Off-Topic: Israel-Lebanon & Terrorism in general

[yiddo14]

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.

Firstly I think it's alarming that you beleive Israel deserves to be wiped off the map!!
More to the point,do you honestly beleive that Israel(nuclear capability,very intolerant)would be destroyed if left to fight for themselves?(so to speak)
If the West were to let the middle east try and resolve there current problems alone(I will agree that the west are to blame for PART of the current problems)then what would happen is complete catastrophe.
Eventually you could be faced with full scale war in the region,and Israel resorting to using nuclear bombs.(bye bye Iran)

[jamesmcdonnell]

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.

That doesn't make them MY enemy, because SOME of them are terrorists.


So Saddam wasn't a despot? So why was he described as such by Britain and America?

Which Millions of people? that hasn't happened since the time of Stalin in Russia. Russia was a totalitarian state until the days of Gorbachev, and there weren't 'millions of people' dying. Stalin was a complete madman, he killed his own brother and all of his own political allies through paranoia. Saddam was nowhere near Stalin's scale in terms of the death toll he caused. I'm not saying that Saddam should have been left to do as he wished, however, we should remember how he got there in the first place (US, French and UK backing) and the fact that there were various opposition groups in Iraq who had been begging the west to help them overthrow Saddam from the inside for ages. Invasion and wholescale destruction of Iraqi infrastructure and society was hardly the best way to go about it, but perhaps for the US it is, because they can keep their hand in the country for the next 20 years as they help with their 'rebuilding' with lucrative contracts for US companies, diplomatic links with their political allies in the country, and first dibs on all that lovely oil.

It's not about a choice between your family or theirs you , it's about how we conduct foriegn policy in the west. We have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and killed probably in the region of 120,000 civilians, how many people died in the totally unrelated 9/11 3500? How do we jusfity our actions, on what basis? What are the actualy chances of anyone in any of our familes being killed? Compared to the average Iraqi's chances of meeting a violent death either at the hands of the US or UK Army or fanctions within Iraq, pretty bloody tiny.

It's you who don't know what you're talking about, because you are too bloody narrow minded to see beyond the propoganda and outright lies you are spoon fed.

[d1mak]

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

Don't really need to answer anything so ignorant.

Please, don't twist my words. I said that MOST of them , not SOME, support terrorism, I didn't say that all of them are terrorists, though...

[jamesmcdonnell]

Some American's are fuckwits, some Nigerians are corrupt, some Football fans are hooligans, so what?

Your statement clearly implies that because 'some of them are terrorists' this makes those from Arab nations 'our' enemies.

Speak for yourself mate, I'm not making enemies with entire nations based on the actions of fringe lunatics.

Those I know who travelled to Iran and Iraq during peace time said that they were shown remarkable hospitality. Even now Iran is supposed to be a wonderful place to visit, Tehran a bit boring, but not dangerous to westerners.

[d1mak]

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.

That doesn't make them MY enemy, because SOME of them are terrorists.


So Saddam wasn't a despot? So why was he described as such by Britain and America?

Which Millions of people? that hasn't happened since the time of Stalin in Russia. Russia was a totalitarian state until the days of Gorbachev, and there weren't 'millions of people' dying. Stalin was a complete madman, he killed his own brother and all of his own political allies through paranoia. Saddam was nowhere near Stalin's scale in terms of the death toll he caused. I'm not saying that Saddam should have been left to do as he wished, however, we should remember how he got there in the first place (US, French and UK backing) and the fact that there were various opposition groups in Iraq who had been begging the west to help them overthrow Saddam from the inside for ages. Invasion and wholescale destruction of Iraqi infrastructure and society was hardly the best way to go about it, but perhaps for the US it is, because they can keep their hand in the country for the next 20 years as they help with their 'rebuilding' with lucrative contracts for US companies, diplomatic links with their political allies in the country, and first dibs on all that lovely oil.

It's not about a choice between your family or theirs you , it's about how we conduct foriegn policy in the west. We have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and killed probably in the region of 120,000 civilians, how many people died in the totally unrelated 9/11 3500? How do we jusfity our actions, on what basis? What are the actualy chances of anyone in any of our familes being killed? Compared to the average Iraqi's chances of meeting a violent death either at the hands of the US or UK Army or fanctions within Iraq, pretty bloody tiny.

It's you who don't know what you're talking about, because you are too bloody narrow minded to see beyond the propoganda and outright lies you are spoon fed.

