PDA

View Full Version : World War 3?


Pages : 1 [2] 3

Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Neil Mick
08-08-2006, 05:42 PM
Might have been CNN or Euronews. Some of those chicks were hot.

Sorry :)

Ooh, you irreverent BEAST, you!

If you're dissin' the sista's, you ain't fightin' the power!! (a fave grafitti quote)

Not that I EVER admire the hot chicks marching on parade...no!! I avert my eyes, at the very thought! :blush: Ahem (*looking upward and whistling, embarassed*).

Mashu
08-08-2006, 06:14 PM
Say Neil, did you see these photos from Beirut yet?

http://www.downtownbeirut.com/Genocide/childAbuseAndHate.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjnvSQuv-H4)

Neil Mick
08-08-2006, 06:18 PM
Say Neil, did you see these photos from Beirut yet?

http://www.downtownbeirut.com/Genocide/childAbuseAndHate.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjnvSQuv-H4)

OK, that's really sick! You should be ashamed, posting video's like that! Tsk!

(after all...I had ALMOST got that song out of my head...) evileyes

DanielR
08-08-2006, 09:30 PM
Last Saturday, a rally of 5000 Israeli's met in Tel Aviv to protest the invasion of LebanonRead about this in Haaretz.
Easy: return the prisonersThat easy, eh? In a world without public opinion and elections, this might work. In reality, this is going to look like giving in to a blatant act of terror, and I'm afraid any Israeli politician following your advice will be out of office before you can say "why can't we all just get along".
Yossi Beilin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosi_Beilin), in the name of the Israeli left, writes in his Haaretz piece "The test of the Zionist left" (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/747477.html) today: The military response in Gaza is justified in our eyes, and the response in Lebanon is no less justified - but that is not reason enough to support all aspects of the war. Brief military activity, followed by an ultimatum for the release of our abducted soldiers, would have been far more proper in our eyes. In any case, it was not right to get drawn into the trap set by Hezbollah - into an extended war of attrition, continued exposure of the Israeli home front to rocket fire and a ground operation involving tens of thousands of soldiers, at a very heavy financial cost. Notice that even Beilin calls a military response to the two kidnappings "justified". He also conveniently sidesteps the natural question to his "followed by an ultimatum" - what happens after the ultimatum remains unheeded (and it would)?
He also claims that if it was up to the Israeli left, none of this mess would've happened, as there would've been peace agreements with the Palestinians and with Syria. A bold statement, I need to look up what was his proposed solution to the really sticky questions like the right of return and the status of Jerusalem. Anyway, it hasn't been up to them for a good while now. Not enough takers for the idea. It's going to be interesting to see how the picture changes on the next elections, which might be not too far away, seeing as this government doesn't exactly excel in handling this war. On one hand, the Israeli left might gain some points, since the Israelis generally do not support reoccupation and the one-sided pullout hasn't exactly produced good results either, so what's left? On the other hand, Iran is on the rise, and as long as Hezbollah is not disarmed, it's going to be seen as an extention of the Iranian threat, so under this very serious threat the more hawkish parties might get a boost. Consequently, it's unlikely that Mr. Beilin is going to get another chance to prove his (and thus, at least partially, yours, Neil) theories are practical in this day and age.

Guilty Spark
08-08-2006, 09:53 PM
http://www.break.com/index/what_really_happens_pallywood.html

Interesting video about guys in palastine (as the auther describes) faking war footage and the media eating it up. From 2000 I believe.

Nice ambush Matthew!

Neil Mick
08-08-2006, 10:43 PM
That easy, eh? In a world without public opinion and elections, this might work. In reality, this is going to look like giving in to a blatant act of terror, and I'm afraid any Israeli politician following your advice will be out of office before you can say "why can't we all just get along".

You know, Daniel? We played this game once before. You like to play these "gotcha" games, as if you get one over on the ole' naive Lefty (not that I haven't played the very same game with you, as well).

But here's something you can put in your pipe and smoke... :p

A hypothetical is simply that...a model. And, a model airplane cannot fly; a model car cannot drive. If you look really closely, you can see the cracks and imperfections. Yeah, by your own admission, the idea is naive. Whoohoo! You sure got me!

When I said "easy:" I meant "easy answer:" NOT "easy to implement." Sure, in the RW it would be difficult to implement.

But I see now why no one comes up with positive answers in these fora, much: they get attacked and criticized, the moment someone suggests a positive alternative.

If you knew anything about brainstorming: you'd know that it is counterproductive to introduce negative elements into the creative matrix. Rather than several of you telling me why they won't work: how about adding to the idea, huh? Just a thought.

http://www.break.com/index/what_really_happens_pallywood.html

Interesting video about guys in palastine (as the auther describes) faking war footage and the media eating it up. From 2000 I believe.

Nice ambush Matthew!

Please...would you like an annotated list of IDF lies circulated as truth, and accepted as much by the mass media? Should we start with the 7 children bombed on the beach by the Israeli navy several months ago, and work backwards?

In truth, I'm a little surprised that many Aikidoists posting here have fallen into the same media-fed ploy as the majority of American's...but I suppose I shouldn't be. Many fell for the lies in 2003: and I'm sure that they'll fall for it in 2007, when Bush decides to attack Iran...all the while mumbling such nonsense as

"attacking and invading another country = self-defence"

I just wonder how many here will fall for that one, too.

I think I'm done here...the argument is simply making me more depressed, and the tone of this thread is taking a downward spiral, not unlike that of a witch-hunt.

I take comfort in knowing that there are many more people in the world (maybe even some reading this post) who are waking up to the fact that Israel's gross violations are outrageous, and I, for one, will do my best (FWIW) to stand up to them.

A warrior should do no less, than stand up for her/his beliefs.

Lucky for me, I guess: that the several direct and implied castigations of my martial abilites and teaching skills stated here are about as meaningful and relevant, as the hot air that accompanies them.

Goodnight.

Mark Freeman
08-09-2006, 04:32 AM
Guess I'm not alone, in my "alternate reality," after all. ;)

When there are enough of us in the alternate reality, it will no longer be alternate.

I can't believe that there are not an ever growing number of people around the globe that are waking up to the futility of the current way of dealing with things. - "If you have a problem with something kill it"
It is sooo last century.

The sooner the US sits down with Iran and starts talking beyond the past and how to build a productive future together, the sooner stability will creep into the region. They are both conservative regimes, so it shouldn't be too hard to focus on the comonalities they share.

For each side to continually present the other as the bogey man, is both ridiculous and insulting to the intelligence of their own people. And as both populations are full of well educated people, there should be support for a search for agreement, rather than the tired old rant, that "we will save you from these evil people"

The IRA's bombing of innocent people on the UK mainland did not prompt the UK government to order the RAF to flatten Dublin, and every small border farmhouse that they 'may' be hiding in. Sometimes you have to deal with the people you despise the most, if you want to create a more peaceful world for your children to grow up in.

Alternatively we can just keep it as business a usual, profiting from lucrative arms sales to unstable countries, spending the lovely cash on developing even more efficient and accurate ways of killing more innocent people.

I'm happy to be with Neil in his reality, it's an easy step for me to make. I do realise for some that it is a step too far ;) (yet?)

regards,

Mark

Amir Krause
08-09-2006, 04:48 AM
Amir,

I don't see the need to respond to your (selective) historic points, as you've already expressed the futility in attempting to see my view. So, rather than argue a one-sided historical debate: I'm going to limit my response.

I'm sure you have a (to you) good apology for every single one of Israel's actions since their inception. Needless to say, we can agree to disagree.

If you choose to ignore the fallacy of slippery-slope arguments: it's not my job to show you the light.


I will continue to see this as a biased view of reality. You'll have to agree to disagree.

I have never claimed all the Israeli actions are flawless. On the contrary. I have a lot of criticism for my Govt. actions, in Lebanon as well as on the Israeli side of the border. Very often the Israeli Govt. has been proven to short sighted at best, or just plain simple idiotic.

You view all wars as a criminal act. I can only agree all wars are horrible and should be avoided if possible. At a present situation, sometimes you have no option but to act. In personal S.D. situations: somebody is trying to rape your daughter or murder you, now! you should defend her, and care for the sociological and medical reasons for his actions later on. History has seen more then a single case of nations being attacked and having to defend themselves or be annihilated, Israel has actually had 3 such wars in the previous century, in one of those, Israel used a preemptive strike (I guess "your information" will indicate otherwise, leave it and agree to disagree). I agree this war is not as extreme as any of the above cases, as I previously wrote Israel had significant historical reasons to respond to a trigger it could have avoided.

I still believe to related to other wars, world wide. The Israeli army is the one of the most moral armies and maintains this consistently. This does not mean it is always right, never does a mistake and does not have sickos in the service, but that as a policy it does consider civilian casualties of the other side as negative, and attributes significant importance to this point. That crimes against “enemy” civilians are investigated and people are sent to jail for them. As I wrote, it does not come instead of - "our lives come first" (a policy all armies adhere to), but it is adjacent to it and military achievements have been compromised for this principle.


