more to the point. There is no way how the leader of a small country like Britain could handle the leader of a big country like US if there isn't willingness and goodwill on the part of the latter. Blair banked on this goodwill, taking great risks in the process, and was made look stupid by the Bush White House.

You may disagree, but I wish Blair would have been leading the west in recent years and not Bush. I'm certain the world would be in a better state.

The Leb was occupied and parts of it are still occupied by an illegal force which is fully backed by the Americans.

What exactly do you mean?

What many don't realise is that this like the majority of conflicts in the midle east is 100% fueled by the Americans. We all know Israel is funded by them but Hezbollah is getting most of its ammunition from the previously US funded Iran.

The US supported Iran some 30 years ago. So?

In the 80's while the US were arming Saddam's Iraq, they were also providing Iran with Missiles.

The US had friendly realtions with the Shah's Iran. But when Khomenei took over the Carter and Reagan governments were scared to death of the mullah's -- as was everybody else. Out of this fear the US gave some support to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, but far less than the Russians or the French, for example.

Some of these were then sent onto Hezbollah to try to get them to release US hostages in the Leb. Iran is still supplying them to this day with weapons they got form the US.

Pretty much everything here is wrong. Katyusha's are weaponry from the former Soviet Union, as are most of Heazbollah's weapons arsenal. Other stuff is produced directly in Iran. The money to finance terrorist organziations comes largely from oil money, of which there has been plentiful in recent years. Not from some US support to the Shah in the 1970s.

This goes to show how stupid the Americans are and they continue to be. They have created this situation

Boy, you have a simple view of the world. Whatever goes wrong is the fault of the US.

Because the US had friendly relations with the Shah's Iran 30 years ago they haven't created Hezbollah.

If Israel retreated out of the areas of Lebanon and Palestine which it is illegally occupying and released all the prisioners which they have captured while invading these lands that whole area would be a much more peaceful area.

Your statement above was just put to the test. Israel wasn't occupying an inch of Lebanon before this conflict - in contrast, it had moved totally out some years ago. The consequence: Hezbollah occupied Southern Lebanon and accumulated a large weapons arsenal, with the exclusive intention of attacking Israel.

I know people who have spent time in both Palestine and Lebanon. Absolutely disgusting behaviour which sickens me to even think about it. Some of what these peolpe have to put up with on a daily basis all at the hands of a US funded force is a disgrace. If anyone is interested in learnign more about this check out the movie My name is Rachel Corrie.

Wel, I'm one of those who know the region a bit, and as a consequence I know that things are neither that easy nor one-sided. Noone is saying that there hasn't been disgusting behavior by the Israeli army. But during the Lebanese civil war Lebanese largely that massacred each other (sometimes with the tacit support of the Israeli army). The worst massacre in the region in the past 25 years has been executed by Assad's Syria - Hezbollah's sponsor - against the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria itself. 25000 dead in one night.

I for my part tend to get suspicious when people get very excited by bad behavior of only one side.

In short....Bush and Blair need to stop supporting the illegal occupation of lands in and around Israel. Open their eyes to the fact that them supporting Israel is making matters much worse and that treating Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organisations rather than political organisations, which both have shown they are capable of being, is not the way forward. Look at Northern Ireland for an example of this. Not perfect but much better than these situations. Open your eyes lads

If you compare Hezbollah to Northern Ireland, you are the one who needs to open his eyes. In Northern Ireland you had folks who distrusted each other but were in principle prepared to live with one another. They needed to work out a deal. In contrast, Hezbollah isn't prepared to live with Israel.

[westside hoop]

The Leb was occupied and parts of it are still occupied by an illegal force which is fully backed by the Americans.

What exactly do you mean?

Shebaa Farms....does that ring a bell?? Occupied by Israel since 67. Now I don't want to hear you go on about it actually being Syria as they have continually confirmed that it belongs to Lebanon.

What many don't realise is that this like the majority of conflicts in the midle east is 100% fueled by the Americans. We all know Israel is funded by them but Hezbollah is getting most of its ammunition from the previously US funded Iran.

The US supported Iran some 30 years ago. So?

Again, get back to those history books....

In the 80's while the US were arming Saddam's Iraq, they were also providing Iran with Missiles.

The US had friendly realtions with the Shah's Iran. But when Khomenei took over the Carter and Reagan governments were scared to death of the mullah's -- as was everybody else. Out of this fear the US gave some support to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, but far less than the Russians or the French, for example.