Saddam was a despot and deserve whatever he got. And although he was not the same caliber as Stalin, it doesn't mean that world should have just watch. Nobody else just doesn't give a shit, and you should be proud that you live in UK, the one of few countries that do have balls to step up.
And capturing Saddam and leaving country without government, while leaving BAAS at power would be pretty stupid idea.
And in Iraq, the average Iraqi's chances of meeting a violent death are way greater to die from the bombs of religious fanatics than at the hands of the US or UK Army.
And you can call me whatever you want, but it makes you pretty stupid not to understand that even if you don't consider them as your enemy, they consider you as their enemy, regardless of your peaceful love to everybody. You just don't understand that WWIII already began and unfortunately, with your country on the front line.

[Taki...]

Saddam was a despot and deserve whatever he got. And although he was not the same caliber as Stalin, it doesn't mean that world should have just watch. Nobody else just doesn't give a shit, and you should be proud that you live in UK, the one of few countries that do have balls to step up.
And capturing Saddam and leaving country without government, while leaving BAAS at power would be pretty stupid idea.
And in Iraq, the average Iraqi's chances of meeting a violent death are way greater to die from the bombs of religious fanatics than at the hands of the US or UK Army.
And you can call me whatever you want, but it makes you pretty stupid not to understand that even if you don't consider them as your enemy, they consider you as their enemy, regardless of your peaceful love to everybody. You just don't understand that WWIII already began and unfortunately, with your country on the front line.

You really do seem to be missing the point. Saddam was not (that's NOT) removed because of his mass-murdering despotic behaviour. He was removed for having WMD's (try not to lose sight of this), sheltering terrorists (very few terrorists in Iraq... until after the war) and, apparently, Saddam was ready to arm these non-existent terrorists with his non-existent WMD's.
Don't get drawn into the fantasy that Iraq was invaded to save the populace from a despot, because it wasn't.
If you want an example of how the west usually deals with despots look at what happened in the first Gulf war: Bush called on the Iraqi people to rise up and fight Saddam and promised help... they rose up... no help came... and Saddam wiped them out.

The great mass of people in this world (from Arabs to Jews) just want to get on with their life. The misguided idea that most/all arabs/Muslims 'consider us their enemy' is exactly what extremists want.

[Loynesy]

I lived in the middle east for a year about a decade ago (in the UAE.)

Lovely, charming hospitable people. In my professional career I have been to at least a dozen Muslim states, met mainly fantastic people. Common thread: Money. The ones I have met are wealthy and therefore not insecure. Fanaticism, from all religious spectra comes from ignorance, usually spawned by poverty.

The Jews and Arabs get on perfectly well in St Johns Wood....

[mickeybeard]

Mickey, I might try that book, cheers. My take on Hiroshima was always that is was a utilitarian decison and justified on the numbers a ground war would cost in US and Japanese lives. On that grounds it is justified as for the greater good. I'm ready to open my mind though.

On the other hand soldiers are paid to soldier and risk their lives. Dropping a bomb like that means you will kill plenty of civilians and on this basis it cannot be justified on utilitarian grounds (and the US operates under this moral guideline by and large as its modern forefathers stemmed from this tradition). They should have allowed the soldiers to settle the issue, it would have been bloody but war often is, this way it would have been just.

Fair enough. That it was a (bloody difficult) decision taken to minimise loos of life - largely US lives, to be fair, but I have difficulty condeming people for looking after their own first - is pretty much my take after reading around the subject a bit. I used to think, as James said, that it was just the septics playing with a new toy. While there was obviously some of that involved (you just know the Hawks in the Pentagon would've been in the president's ear, and Hiroshima, while a viable military target, was largely chosen because it was relatively unscathed and they could get a good idea of how loopy their new bomb was) I don't think it's the whole story. One thing that struck me after reading that book: I wonder how Harry Truman felt when he saw the devestation he'd unleashed. We (well, I) tend to think of most US presidents as unpleasant shitebags, but making a decision like that has got to affect a man, surely?

But - Aaargh! I didn't mean to off-topic the off-topic again!

Anyway - Israelis & Arabs, eh? Can they not just sit down with a pot of tea and thrash this out like gentlemen? Tsk, these foreign types...

[E]

Who would win if Arab boxers boxed Israeli boxers?

[coneye]

I maybee ignorant but I am a realist, in your safe little world James every thing is cool but in the real world there's good guys and bad guys all a matter of different levels, and the muslims are bad guys simple.

iT DON'T MATTER A FAK TO ME COS I'LL BE DEAD but your granchildren or great grandchildren can always say , I'm a good guy cos my grandad was'nt ignorant, i'm sure that will go a long way.

In Sydney Australia don't know if your aware about the recent jailing of young muslim lads roaming the streets picking up girls and gang raping them but iit was'nt really rape and according to there parents and the Muslim CHURCH LEADERS, it was brought on by the girls because they are westeners and wear there skirts too low, so all good little muslim rapists should be forgiven..