Amir

doronin
08-09-2006, 04:48 AM
I wanna see you, guys, discussing with Iranians their major requirement - elimination of Israel, with straight face.

Amir Krause
08-09-2006, 04:56 AM
Sorry, but that's YOUR spin, on it. Personally, I think that the article wasn't taking a moral stand, one way or the other.

But, Refuseniks are seen by Leftists here (self, included) as highly moral. If anything, the villians in the article are the leaders who choose to bomb civilian targets based upon poor intel


AS I previously wrote - perspectives.
Cant you even agree to disagree? :rolleyes:


Amir

Amir Krause
08-09-2006, 05:14 AM
Yes, timers...that HAS to be it. The IDF doesn't shoot at civilians, NO!! They're just shooting at HA positions using timers!


The usage of timers for bombs and rockets is nothing new. If we can not agree on such simple neutral facts - technologies being used, its capabilities and faults. how could we ever agree on a solution?

Amir

Amir Krause
08-09-2006, 07:29 AM
Back to the hypothetical:
Meta

Yes. We might slightly disagree on terms, but I think we generally agree on the principle of winning hearts and minds. :cool:


I am sure this should be done, unfortunately I am not sure it can be done. I am sure doing it the way you propose would never work – I will not call it alternative reality, but I promise to point to some important factors you are missing. As I hinted before, to implement such an act of persuasion, one needs both a large dangling carrot and a very big stick (I promise again to explain why the stick is of necessity).

BTW, Amir: I have to say that you're going a long, long way to attempt to stretch this hypothetical to show that it wouldn't work.

My reasons for writing of all the impediments, is to see how are you proposing to solve them – so far, the only solution you proposed was to wait and endure, and I have yet to read of convincing the reluctant other Govt. to cooperate. Witing and enduring may work, but only in the hypothetical, where you are the larger country and can allow yourself to wait a couple of centuries.


And I do not think I am going the long way:

Somehow, I'm guessing that the full tale hasn't been told...even in your hypothetical. The "US," to this point, hasn't been playing a fair game of peaceful measures
I am trying to simplify the model and make your life easier, instead of placing more impediments , I am giving you free reign over “your nation actions” without the reprimands from your public opinion, the need to pass resolutions in a democracy, your own extremists, your internal Hate-Groups who claim to respond. The mistakes some of your own law enforcement agencies do. The reluctance of some of your commanders and clerks to perform your instructions … ( I am cutting the list short)

This is a model, I am giving you the benefit of being full powers on your country, and being “clean-white”. Reality is much more complex – but if you can not solve the simple problems I present. This type of solution is assured of not working as you present it. Therefore, I am waiting for you to start by solving one side, before we add the other layer of complexity.



Story:


No, but I think SOME land concessions are possible. I WAS going to suggest returning Hawaii (stolen, OUTRIGHT...true story...from the Hawaiian kingdom. The Hawaiian descendents are still peeved about it, understandably) to the Hawaiian's.


Not so easy, They (Mexicans) insist on getting all of Texas and California. They say Hawaii never belonged to them, and your idea of making them imperialistic is disgusting. Further, the Mexican Govt. says without such actions on your part, it will be seen as treacherous and would not have a chance to survive in the local public opinion. It refuses to cooperate otherwise.

Ho, Now that you mention Hawaii, they remind you that for a full warm peace you should renounce all your evil acts: return Hawaii to the Hawaiian's, return Alaska to the Russia (they claim your buying it was a stinking fraud). They insist you must solve all, now and simultaneously regardless of the objective difficulties you have in such an implementation.
They say they would be willing to have some sort of peace with you until then, but cooperation would have to be severely limited. They refuse to deal with any extremists for those causes, until you solve them. If you will concede enough to them (aside from Texas and California which belong to them, there are also some deeper border disputes…), they promise to try and [B]convince those organizations to only support internal terror actions against you and not actually generate attacks from across the border.


return the prisoners that the US has illegally detained (illegal border-crosser's, in this hypothetical, I suppose).

the prisoners they demand are not illegal border-crosser's (how can you detain them illigaly? Last I heard the US arrested someone this way for around 4yrs and your courts claimed it was a lawful act).
We are talking of prisoners arrested inside your country and tried in a lawful manner, the least of them after being spying for the extremist terrorists, and others after murdering some of your innocent civilians and children, just like: Samir Kuntar, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...7&notFound=true
In fact, some of those prisoners have been re-caught by your police, on your land, after you have released them in your previous attempt of reconciliation. They Vow to return until all you “white infidels” leave the continent (they belong to a most extreme group, not even accepted by most of the “Mexicans”, though non there is willing to act against it except with half-measured statements in public media. Even in those statements, some understanding is given to them in order of “remaining balanced”).


And, what was this "intelligence source" doing, spying in a sovereign country, hmm? Pretty suspicious, if you asked me.



Not to mention, the large influx of war-torn refugee's, without a home or hope...perfect candidates for membership in extremist groups.

As I said, I am keeping this simple. All your people obey your wishes.







After a lot of international pressure, and acknowledging your superior military might. The "Mexican" Govt. actually announces it will cooperate with you. It demands you will respect its sovereignty though. Hence, the "Mexicans" Govt. demands it will manage all the reconciliation efforts on its side of the border.

Your intelligence and the media show the financing you have arranged with the assistance of multiple international bodies is going to building educational institutions, but the curriculum is not conciliatory in nature, but instead, it is 100% anti-American, racist (the white man is responsible for all the problems in the world …) and national. When you try to protest, the "Mexican" Govt. answer they can not interfere due to democratic freedom of speech reasons.

No, that is not the nature of fund-granting organizations (something I know a little about). This wouldn't fly.

“You imperialist beast – how dare you interfere with our traditions? If you disagree – we prefer not to accept your filthy foreign capitalist funds” …
Venezuela is happy to fund their educational institutions with the ideology they are currently teaching. The population and local media support the “Mexican” Govt. position and congratulate it on showing patriotism.


Reparations

Your country has recently cut off the help to its own poor. The actual military threat of the surrounding countries has not been lessened (yet). Where do you bring the money from?




remember, the US gov't started a lot of its own problems, in the hypothetical. They helped start the Mexican rebel movement.

For all I care, we could even agree the US is responsible for it by existing. It has occupied Texas and California from Mexico. So long is we agree disbanding the US is not an option and it seems you even stated it should not return those pieces of land (May I ask – why? And how come ?).


You will always have people who are dead set against peace.

The problem is in numbers and the support they get from the population who believes in its righteousness. Because of this belief, the locals object to all your moves. So far, you have been unsuccessful in establishing the first foot in.


Well, yeah: the hypothetical breaks down when you consider size and population.

You have yet to solve the hypothetical.


Talking the talk is one thing: but ppl will start to believe, when the "US" walks the walk.

For people to believe, they need two things: Being sure the US is there to stay, and seeing this policy remains for long years. So far, these people still believe they can take over the US and force it away, and your policy has not been able to work since they hinder you at every step.



My way would disempower the extremists, at their power-base...force them to wage their own hearts and minds campaign.

Yes, on the very long run (needs a few generation – about a century or so), if you succeed to start it, which in our model, you are failing so far.


History

Revolution (the nonviolent kind) is sudden, and swift. I can cite several examples: end of the English occupation of India; S Africa and apartheid, etc.

Change can occur very rapidly.

Change can occur very rapidly , only when the change is innovated from within and not forced from the outside. You write about Iraq, yet you still think you can force other people to do your own beading, not using guns but using money instead. People are master then that.
To make a change you need a strong internal moderate basis. That basis must be willing to great compromises to get peace. For a conflict like the ME to be resolved, you need such a basis to be the majority in all relevant sides. This has not happened here on either side. (More Israelis were persuaded, but many changed their minds after they felt the other side was not as willing).


Game theory
Have to be brief – do not have much time.
Persuasion only works when you have a big stick. The stick is much more useful if it is seen rather then used. This has been proven time and again, in multiple places. The most scientific proofs are in game theory, look for “the prisoner dilemma” (no more links – no time).
In mathematical terms, what we are now seeing is the cost of the loss of Israeli deterrence towards HA. The deterrence is the effective persuasive force that would have convinced the “Mexican” Govt. and population they should cooperate, without it – they do not care for you.

Personal - “Being Defensive”
Since I am probably leaving. One personal comment:
Neil – how can you expect nations and millions of people to act the way you preach, absorb deadly strikes, etc. When you respond so aggressively to any minor attack on the internet?
If I am “being defensive” then who here is the aggressive?



Sorry folks, I must leave this discussion, duty calls. I was called to serve. My role is not dangerous and I may even have some time to peep here, but I can not make any promises as far as responses.