Bullshit.......the Reagan-Bush administration supported Iran right up to 86 and more then likely later than that. Bush senior was the one who came out in 87 discussing the possible side effects of this. So to say that it ended with the Carter - Reagan administration to way off. For all we know it could have continued into Bush reign.

Some of these were then sent onto Hezbollah to try to get them to release US hostages in the Leb. Iran is still supplying them to this day with weapons they got form the US.

Pretty much everything here is wrong. Katyusha's are weaponry from the former Soviet Union, as are most of Heazbollah's weapons arsenal. Other stuff is produced directly in Iran. The money to finance terrorist organziations comes largely from oil money, of which there has been plentiful in recent years. Not from some US support to the Shah in the 1970s.

I never mentioned that the Katyusha's were supplied by the US, possibly misunderstod here. In the 80's the US and Israel (basically the US) "sold" TOW rockets to Iran in what is now known as "an arms for hostages deal". Covered by the Washington Post in 87. You will see that these are actually still in use even if in small numbers. The US thought they could get Hostages released in Beirut by rubbing up the captors main backers the Iranians. The Iranians continue to supply Hezbollah to this day.

This goes to show how stupid the Americans are and they continue to be. They have created this situation

Boy, you have a simple view of the world. Whatever goes wrong is the fault of the US.

Because the US had friendly relations with the Shah's Iran 30 years ago they haven't created Hezbollah.

Look at Iraq, Afganistan, Iran (and Lebanon as a result)....initially armed by the US, trained by the US, encouraged by the US....I am not saying this is the only way they armed them etc but it definitely aided and encouraged

If Israel retreated out of the areas of Lebanon and Palestine which it is illegally occupying and released all the prisioners which they have captured while invading these lands that whole area would be a much more peaceful area.

Your statement above was just put to the test. Israel wasn't occupying an inch of Lebanon before this conflict - in contrast, it had moved totally out some years ago. The consequence: Hezbollah occupied Southern Lebanon and accumulated a large weapons arsenal, with the exclusive intention of attacking Israel.

Wrong...Shebaa Farms..remember????? Also, to move totally out would also mean not crossing the border to kidnap citizens of Lebanon???? To release political prisioners would go a long way to helping the situation.

I for my part tend to get suspicious when people get very excited by bad behavior of only one side.

In short....Bush and Blair need to stop supporting the illegal occupation of lands in and around Israel. Open their eyes to the fact that them supporting Israel is making matters much worse and that treating Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organisations rather than political organisations, which both have shown they are capable of being, is not the way forward. Look at Northern Ireland for an example of this. Not perfect but much better than these situations. Open your eyes lads

If you compare Hezbollah to Northern Ireland, you are the one who needs to open his eyes. In Northern Ireland you had folks who distrusted each other but were in principle prepared to live with one another. They needed to work out a deal. In contrast, Hezbollah isn't prepared to live with Israel.[/quote]

Your views on NI are obviously blinkered by what you read in the media. Go tell a Republican in West Belfast that he is to live next door to a bigotted member of the UVF....get a grip chief, would never happen even in this day.

I made a very general comparison when mentioning NI and I stand by it as it is a piece of land occupied by a force which is not wanted by some. It is obviously not a direct comparison. Why don't you think Hezbollah are prepared to live with Israel????? Of course they are but not with Israel occupying their land and holding their citizens captive. I think this is quite a realistic expectation.......no????

[pundit]

The Leb was occupied and parts of it are still occupied by an illegal force which is fully backed by the Americans.

What exactly do you mean?

Shebaa Farms....does that ring a bell?? Occupied by Israel since 67.

10 desolate square miles of disputed territory (where the UN shares Israel's view). THAT's a GREAT justification for occupying all of Southern Lebanon with an illegal militia that is disliked by the vast majority of Lebanese, accumualtes an arsenal of middle-range missles, and holds Lebanese civilans hostage.

I never mentioned that the Katyusha's were supplied by the US, possibly misunderstod here. In the 80's the US and Israel (basically the US) "sold" TOW rockets to Iran in what is now known as "an arms for hostages deal". Covered by the Washington Post in 87. You will see that these are actually still in use even if in small numbers. The US thought they could get Hostages released in Beirut by rubbing up the captors main backers the Iranians. The Iranians continue to supply Hezbollah to this day.

Of course, but not because Iran got a few arms in exchange for hostages in 1987.