Maybee it should all be sorted out in the ring, at least there people have respect

[jamesmcdonnell]

You're not a realist, you are a retard.

[JC]

Jeez what a dumbass

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Who would win if Arab boxers boxed Israeli boxers?

Prince Naseem KOs Greenberg in 2

[E]

Who would win if Arab boxers boxed Israeli boxers?

Prince Naseem KOs Greenberg in 2

A peak prince Naseem or now?

[coneye]

You're not a realist, you are a retard.

Does that mean you don't agree with me.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Well I'll give you this much, you were smart enough to figure that one out.

Seriously though mate, do you really believe that Islam and everyone who follows it are 'bad people' who are hell bent on killing every non muslim? It's just not true at all. Whilst there are some who say they support terrorism, that is an oversimplification.

During the conflict in Northern Ireland, when Catholics were facing terrible oppression, many people supported the IRA indirectly, but only a few ever actually joined the struggle. Most people wanted to get on with their daily lives as best they could, which is the same the world over, whatever your religious or political affiliations.

If and when the Palestinian situation is ever sorted out, things in the middle east will begin to improve, so long as the Arab nations see that Israel is allowed to continue to ignore UN directives and pursue it's own agenda to grab territory and to strangle the palestinians economically, then this situation we have now will continue. The palestinians themselves are unable to fight back with any force as they don't have a standing army, if they did, Israel would not be able to do as they are doing now.

I am not saying that Religious fundamentalism will cease, or even decrease overnight, I am saying that in order to improve the situation the injustices which have caused the animosity towards the west have to be righted.

[Taki...]

the muslims are bad guys simple.

Have you ever looked up the word 'Stereotype', mate? It's people with your kind of 'tar them all' attitude that cause these conflicts.

[JC]

I agree, you can't use the acts of individuals or groups from a particular faith to catagorize the everyone of said faith as "bad guys."

The majority of the Klu Klux Klan would have strongly identified themselves with the Protestant faith and some "church leaders" probably condoned what they did. Does that mean all Baptists and Methodist went around lynching black people...of course not. But that would be the conculsion you would come to if you followed Coneye's logic on the case from Sidney.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Yeah, but he's Australian, so his contact with people from other ethnic and cultural backgrounds is probably limited to urinating on homeless aboriginies on his way home from King's Cross.

Oh hang on, that's just a sterotype isn't it?

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

In Sydney Australia don't know if your aware about the recent jailing of young muslim lads roaming the streets picking up girls and gang raping them but iit was'nt really rape and according to there parents and the Muslim CHURCH LEADERS, it was brought on by the girls because they are westeners and wear there skirts too low, so all good little muslim rapists should be forgiven..

Rape is 1 of the biggest sins in Islam and if they were commited of rape in an Islamic state they'd get a pretty painful punishment in being stonned to death.

And they have Muslim Church leaders? No wonder they're messed being muslim and leading a christian church

[pundit]

You really do seem to be missing the point. Saddam was not (that's NOT) removed because of his mass-murdering despotic behaviour. He was removed for having WMD's (try not to lose sight of this), sheltering terrorists (very few terrorists in Iraq... until after the war) and, apparently, Saddam was ready to arm these non-existent terrorists with his non-existent WMD's.

This is over-simplofying. What motivation there was for the Iraq-war depends who you ask. The Neo-Cons around Wolfowitz wanted to remove Saddam because he was a mass-murdering despot. The Macchiavellians around Cheney wanted to remove Saddam because of the other alledged reasons (WMD etc.). Bush seems to have believed various reasons at different times.

The Neocons were in principle right, Cheney was very wrong; but whatever motivation, Rumsfeld & co. handled the Iraq affair so incompetently that they should never have started this.

If you want an example of how the west usually deals with despots look at what happened in the first Gulf war: Bush called on the Iraqi people to rise up and fight Saddam and promised help... they rose up... no help came... and Saddam wiped them out.

This is presenting thins a bit too simplisitc as well. Bush father was a different figure from Bush son. Bush father didn't help the Shia uprising because he had no mandate for it - neither from the UN nor from the US congress. Bush son would not have been beholden to such scruples.

[pundit]

No indignation Pundit merely insolence, just the fact that your arguments have gotten shorter as your ignorance has been systematically exposed. Knowledge is not a cheap trick

Your cheap trick has nothing to do with "knowledge", but with the fact that you call Israel an "illegal state" but then refuse to measure this claim against any commonly recognized standard of legality - such as recognition by the United Nations.