Bye
Amir

Guilty Spark
08-09-2006, 08:02 AM
Yes, timers...that HAS to be it. The IDF doesn't shoot at civilians, NO!! They're just shooting at HA positions using timers!
Because you are in the know about IDF stragity, tactics and SOPs? Because you have a soldier backround?
My friend, rockets on timers are serious tactics used by quite a few groups.
Khandahar, Afghanistan (among many others there)for example, face this very same problem. Taliban go into the mountians at night set up rockets attached to timers then leave. 12 hours later the rocket fires off landing in the base. We go up in the mountians to find who shot it and their long gone.

Now take the Hezbollah for example. Lets do the hypothetical thing and pretend for a moment (not that it could ever happen) they aren't that concerned over civilian deaths. Humor me. Middle of the night they go find some village, find some dead ground and set up a rocket on a timer. Few hours pass, no one discovers the rocket. The rocket fires off into Israel and detonates. Israel as per their (perhaps archaic) SOPs or standard operating proceedure, triangulate where the rocket came from, notice the VERY close proximity to a village and then launch some kind of counter attack or rocket or something. Villagers die as a result. Hezbollah claimes a double victory. Damage to israel buildings and civilian casualties, israel killing civilians in lebanon being splashed on the news. A fathers son who died in the counter attack joins hezbollah.
Vicious circle. Can you agree that it's a possibility?
You know it's possible to make your argument against Israel without trying to paint Hezbollah as good guys.

Please...would you like an annotated list of IDF lies circulated as truth, and accepted as much by the mass media? Should we start with the 7 children bombed on the beach by the Israeli navy several months ago, and work backwards?

No thank you. I have no doubt Israel is or can be guilty of the exact same thing. I'm sure you can pull out a laundry list of examples. Your too defensive my friend. Once again it comes across as a huge bias that overshadows all your valid points.

In truth, I'm a little surprised that many Aikidoists posting here have fallen into the same media-fed ploy as the majority of American's...but I suppose I shouldn't be. Many fell for the lies in 2003: and I'm sure that they'll fall for it in 2007, when Bush decides to attack Iran...all the while mumbling such nonsense as

We have a little joke in the army. A platoon of soldiers is marching on their graduation parade and one of the guys, little jonny, is out of step with everyone else and the drum/marching beat. It's obvious he is out of step.
His mother however makes a comment "On look our little jonny is the only one in step!"

In truth, I'm a little surprised that many Aikidoists posting here
If many (most?) of the Aikidoists disagree with your views opinion and stance on numerous subjects here, maybe that's cause for you to slow down and give their perspectives a second look. OR, maybe you're the only one in step ;)

I think I'm done here...the argument is simply making me more depressed, and the tone of this thread is taking a downward spiral, not unlike that of a witch-hunt.
Agreed. As Kevin pointed out, people are too caught up in who started which specific incident, who is to blame and finger pointing.
People are too caught up looking behind them and not forward.

DanielR
08-09-2006, 08:11 AM
Amir, I hope your service is going to be brief. Thanks for your contribution here.

shodan 83
08-09-2006, 08:57 AM
Amir, thank you for an insightful and frank discussion, I've enjoyed your post and I hope that you are safe. I look forward to your speedy return and more insight. Thanks Again!

Huker
08-09-2006, 12:33 PM
Because you are in the know about IDF stragity, tactics and SOPs? Because you have a soldier backround?


I'm no "expert", but I am a human being. It does not take a brigadier general to know that Israel is being particularly brutal. The difference between your scenario with the Taliban in the mountains and the Lebanese is that Hezbollah is allegedly hiding in a densely populated area. The two different environments require two different responses.

Also, I've heard many times the kind of retort that tries to discredit one side because they are not experts in the topic being discussed. It does not take an expert to be informed and to make an informed opinion. It just takes time to research. It should be obvious by now that Neil has done his homework. He has a right to be taken seriously, as does everyone else here.

Grant, I'm not targeting you in particular with this, but I am just choosing this time to respond to it. Please don't take it personally. I'm seeing an overabundance of "hypothetical scenarios" on the thread here. I don't want to sound condescending, but they're deceptive since they are just an ideal scenario designed to support only one side of an argument. I think it would be more constructive to focus on the information we're given concerning Lebanon and Israel. Just a thought.

Ok, back to the discussion.

Israel as per their (perhaps archaic) SOPs


I wouldn't call it archaic, myself. Israel has a good supply of American-made weaponry. On top of that, they have access to satellite systems and plenty of other surveillance.


You know it's possible to make your argument against Israel without trying to paint Hezbollah as good guys.


In Lebanon, Hezbollah are the good guys. I'm not sure how much Lebanese opinion has changed in light of recent events, but they did liberate S. Lebanon in 2000. In addition, they are an influential political body. It doesn't take any "paint" to make them look like good guys. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much to make them look really bad either.


And, what was this "intelligence source" doing, spying in a sovereign country, hmm? Pretty suspicious, if you asked me


Are we talking AIPAC scandal suspicious, or like shifty eyes suspicious, here?

shodan 83
08-09-2006, 01:00 PM
[QUOTE=Tanner Hukezalie]
In Lebanon, Hezbollah are the good guys. I'm not sure how much Lebanese opinion has changed in light of recent events, but they did liberate S. Lebanon in 2000. In addition, they are an influential political body. It doesn't take any "paint" to make them look like good guys. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much to make them look really bad either.
QUOTE]

Good and bad, Hezbollah has added many infrastructure benefits to the society in which they live, education, schools, medical facilities, and others. The bad is they are now responsible for laying those infrastructure benefits worthless. Yes they are responsible; you can not keep playing solider games with one of the most well equipped army on earth and then call the response excessive. The response is the response, Israel is a capable well equipped army and they are bent on their own survival. This should have been realized a long time ago instead of calling for their destruction.

Luc X Saroufim
08-09-2006, 01:37 PM
In Lebanon, Hezbollah are the good guys. I'm not sure how much Lebanese opinion has changed in light of recent events, but they did liberate S. Lebanon in 2000. In addition, they are an influential political body. It doesn't take any "paint" to make them look like good guys. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much to make them look really bad either.

the only reason Lebanese were happy Israel left southern Lebanon is because they never anticipated this sh*t. if it weren't for Hezbollah, Israel would have no beef with Lebanon, and none of this would have happened.

let's remember something here: Hezbollah are Shi'ite extremists. there are Sunni's, Druze, Christians, and Shi'ites in Lebanon.

the Shi'ites support Hezbollah, obviously, but the popular opinion is that Hezbollah is doing Lebanon more harm than good.

i always wondered why Syria left Lebanon so damn easily. i mean they occupied the country for almost 30 years, then, with the drop of a hat, just left. i was so happy at the time that i did not care to find out.

now i know why: because they really didn't leave. Hezbollah is the military arm of Syria and Iran, predominantly Shi'ite countries.

i don't mean to sound so disconcerting, it is just my writing style. but please let me make it clear that Lebanon would be very happy if Israel wiped Hezbollah off the face of the Earth.


to your credit, there are sections of the Lebanese population that were initially against Hezbollah, but now support it. it's a small minority, though.

Lebanon needs a war like fish need underwear. there isn't a single Lebanese civilian that wishes death upon anybody. do your research, and you will find out that Hezbollah comprises of Syrian and Iranian descent.

you do realize the pressure Israel is in right now: if they lose this war against Hezbollah, which i believe they will:

- the Israeli government will lose support from its people
- Hezbollah will re-arm, rebuild, and be in the spotlight of the international Shi'ite population. any hope of an independent Lebanese government will be nothing but a pipe dream.
- all the humanitarian, economic, and structural impacts on Lebanon will have all been for nothing.

the only thought keeping me from going insane is the hope that Hezbollah can be defeated. if Israel severely weakens Hezbollah, and tough international forces can secure the southern border, then i would go as far as to say that this was all worth it.

even if it takes Lebanon 20 years to re-build, at least we won't be ruled by extremists, and my kids will be able to enjoy a healthy and thriving Lebanon, something I have always dreamed of.

i see the above paragraph as only a slight glimmer of hope, though, since Syria and Iran don't mind using Lebanon as a playing field. Lebanese civilians aren't getting killed, they're just in the way. if a football game has a million referees, one of them is bound to get hit by the ball, right?

doronin
08-09-2006, 01:42 PM
In Lebanon, Hezbollah are the good guys. I'm not sure how much Lebanese opinion has changed in light of recent events, but they did liberate S. Lebanon in 2000. In addition, they are an influential political body. It doesn't take any "paint" to make them look like good guys. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much to make them look really bad either.

Well, let's remember, guerrillas send rockets not on army bases, but on living neighborhoods. Even though they do good things to their own people, it doesn't excuse the fact they perform terrorist activities. Killer caring his mother stays killer.

Mike Sigman
08-09-2006, 01:47 PM
Here's a far more dispassionate look at things than the deliberate one-sided figure-fudging from the Far Left:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=ae679beb-d2be-40a4-8e74-8e581c1bf1ca&k=16670&p=1

Guilty Spark
08-09-2006, 01:49 PM
Hey Tanner, in hindsight I probably sounded a little critical Sorry dude.. Like I said to Neil in a PM, I'm heading over to 'indian country' in a week so I'm a little touchy/biased about things such as people hiding rockets set on timers up in hills.