Look at Iraq, Afganistan, Iran (and Lebanon as a result)....initially armed by the US, trained by the US, encouraged by the US....I am not saying this is the only way they armed them etc but it definitely aided and encouraged

None of these countries was either exclusively or originally armed by the US. These over-simplifications cover more up than they reveal.

Why don't you think Hezbollah are prepared to live with Israel????? Of course they are but not with Israel occupying their land and holding their citizens captive. I think this is quite a realistic expectation.......no????

Look, this is simply totally off. Hezbollah is no a part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, never has been. It is not Hamas or Fatah. Hezbollah is a Shiite guerilla group in a largely Christian-Sunnite-Druse country, whose only reason for existence is an indeologically driven desire to destroy Israel. It is financed and sponsered by Iran and Syria. Without Iran and Syria there would be no Hezbollah.

Hezbollah is NOT welcome by the majority of Lebanese, as last year's events clearly demonstrated. Rather, Hezbollah is an occupying force itself that holds Southern Lebanon hostage. Noone ever occupied "Hezbollah's land" as there is no such thing, not even the 10 desolate square miles that you seem to consider a legitimate cause for god-knows-what.

One can only hope that Israel and the major Palestinian factions can one day agree on a deal a la NI, although we seem to be further away from this than ever in the past 10 years. But there cannot be a deal with Hezbollah, this is anti-logical . As long as Hezbolah insists on the destruction of Israel Israel can hardly cut a deal with it. But when Hezbollah gives up on its objective to destroy Israel it will have lost the one and only reason for its existence.

[E]

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.

Yeah that's great, let's go in there, shoot the smeg out of the place destroy the infrastructure of the country, leave it in a state of civil war, and then piss off and leave them to it, way to go.

Billy, nothing against you personally, if you are a solider I am sure you have been under fire and having a shit time. I have nothing against the foot soldiers, they have just been sent there to do a job of work, and by definition a solider follows orders, you are not trained to question what you are told to do by your superiors.

I am sure it's hard for you to be sympathetic when you are being shot at, bombed and generally fearing for you life. Remember though, nobody asked the British Army into Afghanistan or Iraq, our governments

I agree we should leave these places, but we cannot just abandon the guiltless civilians who will be at the mercy of the warlords and tribal armies who are now waiting for the western armies to leave to carve those countries up.

The Taliban only came to power in Afghanistan because they were funded and armed by the CIA, and armed by the US and Britain to fight the Russians.

Governments are in the business of power broking, and people like yourself are merely expendable pawns sent to do their dirty work. I can understand your feelings, but your anger should be directed at the people who sent you there, not the people you have been sent to engage who never asked for a war.

ok so you are now saying - we CAN'T get out of Iraq...... so you attack us or going into Iraq but now say we should'nt leave...... I mean can't you see the contradiction of this position?

[lvlarc]

http://static.flickr.com/49/118634809_d2aa2b4986_o.jpg

[E]

http://static.flickr.com/49/118634809_d2aa2b4986_o.jpg

Oh my god!!!!!!!! What a great actor!!!!!!!!!

[E]

I'm sorry you didn't read my post Terence (can I call you Terry, we seem so well acquainted......)

If you look at my posts I am against Zionism....I am all for a free palestine state. I am just against violence towards western national civilians who donot support bush, blair and our govermet's foreign policy; which most of us do not ascribe to........


I repeat - fvck zionism, islamism - I just want liberalism - Kapisch???????

[states]

Sorting out the middle east is a piece of piss from our point of view, obviously.....

If anyone in this country truly thinks they have the solution, well, congratulations. Otherwise, I find myself siding with Banksy:

http://www.eidersuso.com/share/wallpalestina.gif

[jamesmcdonnell]

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.

Yeah that's great, let's go in there, shoot the smeg out of the place destroy the infrastructure of the country, leave it in a state of civil war, and then piss off and leave them to it, way to go.

Billy, nothing against you personally, if you are a solider I am sure you have been under fire and having a shit time. I have nothing against the foot soldiers, they have just been sent there to do a job of work, and by definition a solider follows orders, you are not trained to question what you are told to do by your superiors.

I am sure it's hard for you to be sympathetic when you are being shot at, bombed and generally fearing for you life. Remember though, nobody asked the British Army into Afghanistan or Iraq, our governments

I agree we should leave these places, but we cannot just abandon the guiltless civilians who will be at the mercy of the warlords and tribal armies who are now waiting for the western armies to leave to carve those countries up.

The Taliban only came to power in Afghanistan because they were funded and armed by the CIA, and armed by the US and Britain to fight the Russians.