Instead you offer the views of some fundamentalist ultra-orthodox Jews on the topic, derived from a particular and highly contentious reading of their holy scriptures. But for all non-orthodox Jews this is as irrelevant for the assessment of the "legality" of Israel as is Hezbullah's view for all non-fundamentalist Shias. Which is: any non-Muslim state on "Muslim soil" is illegal full stop; be it in Palestine or in Al-Andalus (Spain).

Hence, my responses have become shorter because there is no point in debating fundamentalist views.

Besides, you misrepresent of course bucketloads of facts. For example, in 1947 roughly 65 percent of the population in Palestine was Arab (45 percent Muslim, 15 percent Christian, 5 percent Druze) , not 95 percent (source:UNOSCOP). The UN partition plan foresaw to split the fertile lands in comparable proportions to population shares.

A 95 percent Arab population share has never been true in the 20th century, and 90 percent was at best true in the late 1910s/early 1920s, a full generation before the end of the British mandate.

As for "forced migration", you mean presumably the results of the 1948 war, which came about because the Arabs didn't accept the UN partition plan. I had long responded to that - some migration was forced, but the largest part occurred becasue the Palestinian Arabs believed the promises of the neighboring Arab states that these would secure their return (instead, the same states let the Palestinian refugees rot in refugees to this day). But these facts don't seem to bother you.

Besides, the 90:10 population split in the early 20th century was of course also largely the result of "forced migration" - if you go back only far enough in history.

[Slapsie Maxie]

Those who doubt the culpability of the west in the events of The Middle East would do well to read this article about Seymour Hersh, the great investagative reporter of our generation ( the man who exposed the Mai Lai massacre )

The US' cognisance of the plans of the Israeli's and their tacit support ( explicit support if you count the arms shipped via our own Prestwick aiprort ) is very much part of their own plans for Iran and Syria

As ever, Blair goes along thinking this will secure him a legacy and a place in history. It certainly will, one of infamy

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/conten ... 714570.htm

Slapsie

[coneye]

Actually reading my own posts i've got to say they can come across has fairly idiotic and generalizing , But then again there no worse than the idiots who runs around shooting guns in the air and bombing buildings in the name of Allah/

My one sided way of thinking I don't like them who don't like me . Well it may be stupid and idiotic, but then no more stupid than the anti Israel crap that people on here are sprouting , people here are saying its the Israel's fault because its not there country bla bla bla ,but tell me where are millions of Israel's going to go . What if i say kick the pakis out of Bradford, thats not allowed becauase there paki's and there born there so i suppose that gives them every right to be there . before the state of Israel was made where did they live china. Now you don't have too be thick to get my point . All you guys condemming Israel are just has bigoted has I am ,just we express ourslves differently .

NOW you can call me what you want but but this retard is a englishman who lives in Australia , I'm also a ex pug ameteur and pro and i'm a millionare not bragging just stating facts. I call it has i see it not paticular in the brightest way, but do it just the same.

Has a matter on record I have only ever met ONE iSRAEL and i did'nt like him . Ive only ever met a handful of Jews and did'nt like any of them , on the other hand I have met a good few Lebanese and not met ONE that I did'nt like.

But that don't change the way i think, and its simple Hazobah are a terrorist organization and under the comfort of the Lebanese govt ,,kidnapped Israel soilders and sent missiles into Israel , thus declaring war , don't cry when they send missles back . I f the Lebanese govt don't like it move in and arrest ,not support terrrist.

And for all the bleeding hearts who say there not terrorist I say argue with the victims famillys of the London bombings and sept 11, on who are terrorist and who are not . we have govt agancies who keep watch and they know who's who, and if you don't believe them well simple take your fundamentalist , islamic ideas and fack off to Iraq, Lebanon or any of these other places, and then see how you go

Maybee I go over the top in my way of thinking but I see the middle east has the greatest threat to mankind EVER, and going by the atrosotiecs they commit on each other god help us if they are ever in a position to get the better of us.. there u are simple and in plain english if you don't like it get facked

[jamesmcdonnell]

I don't anyone here likes the idea of being blown up by terrorists any more than you do. Do you think I WANT to get my legs blown off in a tube train? Of course not.

My point is, that history shows that you do not eradicate terrorism by bombing the shit out of somewhere, or by trying to eradicate the terrorists. Look at the IRA, despite their best efforts, the British government couldn't eradicate them over a period of what, 80 years? Same with Hamas (now a political entitity), Hezbolla, Al Quaida etc. You kill one guy, he becomes a martyr, and his death becomes a call to arms, attracting more young men willing to die.


Only by converting terrorists into politicians can you succeed in bringing about a lasting peace.

As for the middle east (big area, which bit, who are you singling out or not?) being the biggest threat in the history of mankind, well, I don't know, Hitler and Napoleon would be my pick, they were both completely loonie and terrifying.