I found the comment
Yes, timers...that HAS to be it. The IDF doesn't shoot at civilians, NO!! They're just shooting at HA positions using timers!
almost implied that it was crazy that people could do something like set up rockets on timers when i know for a fact they do. I don't like the notion of painting EITHER side as victims.
I was suggesting it wasn't all that difficult to believe that the hezbollah *may* do something like I described in my example. Maybe maybe not.

I wouldn't call it archaic, myself. Israel has a good supply of American-made weaponry. On top of that, they have access to satellite systems and plenty of other surveillance.
Oh I agree they have top notch weapons. I think you misunderstood, I ment their practices.The practice of firing a rocket into a village to get one guy. That in my opinion simply serves to create more enemies. I'm not sure what their stragity is because I'm not a military commander. From my uneducated perspective I figure they are doing more harm to themselves than good.

It should be obvious by now that Neil has done his homework. He has a right to be taken seriously, as does everyone else here.
Of course. I agree Neil HAS done a lot of homework. Now I would argue that his homework wasn't really done from a neutral unbiased point of view, which has came out in his posts I feel but he HAS done the homework none the less. He's much better at presenting his argument than I am.

That said I still think we need to becareful about getting too far out of our lanes. I'm more than happy to take Nick, yourself and everyone else here seriously. I just think it's important to take into consideration where we get our information from and how biased to one side or the other we are when posting our facts.

PS spell check isn't working :)

Luc X Saroufim
08-09-2006, 01:49 PM
Well, let's remember, guerillas send rockets not on army bases, but on living neihborhoods. Even though they do good things to their own people, it doesn't excuse the fact they perform terrorist acivities. Killer aring his mother stays killer.

i truly believe that if Israel could spare every civilian, they would. i also truly believe that they do not intend to kill any civilians at all. so after 700 dead civilians, they just approved a wider campaign for the second time.

are they terrorists? of course not. pick a war, any war: it's not the army that pays the price, it's the innocents.

i'm tired of hearing about how Hezbollah goes after the civilians and Israel does not.

i believe that if you're willing to go to war, you're willing to accept civilian casualties on both sides of the border. Hezbollah knew Lebanese would die, and Israel knew that their own would die, so let's just leave it at that. no matter who you are, or what you believe in, if you attack a country, you're going after its army *and* its civilians. be prepared for the consequences or don't fight.

doronin
08-09-2006, 02:25 PM
When there are enough of us in the alternate reality, it will no longer be alternate.

I can't believe that there are not an ever growing number of people around the globe that are waking up to the futility of the current way of dealing with things. - "If you have a problem with something kill it"
It is sooo last century.

The sooner the US sits down with Iran and starts talking beyond the past and how to build a productive future together, the sooner stability will creep into the region. They are both conservative regimes, so it shouldn't be too hard to focus on the comonalities they share.

For each side to continually present the other as the bogey man, is both ridiculous and insulting to the intelligence of their own people. And as both populations are full of well educated people, there should be support for a search for agreement, rather than the tired old rant, that "we will save you from these evil people"

The IRA's bombing of innocent people on the UK mainland did not prompt the UK government to order the RAF to flatten Dublin, and every small border farmhouse that they 'may' be hiding in. Sometimes you have to deal with the people you despise the most, if you want to create a more peaceful world for your children to grow up in.

Alternatively we can just keep it as business a usual, profiting from lucrative arms sales to unstable countries, spending the lovely cash on developing even more efficient and accurate ways of killing more innocent people.

I'm happy to be with Neil in his reality, it's an easy step for me to make. I do realise for some that it is a step too far ;) (yet?)

regards,

Mark


Mark, it's incorrect to compare IRA and Islamic extremists. Did IRA ever want to totally destroy UK? Doubt so. They had political goals and used terrorist tactics to apply pressure.

Islamic extremists are not interested in dialog, their published agenda is to eliminate Israel as a root cause of their problems. They have no motivation to talk to you unless you agree to discuss this very subject.
What are you going to discuss wit Iran if its and West's interests are fundamentally different - US wants peace in the region, and Iran & Co want to restore status quot existing prior to establishing State of Israel?
What would motivate extremists if regional peace is not among their priorities?
By talking you can only buy some time of pseudo legitimacy for Iran t finish its nuclear research. Well, I don't think it'll be sorry when Europe face its A-bomb threat.

I bet you are to disagree. So could you please list the possible motivations for Iran & Co to look for long term agreement with West?

doronin
08-09-2006, 02:48 PM
...cross-referenced with where you live (and the highly filtered news media that you're likely getting on the tube...

Neil, didn't you think that such an open demontration of disregard to State of Israel and its population doesn't paint you in good light, regardless of the particular military conflict that currently happening?

You dare to publicly suggest that Israeli population are weird dumbs that view only "highly filtered" local TV and unable to discern the facts from fantasies?

I won't be surprised to see you somewhere on a march waiving a picture of Nasrallah.

Mike Sigman
08-09-2006, 03:06 PM
Sorry folks, I must leave this discussion, duty calls. I was called to serve. My role is not dangerous and I may even have some time to peep here, but I can not make any promises as far as responses.Kick Butt, Amir.

Mike

Gernot Hassenpflug
08-09-2006, 11:23 PM
Take care Amir!

Mark Freeman
08-10-2006, 04:06 AM
Mark, it's incorrect to compare IRA and Islamic extremists. Did IRA ever want to totally destroy UK? Doubt so. They had political goals and used terrorist tactics to apply pressure.

Islamic extremists are not interested in dialog, their published agenda is to eliminate Israel as a root cause of their problems. They have no motivation to talk to you unless you agree to discuss this very subject.
What are you going to discuss wit Iran if its and West's interests are fundamentally different - US wants peace in the region, and Iran & Co want to restore status quot existing prior to establishing State of Israel?
What would motivate extremists if regional peace is not among their priorities?
By talking you can only buy some time of pseudo legitimacy for Iran t finish its nuclear research. Well, I don't think it'll be sorry when Europe face its A-bomb threat.

I bet you are to disagree. So could you please list the possible motivations for Iran & Co to look for long term agreement with West?

Hi Dmitry,

You seemed to miss to point of my post, firstly I wasn't making a comparison between The IRA and Islamic extremists, I was highlighting the relative response level to terrorist acts. Besides why would it be incorrect to compare terrorist organisations that use similar methods to further their own ends?

You seem to be suggesting from the rest of your post that there is no point to dialogue with those who oppose, can this be true? Surely you can see that the only alternative to dialogue is perpetual warfare. You have to talk and work it out or fight until all opposition is crushed, then talk to whats left.

It seems to me that it is difficult to bomb an ideology out of existance, see the taliban in afghanistan. I do agree with you that the Islamic extremists may be the most difficult bunch to reason with as they believe themselves to be on a holy crusade. But what are you going to do? talk to them or try and wipe them out?

This current conflict is a travesty, International politics is in a mess, the squabbling going on in trying to broker an agreement at the UN is awful, the French accusing the US of blocking the latest draft, all the while, Israel planning to deepen the conflict.

the UK press this morning gives these to date casualty figures:
Israel Military: 63 Israel civilians: 35
Hizbullah: 98 (IDF claim >400) Lebanese civilians: 1,005

Do you think if this continues in this fashion that Isreal is going to be a safer place?

You don't think you'll be sorry when Europe faces it's A bomb threat? Thanks Dmitry, nice :rolleyes:

Possible motivations for Iran & Co to look for long term agreement with the west:
Long term peace and security,
greater prosperity, through wider markets
a more content population ( not something that politicians like, harder to control ), so maybe a result of long term peace, but maybe not a motivation for the present crowd.

Libya was once seen as a state sponsor of terrorism, now they are busily trading with the west, and gaining the benefits. Good for them.

Talking is better than fighting in my book.

regards,

Mark

doronin
08-10-2006, 04:47 AM
Besides why would it be incorrect to compare terrorist organizations that use similar methods to further their own ends?
Mark, they have a huge difference in agenda. Again, I never heard IRA would ever suggest to remove UK from the map. I might be wrong though -- you tell me.

You seem to be suggesting from the rest of your post that there is no point to dialogue with those who oppose, can this be true? Surely you can see that the only alternative to dialogue is perpetual warfare. You have to talk and work it out or fight until all opposition is crushed, then talk to whats left.
No, not with "with those who oppose"! I'm saying that dialog will be nearly impossible if sides don't share basic values. While I think a common ground can be found with those Iranians who not yet hocused by holy jihad philosophy, their higher echelons are not interested in peace with Israel even if Israel satisfies most of Arab requirements.

It seems to me that it is difficult to bomb an ideology out of existance, see the taliban in afghanistan. I do agree with you that the Islamic extremists may be the most difficult bunch to reason with as they believe themselves to be on a holy crusade. But what are you going to do? talk to them or try and wipe them out?
Frankly, I don't see any straight forward solution. How can you expect Israel to sit straight while being bombed every here and there? There was a productive discussion with PA, but terrorist groups continue to act, and as there is a direct link between most of those groups and PA officials, the talks left just talks. On one side you're talking with Abbas, on the other side the military wing of his own party bombs your citizens. How do you see the negotiations in such a situation? Do you want Israel just to accept the bombings, for years?