Governments are in the business of power broking, and people like yourself are merely expendable pawns sent to do their dirty work. I can understand your feelings, but your anger should be directed at the people who sent you there, not the people you have been sent to engage who never asked for a war.

ok so you are now saying - we CAN'T get out of Iraq...... so you attack us or going into Iraq but now say we should'nt leave...... I mean can't you see the contradiction of this position?

There's no contradiction. If you choose to go in, bomb the fornicate out of a country that never asked you to come in order to 'liberate' them, then you have a responsibility to leave the place in a fit state for people to live there.

If they were to just pull out tommorow, Iraq would be in a state of civil war for the next 10 years, and return to a dictatorship for certain. Perhaps that is what they want, then they can find a new leader to deal arms to.

[pundit]

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

[liamlion]

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

The concept of "legal" doesnt necessarily mean that something is right or morally acceptable. "Legal" as a stripped-down concept, means simply that the most forceful and strongest side imposes its beliefs as being "right".

America are the greatest proponents of this concept. Most of the things they do are acts of terror. Yet because they have the greatest arsenal and the biggest force - they often defeat their enemy and so can thus label their actions "legal" and justified.

Please dont start using the UN of the 1940s, as a means to legitimatise the state of Israel, for who were the only real two powers sitting at the UN's table in 1947?

Ive watched fox news over the last 6 months and really, that channel's view on world affairs is nothing short of perverted and selective - and is reflective of the current administration's attitude.

Here is an example. If Hitler had invaded America in the 1940s, I am sure young American lads would have fought back and took out Nazis soldiers with bombs and pot-shots where they could. An element of American people would have resisted against their foreign invaders.

This is exactly what is happening in Iraq. Yet when you watch any American or British news cast, these nationalists, who are fighting their foreign invaders are termed ‘terrorists’. These people are considered terrorists by America, because they oppose the invasion of their country by a foreign force. They are labelled 'terrorists' and 'insurgents' by America because they are opposed to America taking over their country.

One man’s terrorist, is another man’s freedom fighter. America has killed over 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq. That is over 10 times the amount who were killed on 9/11. Do you honestly think that an Iraqi lad sitting in Bagdad owes a debt of gratitude to America, for turning his country into a war-torn hell-hole.

[pundit]

The concept of "legal" doesnt necessarily mean that something is right or morally acceptable.

Noone said this
(although I would insist that the EXISTENCE (not necessarily the conduct in every situation) of Israel IS morally acceptable)

America are the greatest proponents of this concept. Most of the things they do are acts of terror. Yet because they have the greatest arsenal and the biggest force - they often defeat their enemy and so can thus label their actions "legal" and justified.

Please dont start using the UN of the 1940s, as a means to legitimatise the state of Israel, for who were the only real two powers sitting at the UN's table in 1947?

Ive watched fox news over the last 6 months and really, that channel's view on world affairs is nothing short of perverted and selective - and is reflective of the current administration's attitude.

It would be nice if you could establish a connection of all this to the prevoius debate. So far I've read nothing but a collection of largely unconnected general phrases, some of them rather damp ("most of the things Americans do are terror")

Btw, I don't watch Fox news.

This is exactly what is happening in Iraq. Yet when you watch any American or British news cast, these nationalists, who are fighting their foreign invaders are termed ‘terrorists’. These people are considered terrorists by America, because they oppose the invasion of their country by a foreign force. They are labelled 'terrorists' and 'insurgents' by America because they are opposed to America taking over their country.

One man’s terrorist, is another man’s freedom fighter. America has killed over 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq. That is over 10 times the amount who were killed on 9/11. Do you honestly think that an Iraqi lad sitting in Bagdad owes a debt of gratitude to America, for turning his country into a war-torn hell-hole.

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.

SECOND, as I've written earlier I'm no proponent of this misguided and hopelessly incompetent US administration. If you want to argue with such a proponent you must look elsewhere. I'm not prepared to get littered with your accumulated prejudices because it says "Washington DC" next to "location" in my entry.

Nonetheless, your idea of a "freedom fighter" look rather wacko to me. It seems perfectly consistent with bombing away an incipient democracy and commiting acts of ethnic-religious cleansing. It's largely Iraqis that are killing Iraqis at this juncture, if you haven't noticed. I can follow you in that these folks are fighting for their vision of a religious-totalitarian state in whose moral or whatever superiority they fiercely believe, but this has nothing to do with "freedom" in my understanding.

Cheers, P