This current conflict is a travesty, International politics is in a mess, the squabbling going on in trying to broker an agreement at the UN is awful, the French accusing the US of blocking the latest draft, all the while, Israel planning to deepen the conflict.

the UK press this morning gives these to date casualty figures:
Israel Military: 63 Israel civilians: 35
Hizbullah: 98 (IDF claim >400) Lebanese civilians: 1,005

Do you think if this continues in this fashion that Isreal is going to be a safer place?

No, I don't, and I do not support expansion of operations, and all this war in whole.

You don't think you'll be sorry when Europe faces it's A bomb threat? Thanks Dmitry, nice :rolleyes:
Mark, please, even if my English isn't particularly good, you might guess what I'm trying to say.
I meant Iran. I'm doubt Europe will be in any better situation then all the rest of the West civilization when Iran obtains nukes, even though some Europeans openly support it.

Possible motivations for Iran & Co to look for long term agreement with the west:
Long term peace and security,
greater prosperity, through wider markets
a more content population ( not something that politicians like, harder to control ), so maybe a result of long term peace, but maybe not a motivation for the present crowd.
Re-read the latest statements of Iranian president and answer to yourself if he's really interested in the above. There are easier ways to obtain greater prosperity then posing a threat to the rest of the world, huh?


Libya was once seen as a state sponsor of terrorism, now they are busily trading with the west, and gaining the benefits. Good for them.

Absolutely! I'd be happy to see Iran taking this course! Just remember what caused Libya to make that change.


Talking is better than fighting in my book.

I hate conflicts, any. But when someone bombs the land where I live, and you say me "you can just talk, you do not have a right to fight back", I can only guess what would you say if you happened to live in Israel.

.

Luc X Saroufim
08-10-2006, 06:03 AM
Hi Dmitry,


Hizbullah: 98 Lebanese civilians: 1,005

Do you think if this continues in this fashion that Isreal is going to be a safer place?




absolutely not.

Luc X Saroufim
08-10-2006, 06:06 AM
I hate conflicts, any. But when someone bombs the land where I live, and you say me "you can just talk, you do not have a right to fight back", I can only guess what would you say if you happened to live in Israel, or Lebanon .

.

fixed that for you.

Guilty Spark
08-10-2006, 07:03 AM
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/milking-it.html
*Warning link contains pictures of dead children.*
More photos staged for the camera.

Looks like their taking this poor child and using him over and over for a number of staged photo ops over the course of a few hours. I don't care who is doing this (As I said, i'm sure both sides do). This is STILL disgusting and goes to show how far people are willing to go.
Guess their right when they said the truth is the first casualty of war.

I'm also starting to really doubt the accuracy of dead and injured. After all if someone is willing to carry a dead kid around and use them for photos whats to stop them from padding the numbers of dead? I think I'll wait for a more official count because I give those stats credibility in any perportion argument.

Mark Uttech
08-10-2006, 08:56 AM
Something I read on the internet today, a cafe owner in Tyre saying, "Everyone has a gun in his house. They are doctors, teachers, and farmers. Hezbollah is people. People are Hezbollah."
Another quote, that I used earlier: "Imagine all the people, living together in peace; imagine." - John Lennon

Mark Freeman
08-10-2006, 09:02 AM
Something I read on the internet today, a cafe owner in Tyre saying, "Everyone has a gun in his house. They are doctors, teachers, and farmers. Hezbollah is people. People are Hezbollah."
Another quote, that I used earlier: "Imagine all the people, living together in peace; imagine." - John Lennon

Nice song, nice idea, while we still have religion and borders, we will still need to keep imagining :(

regards,

Mark

Guilty Spark
08-10-2006, 09:44 AM
Another quote, that I used earlier: "Imagine all the people, living together in peace; imagine." - John Lennon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwgR4_NJCvQ

doronin
08-11-2006, 02:48 PM
Something I read on the internet today, a cafe owner in Tyre saying, "Everyone has a gun in his house. They are doctors, teachers, and farmers. Hezbollah is people. People are Hezbollah."
Another quote, that I used earlier: "Imagine all the people, living together in peace; imagine." - John Lennon

Yet relatively recently they were just doctors, teachers, and farmers. There was no Hezbollah. Then Iran did what it did...
Let's hope there will be time when they again become just doctors, teachers, and farmers.

Neil Mick
08-15-2006, 07:08 PM
"Aikido is self-correction."
--Anno Sensei

I thought I was done with this thread, but there are a few points I'd like to address, a few misunderstandings to correct. Perhaps this post will be a fitting epitaph for a thread that is drying up, even as we enter into our 2nd day of the tenuous ceasefire. Or, maybe the thread is done, with us? If it signifies that the ceasefire holds, let's hope so.

And while the ceasefire is on, let's take stock of what we've accomplished, with our tax-dollars, our drumbeats to war. Let's see:

1. Far from crippling Hezbollah as W contends, the militants seem to be in the ascendant. Just as I said, way back in post #230:

You have nothing. Hezbollah is still active

The IDF got a good drubbing and are even now, precariously stationed within Lebanon...which some correspondents feel is a highly vulnerable position for IDF soldiers, to be in. At this point, Hezbollah is considered to be the "best, most organized militant-group in the world," according to CNN.

Popularity for the organization has shot up through the roof; while popularity for the reigning Israeli gov't is plummeting.

2. The US and Israel are taking flak for dragging their feet in achieving a ceasefire. A senior IDF general was asked to resign.

Nice work, fella's: I guess the "birth pangs of a new MidEast" will have to be delayed, awhile, while the Lebanese and the Israeli's dig out and bury their dead.

3. The refugee's (Shia) from S. Lebanon were spread all over Lebanon. No telling what effect that will have on the country. But, one thing's for sure: big changes are in the offing.

4. The major powers maneuver to train and equip the multinational peacekeeping force that will be stationed in Lebanon. Certainly the US will expect some sort of payback: we do NOTHING nowadays without expecting some kind of return.

5. If I had to lay odds, I'd bet that the ceasefire doesn't last a month. But, that's less a prediction than a wild guess. Who knows?

*******************************************************

As to certain comments and viewpoints expressed here:

Neil, didn't you think that such an open demontration of disregard to State of Israel and its population doesn't paint you in good light, regardless of the particular military conflict that currently happening?

You dare to publicly suggest that Israeli population are weird dumbs that view only "highly filtered" local TV and unable to discern the facts from fantasies?

I won't be surprised to see you somewhere on a march waiving a picture of Nasrallah.

The first step towards a fight, often begins with a misunderstanding.

Dmitri, I'm going to assume that your (self-admitted) limited command of the English language was the source of your insults, based upon a misunderstanding of my post, when I said:

A simple glance at your range of insults, cross-referenced with where you live (and the highly filtered news media that you're likely getting on the tube), tells me all I need to know, to take your post with more than a few grains of salt. It's not at all surprising that you attempt character assassination over debating my facts.

You see, Dmitri: I do not have a "disregard to State of Israel and its population." If you'd bothered to read a little more closely, you'd have noticed that, in point of fact, I want Israel to survive, and to thrive.

What I have "disregard" for, is your gov't's murderous policies, and your (and my) state's media censorship. In several posts I made it clear that you are watching a different news than the rest of the world. As am I, if I only stayed with the mainstream offerings of news-spew.

So, now that we have a ceasefire: where did this marching to the drum-beat get you? Certainly, you didn't get what was promised. In apologizing for your gov't's policies, you in turn demean and diminish the lives of others, who are not Israeli.

As an alternative to singing the praises of the gov't of Israel: try out this little ditty...

QANA (http://www.pattismith.net/audio/qana.mp3)

But perhaps Patti Smith (http://www.pattismith.net/news.html) said it best, here:


These are dirty times. Time to clean our inner houses. Time to wake up. Not the time to cultivate fear. Cultivate awareness. Ask the Lebanese, burying their dead, clearing the debris of their life, who is responsible. It is Israel and the United States. The most hated countries in the world. Are we not our country? Will we stand for this?

This was not a conflict. Iraq was not a war. They were invasions. Premeditated and driven by selfish agendas. Ask the mother who pulled her dead little girl from the ruins of Qana if she feels safer. Chances are she no longer cares who has the f**king bomb. Nothing can make the world safe for her daughter.

After September 11th the rats from downtown migrated to our village street. And every one had a face like the Masters of War who call themselves our protectors. Would that the Pied Piper could return with his magic flute and drive them all from the White House to the most polluted section of the sea.

Personally, I'd be embarassed to defend the gov't whose ambassador lies so completely, that he tells lies already corrobated in the NYT, as he did here: (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/10/1339247)

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Sam Husseini, you began questioning the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Daniel Ayalon, about the report released by Human Rights Watch that accused Israel of committing war crimes for targeting civilians in Lebanon. This was his response.

DANIEL AYALON: I would say this report that you quoted is just something out of this earth. I mean, I don't know where they live.

SAM HUSSEINI: They have people in Lebanon.

DANIEL AYALON: I don't know who they have. We are also -- we are also in Lebanon. And if you see the differences, you see that the Hezbollah targets civilians and only civilians. They use this indiscriminate Katyusha rockets, which have been converted, their warheads has been converted into a terror weapon with all these ball- bearings just to kill civilians. Now, they use it from apartments. They use it from mosques and from school yards. On the other hand, we are using only precision munitions, even at the compromise of achieving our mission fast. Many of our soldiers get killed, because we are being very careful. So this report -- I don't know what credence -- it's absurd, and it's totally false. And I must say, I question the motivations of them and who wrote it.

SAM HUSSEINI: Sir, this is from Human Rights Watch. They also put out a report criticizing Hezbollah. If you were a Hezbollah spokesperson, I would be asking you that question. They are talking about you using cluster bombs and targeting civilians indiscriminately. Aren't you involved in the tradition of [inaudible] --

DANIEL AYALON: No, not at all.

SAM HUSSEINI: You're a protagonist. How can you be believed as to what's happening? This is an independent, very respected human rights group.

DANIEL AYALON: Well, it's not very respected to me anymore, if they come up with such ignorant remarks, which do not represent the truth. And they don't know what's going on, if they write these things. I mean, it is quite obvious that we have a situation here of a terror organization who embeds itself. Tell me, do you see of any Hezbollah camps in Lebanon? Does Human Rights -- can the Human --

SAM HUSSEINI: -- this is a quote, "found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect themselves from IDF attacks." They went on to write about Qana. The day of the attack, they did extensive questioning --

DANIEL AYALON: Were they there? Were they there? They're writing in -- no. Yes, I was there. We were there. Israeli soldiers were there. No, no, no, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'll ask you a simple question for the Human Rights. Can they direct us -- you or me -- or the international community to a single base of Hezbollah? Does Hezbollah have bases? No.

SAM HUSSEINI: They talk about Hezbollah having caches in certain places. They talk about --

DANIEL AYALON: Yeah. Do they have bases? No. Hezbollah fires. Hezbollah fires from mosques. Hezbollah fires -- I'm telling you.

SAM HUSSEINI: -- they fire from [inaudible]. They fire from orchards.

DANIEL AYALON: And they fire from schoolyards, and they fire from UN positions. It's just too bad that we work about something that you obviously don't know and they obviously don't know. I'm sorry about it. The fact that it's written over there doesn't make it true. I think reality on the ground speaks for itself. And the reality on the ground is that they target civilians and we target Hezbollah. The fact that Hezbollah is embedded among Lebanese civilians is a problem. But go ask the Lebanese about it, and they will tell you.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., being question by Sam Husseini of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He went onto the issue of nuclear weapons. In the 1980s, Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu first exposed that Israel had secretly developed an extensive nuclear program. Since then, it's widely acknowledged that Israel is a major nuclear power in the Middle East. Again, this is Sam Husseini questioning Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon.

SAM HUSSEINI: Why does Israel refuse to acknowledge its possession of nuclear weapons? And Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli whistleblower, has suggested a tradeoff, where you have a nuclear-free Middle East -- [inaudible]

DANIEL AYALON: Sir, you are talking and --

SAM HUSSEINI: -- Israelis nuclear weapons. Isn't Israel's nuclear possession provocative in the region?

DANIEL AYALON: Who says we have nuclear possession? Have we ever said that? We said -- the only thing we said -- the only thing we said, that Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This has been our position all along. Israel is the only country, unfortunately, who has been threatened. Its survival was at stake, as countries in the Middle East are calling for its demise. So we have this, what you call an ambiguous -- or policy for ambiguity, as a matter of national defense.

SAM HUSSEINI: Isn't Iran trying to replicate that by having a nuclear --

DANIEL AYALON: Is anybody -- is anybody threatening Iran's survival? Did we say that Iran should be decimated? It's Iran who says Israel has to be decimated. So I think you have to get your facts correctly and cipher them out. I'm sorry, it's just a futile conversation here.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Sam Husseini went on to ask the Israeli ambassador about Israel's use of cluster bombs. In their report, Human Rights Watch documented the use of cluster bombs on the ground in Lebanon.

SAM HUSSEINI: Are you using cluster bombs in Lebanon?

DANIEL AYALON: No, we are not. We're not using anything which is not approved by the UN conventions and charters.

SAM HUSSEINI: Why did you bomb the electrical facilities in Lebanon?

DANIEL AYALON: Lebanon has electric capabilities, which is running. They have running water. We are not targeting any of the infrastructures. We could have done a lot of damage, which we're not doing, specifically because we're very much concerned about the humanitarian conditions over there.

AMY GOODMAN: The role of the United Nations in the current conflict was also a hot topic during the questioning. Here, Sam Husseini asks Israel's ambassador to the United States, Daniel Ayalon, about UN Security Council Resolution 1559, adopted in 2004, and called, among other things, for Syria to end its military presence in Lebanon.

SAM HUSSEINI: You've been quoting from Resolution 1559. Isn't Israel -- hasn't it been for a long time in violation of dozens of UN security resolutions? For example, 446, 451, 465, regarding Israeli settlement activity in the Occupied Territories.

DANIEL AYALON: Not at all. I think you mix up between resolutions, which are enforceable, like UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.

SAM HUSSEINI: [inaudible] Security Council [inaudible] --

DANIEL AYALON: Right, right, right.

SAM HUSSEINI: I'm naming them. 446, 451, 465.

DANIEL AYALON: No, we're not, I'll tell you why. I'll tell you exactly --

SAM HUSSEINI: [inaudible] Security Council resolutions.

DANIEL AYALON: I don't know why you don't read your history. It's very recent history. We pulled out of Gaza completely, dismantling 21 --

SAM HUSSEINI: [inaudible] pull out of the West Bank.

DANIEL AYALON: Yes, well, in the West Bank also. We have offered to leave the West Bank. There was a Camp David summit in 2000, where the Ehud Barak, the Prime Minister, offered to give most of the West Bank to the Palestinians. They refused, and they attacked us. So it takes two to fulfill resolutions.

SAM HUSSEINI: You withdrew from Gaza unilaterally. Why can't you withdraw from the West Bank unilaterally?

DANIEL AYALON: Who said we will not? We are still working on that. Thank you very much.

AMY GOODMAN: Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to the United States, being questioned by Sam Husseini, communications director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, with special thanks to Matt Bradley for the audio recording. Sam Husseini, in the Washington, D.C. studio, it was interesting when you asked the ambassador about Israel's use of cluster bombs. He denied the use. But Israel has already admitted that they have used cluster bombs in Lebanon, after Human Rights Watch came out with their report saying that they did.

SAM HUSSEINI: It shows the systematic pattern of the lying, because when they're confronted with documentation on the back pages of the New York Times, they tacitly acknowledge some part of the truth. But when they're put in front of the TV cameras, they lie brazenly. That's the pattern of war-makers, I've found. And also I asked him about cluster bombs, because he was going on about Hezbollah allegedly using some munitions which have some sort of ball bearings, which inflict damage on civilians and hurt people and kill people. He was going on about that quite a bit. And that's what prompted me to really say, well, what about your use of cluster bombs? And then he just outright lied. It's extraordinary.

Now, what's the point, you might ask? Pol's lie all the time. Simply this: the gov't of Israel is not its people. They (govt) have the most sophisticated PR machine, in the world, probably in history. They've brainwashed many people over here, and over there, into believing this simple formula:

Govt of Israel = the People of Israel

They've done one even better. They have manipulated the US gov't into acting so far in support of the Israeli gov't, that the US often acts against its own interests, to support the Israeli gov't. The US gov't right now is filled with these "NeoCon's" who follow the gov't of Israel's interests, over those of the US.

The usage of timers for bombs and rockets is nothing new.
Amir

Nor, is apology for murder.


I have never claimed all the Israeli actions are flawless. On the contrary. I have a lot of criticism for my Govt. actions, in Lebanon as well as on the Israeli side of the border. Very often the Israeli Govt. has been proven to short sighted at best, or just plain simple idiotic.

Not here, you haven't. In posting, you come off more as an apologist for your gov't, than anything else.

Throughout this thread, you liked to pick and choose your battles, quoting selective UN violations when it suited you. Well, I think we both know who'd win if I matched you, tit for tat. The record of UN violations is not a pretty one, for the gov't of Israel.

You did the same thing with the hypothetical: you chose selective, one-sided historical circumstances to tear the hypothetical down, not once mentioning what ELSE Israel was doing at the time to incur such ire.

Do you think that Israel just offers its hand out in peace, and other nations slap it away?

Hardly. The left hand is working, behind the right. Other nations don't trust Israel because of its shady doings. Had you presented the FULL story: THEN we could look at the hypothetical honestly.

But you do not debate honestly. And, your claims to be a critic of Israel notwithstanding (which, I honestly believe, you are, in the RW): the fact of the matter is that you're its most ardent defender, here.

But, in all of your arguments you fail to examine the rest of the story. Take a look, here: (http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060821fa_fact)

The Bush Administration, however, was closely involved in the planning of Israel's retaliatory attacks. President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney were convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me, that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah's heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American preëmptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground.

So, OK: Hezbollah is a threat to Israel and needs to be addressed--but it is also a prelude to an attack on Iran.

Do you like untimately being an apologist for US policy?

One final thing:

Many of Israeli Arabs died because they did not expect to be bombed and therefore cared less for installing shelters (and many of them built without required permits and such and so avoided the extra cost of building a shelter for every family in new/renovated apartments and houses).

Now, I called you on this earlier, and (surprise surprise) you didn't respond. It appears that I was corrobated on a recent DN! story: (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/1358258)

While hundreds of thousands of Israelis have taken refuge in bomb shelters, many Arab-Israelis in say they have had no such protection. They say they have been left on their own, thereby exposing some of Israel's worst inequalities.

Unlikely that you are reading this, and so it's of little consequence. But if you are: I hope your tour finds you safe and whole, when you return from it.

***************************************************************************

I contend, that the Israeli media has done the same manipulating on the people of Israel, too.

So, here's the thought that I'd like to leave behind...my "third way," if you will

The Policies of Israel are NOT Serving It's People

You can be opposed to Israel; you can support its gov't'l policies; OR...

you can call for peaceful coexistence. You can call for the gov't to treat its Arab minorities within its borders fairly, and respectfully. You can demand a respect for human rights, and for the gov't of Israel to deal with other countries honestly, without being a mere extension of extremist rightwing US policies.

So far, the biggest disappointment (to me) in this thread were the few who agreed with my stance (Daniel...sort of; Mark Freeman, and Tanner, were the notable exceptions). This was the biggest point to my hypothetical: that the gov't and media work to keep us in a state of fear, and sideline the detractors by calling us "Jew-haters," or "anti-Israeli."

And, here's where I end this post. To you few who call me (and people of like mind) (similarly) anti-American: here's where you're wrong. In similar fashion, you fall right in line with the current Administration. They work avidly to sideline our views, to polarize us, to make us feel powerless.

If you think I'm talking out of my armpit :crazy: ...ask yourself this--if George W. Bush is so great for America, exactly what GOOD has his gov't done for the country? For education, for the infrastructure, for medicine, for the military, for the elderly?

Are we so much better now than we were, 6 years' ago?

If you were honest, I think we'd agree, on that one.

So, OK, now I'm (hopefully, finally) done. But, are you?

Will you stand up, fight for your rights, for your beliefs? Or will you take the path of apathy, of powerlessness? There is not one single freedom we have today that wasn't fought for, and won.

So, we really DO deserve the gov't we get...as well as the response that other people have, to our gov'ts' foreign policies.

9-11 did not happen in a vacuum...out of the blue.

Mark Freeman
08-16-2006, 05:06 AM
Good post Neil,

but then I would say that wouldn't I? I see people like Neil Mick as simply the product of a soft, western country. He and his ilk are to be expected. I see you as a similar product. ;)

I hope the peace holds, but my 'old cynic' voice seems to be winning out right now.

The international community will be 'very' reluctant to commit any troops into the region, as historically the consequenses can be pretty grim.

Did the recent interview between a US journo and Iran's President get much airing on US TV? What was the reaction over there?

We live in interesting times.

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman
08-16-2006, 07:35 AM
Good post Neil,

but then I would say that wouldn't I? ;) Yes, you would. Because Neil is typically anti-American and anti-Israel.

Mark Freeman
08-16-2006, 08:38 AM
Yes, you would. Because Neil is typically anti-American and anti-Israel.

Mike, you are so predictable it's beyond parody :rolleyes:

and your response to me.......

James Davis
08-16-2006, 10:49 AM
"Aikido is self-correction."
--Anno Sensei
It certainly has been for me, over the years. :straightf
If I had to lay odds, I'd bet that the ceasefire doesn't last a month. But, that's less a prediction than a wild guess. Who knows?

Sometimes, it sucks to be right.





The first step towards a fight, often begins with a misunderstanding.
Or a miscommunication. It's not always a misunderstanding on the part of the listener; sometimes, people just don't know how to think before they speak (or they just don't care for others' feelings).

Throughout this thread, you liked to pick and choose your battles, quoting selective UN violations when it suited you. Well, I think we both know who'd win if I matched you, tit for tat. The record of UN violations is not a pretty one, for the gov't of Israel.
Honestly, he hasn't been alone in that. ;)
It's not about winning. Show people facts. If they want to change, they will. Nobody's gonna force it to happen.

Do you think that Israel just offers its hand out in peace, and other nations slap it away?
No. Organizations that have nothing to do with nations' governments slap it away. Arafat slapped it away. Repeatedly. He's dead now, so maybe changes can finally be made.
Unlikely that you are reading this, and so it's of little consequence. But if you are: I hope your tour finds you safe and whole, when you return from it.
It's definitely of consequence! It reminds me that I'm not arguing with an android! :) Hope for someone's well being is always of conwequence.
***************************************************************************

I contend, that the Israeli media has done the same manipulating on the people of Israel, too.
Yeah. Like that's unusual!
So, here's the thought that I'd like to leave behind...my "third way," if you will

The Policies of Israel are NOT Serving It's People


Nope. That's not unusual, either.
So far, the biggest disappointment (to me) in this thread were the few who agreed with my stance (Daniel...sort of; Mark Freeman, and Tanner, were the notable exceptions). This was the biggest point to my hypothetical: that the gov't and media work to keep us in a state of fear, and sideline the detractors by calling us "Jew-haters," or "anti-Israeli."
I've seen individuals call you that, but the govt?

If you think I'm talking out of my armpit :crazy: ...ask yourself this--if George W. Bush is so great for America, exactly what GOOD has his gov't done for the country? For education, for the infrastructure, for medicine, for the military, for the elderly?
Politicians aren't responsible for much good, regardless of their party.
Are we so much better now than we were, 6 years' ago?

If you were honest, I think we'd agree, on that one.
:rolleyes: IF we were honest?
So, OK, now I'm (hopefully, finally) done.

There is not one single freedom we have today that wasn't fought for, and won. [/QUOTE]
Yup.
So, we really DO deserve the gov't we get...as well as the response that other people have, to our gov'ts' foreign policies. FAIRTAX.ORG!!! Your money can be used for protest! Read it!!

9-11 did not happen in a vacuum...out of the blue.
Grrrrrrrrrrr.. No time. Talk to you later.

Neil Mick
08-16-2006, 12:53 PM
Hey, I thought my last post was going to be this thread's epitaph! How am I going to do a swan-song, when I get so many responses! ;)

Good post Neil,

but then I would say that wouldn't I? ;)

Thanks. Yes you would, you biased Lefty, you. :D

Did the recent interview between a US journo and Iran's President get much airing on US TV? What was the reaction over there?

I don't watch regular TV (only what I gleam from the 'net...that is, until the day that net neutrality becomes a thing of the past :grr: ), but I found this open letter (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Smith15.htm) to Mike Wallace, talking about an interview with the Iranian President. Even the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-iranian16aug16,1,2113561.story?coll=la-headlines-entnews&track=crosspromo)--not the most balanced media source, these days--noted that Ahmadinejad held his own.

We live in interesting times.

Isn't that a Jewish curse? ;)

Sometimes, it sucks to be right.

Tell me about it. :freaky:

Or a miscommunication. It's not always a misunderstanding on the part of the listener; sometimes, people just don't know how to think before they speak (or they just don't care for others' feelings).

And the relevance is...?
On 2nd thought: don't bother. This line of thinking is taking the undertones of a pissing-match.

It's not about winning. Show people facts. If they want to change, they will. Nobody's gonna force it to happen.

No, you're right: it isn't about winning. In regards to this thread: it's about scale. It's one thing to pick and choose your battle-ground: quite another to ignore 1/2 of an argument (cf, posts #212; #214; #229; #248; et al).

Arafat slapped it away.

Please: shall we debate the myth of the "generous offer?"

It's definitely of consequence! It reminds me that I'm not arguing with an android! :) Hope for someone's well being is always of conwequence.

You misunderstood (or, did I misstate?)...I meant that my comments to his posts are of little consequence: not his well-being.

:rolleyes: IF we were honest?

Yeah: if we were honest...instead of resorting to partisan character assassination.

Yup.
FAIRTAX.ORG!!! Your money can be used for protest! Read it!!

I did, thank you. From my perspective, the jury's still out, on this one.

Mike Sigman
08-16-2006, 04:54 PM
Mike, you are so predictable it's beyond parody :rolleyes:

and your response to me.......Absolute crap, Mark. As I mentioned to you before, why do you spend so much time being an anti-American? Where are your mentions of the failed European policies and screwups starting at least since WWI? How about World War II, which was to a large part the fault of the British peaceniks like you and which resulted in the deaths of at least 20 million people because, like you, they wanted to appease, blame America, pretend no threat existed, etc.? Have you ever seen the British peace movement members step up and admit they screwed up? No. They just continue to look at America?

How about Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.? Why not a public condemnation of yet another problem the Europeans botched and had to call the US in to straighten out?

How about the "Iranian Diplomacy" that the Europeans have insisted on and which they've been made fools of by the Iranians?

How about the corrupt and inept UN that the EU so desperately tries to protect, even though it is now down the chutes in the same corrupt manner the League of Nations was? Europe looks inept, corrupt, and economically failing... yet your focus is constantly on the US, Mark. It's insulting.

Try doing something with your blame-placing besides constantly pointing at the US. When the US screws up, I admit it. You and Neil blame the US for everything. Every wonder why the World Communist Party funds so many of the liberal "protests" around the world? It is because you are, as Stalin noted, "useful idiots"... simply biting the hand of people who befriended you. Try some balance... even if it hurts. You'll find that balance will help your Aikido.

Mike Sigman

Mark Freeman
08-17-2006, 03:20 AM
As I said predictable, your one sided diatribe is in character, you chastise me for being one sided, and do the same yourself. This character of your posts is well known.
How about World War II, which was to a large part the fault of the British peaceniks like you and which resulted in the deaths of at least 20 million people because, like you, they wanted to appease,
Nice!

Where in my posts have I been defending Europe????? Why bang on about how inept, failed, useless, incompetent, corrupt and downright contemptable Europe is and then expect me to be surprised that you find my veiw of the US insulting, pathetic!

If you bothered to read my posts, you will see that I am not a fan of George Bush or the present administration ( I am hardly alone in this, as worldwide there are many who can't wait for 'regime change' hoping for a better leadership ). I am not attacking the US as nation, only some of the current policies which I am entitled not to agree with.

Don't try to give me advice on my aikido Mike,

End of discussion,

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman
08-17-2006, 06:48 AM
Where in my posts have I been defending Europe????? Show me where you (or Neil Mick) have spent even a tiny portion of your anti-US, anti-Jew bashing in the same way against Muslims who have killed millions, constantly broken UN resolution, against Europeans who have done nothing but nothing for years and years, ... and so on. In other words, your hate is one-sided. And anyone who calls you on it must be a bad-guy, right? Watch Neil's outrage and defensiveness when he's called on his one-sidedness. He knows he's one-sided (i.e., dishonest and unfair) and you know his type and your type of views are, too. But you don't get into a discussion of that one-sidedness, like Neil, you go attack the person who points out the dishonesty.

Mark... the problem is not me. The problem is not Bush. The problem is the partisan dishonesty. Fix yourself first... then complain about others.

Mike Sigman

Mark Freeman
08-17-2006, 07:30 AM
. Fix yourself first... then complain about others.

:rolleyes:

Mike Sigman
08-17-2006, 08:24 AM
:rolleyes: Yes, I realize that you're sure that you're already "fixed" and have a keen, honest perspective of the world, regardless of any facts, Mark. You and Neil Mick are what I call "John Birch Liberals"... you're no different than the Tom DeLays, Trent Lotts, etc. of the Far Right. Given your ways, none of you, on either side, would do the factually "right thing", you'd simply impose your partisan feelings on the rest of the people. That's what I dislike about extremists... dishonesty in presenting their views always seems to be OK because they are the "correct views of how people should behave". Reminds me of an "Aiki mindset of how one must behave and talk" that I heard someone speak about once. ;)

Mike

RoyK
08-17-2006, 08:51 AM
One thing for sure, my dream of visiting a Lebanese Aikido dojo is dead and buried with countless destroyed Lebanese and Israeli lives and homes.

I read most of the discussion, and I'm pretty familiar with all pro war and anti war arguments. My personal opinion as an Israeli and someone who has to vote for or against Israeli politicians is that Israel made plenty of mistakes along the way. Allowing the Hizbollah build its stronghold with no international pressure, neglecting to strengthen diplomatic ties with the Lebanese government over the years since the widthrawal, and going to war and destorying the Lebanese infrastructure. But despite all the well thought out and valid arguments, I think denying Israel's right to do this operation is wrong. Every country (not governmnet) has the right to actively oppose any organization or government that defies its right of existance. There has to be no tolerance for intolerance. But the way Israel went about it sure was wrong, not only during the last month, but for the last 6 years.
I also believe that the dream of democratizing the middle east is dead and buried too.
Israel and the US would be better off concentrating on support of secular governments, and help to increase stability. Wars, poverty and hunger only play into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists.

Mike Sigman
08-17-2006, 09:10 AM
Allowing the Hizbollah build its stronghold with no international pressure, neglecting to strengthen diplomatic ties with the Lebanese government over the years since the widthrawal, and going to war and destorying the Lebanese infrastructure. I think that the emphasis is again sort of one-sided. Perhaps you see those as things that Israel didn't do correctly, but let's face it... "allowing Hezbollah to strengthen" was something the UN member nations allowed to happen, even though they passed a resolution calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah. Countries like France, Russia, China, all Arab countries, etc., will be quite happy to see Israel destroyed even though they deny it.

The problem is not what Irael did wrong or what the US has done wrong.. the Islam problem has been growing worldwide in a number of countries for hundreds of years. How many countries are and have been under active take-over by growing Muslim populations for hundreds of years? What countries are still officially at war with Israel, even though Israel has indicated it wants peace, for over 60 years? It's not what the US and Israel need to do... it's what the Muslims need to do besides claim victimhood. Islam has contributed nothing positive to civilization if over 300 years... let's call on them to do something for a change and quit trying to find ways to blame the West, in that self-flagellating, self-loathing way that soft western liberals love to do. *Everyone* has responsibilities. Let's see the Arabs do something to win the hearts and minds of the West rather than calling out constantly what the West needs to do to win *their* hearts and minds.

I also believe that the dream of democratizing the middle east is dead and buried too. I agree. I don't think you can change Muslims.... I think ultimately they will only accept force, not diplomacy and payoffs.

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
08-17-2006, 10:53 AM
One thing for sure, my dream of visiting a Lebanese Aikido dojo is dead and buried with countless destroyed Lebanese and Israeli lives and homes.

I read most of the discussion, and I'm pretty familiar with all pro war and anti war arguments. My personal opinion as an Israeli and someone who has to vote for or against Israeli politicians is that Israel made plenty of mistakes along the way. Allowing the Hizbollah build its stronghold with no international pressure, neglecting to strengthen diplomatic ties with the Lebanese government over the years since the widthrawal, and going to war and destorying the Lebanese infrastructure.

Hi Roy,

Nice post, even if I don't agree with some points of it (not, that this is some requirement, of course).

One thing, tho: don't let your dream of visiting a Lebanese dojo die...rather, put it on hold. I know that there are Lebanese laws prohibiting cooperation with Israeli's (not sure if this applies to simply visiting a dojo); but I once had a dream about a cooperative, mutual Iraq-US Aikido seminar, just before the invasion.

I got my wish (see my blog, if interested), even tho it wasn't exactly the form I expected.

Dreams manifest in unexpected ways, sometimes.

Every country (not governmnet) has the right to actively oppose any organization or government that defies its right of existance. There has to be no tolerance for intolerance.

True...but there should be limits on what Israel can, and cannot, do, to achieve its goals. It's outrageous (to me) that a few of the folks here do not think this to be true. But, its a big world...even, a big forum. ;)

But the way Israel went about it sure was wrong, not only during the last month, but for the last 6 years.

Yes, here we agree.

I also believe that the dream of democratizing the middle east is dead and buried too.

"Democracy" is a misused word: esp within the US. "Democracy" seems fine, unless leaders are elected whom we do not like.

Then, it seems the policy of "democratization" equates to kidnapping, and coups (see Hamas, Palestine, and the IDF; Chavez, Venezuala, and the US; Aristede, Haiti, and the US; et al)

Wars, poverty and hunger only play into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists.

True enough. Good points!

Mark Uttech
08-17-2006, 01:05 PM
It is better not to get political. Aikido is a true practice, a true journey. Politics is about power. It is better not to use power, or to coerce others to use power. I read an inspiring story in an aikido today magazine years ago, the story was in the letters section and talked about the importance of lighting one candle. It also talked about each dojo training ten people who would go on to open dojos and train ten more people each. In gassho

Mark

Luc X Saroufim
08-17-2006, 02:13 PM
But despite all the well thought out and valid arguments, I think denying Israel's right to do this operation is wrong. Every country (not governmnet) has the right to actively oppose any organization or government that defies its right of existance.


first of all, thanks for showing sensitivity to the innocent Lebanese civilians and Lebanese governent during this masquerade of hell.

but like you said,

Wars, poverty and hunger only play into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists.

Neil Mick
08-17-2006, 03:10 PM
It is better not to get political.

Sometimes, the best way to be true to oneself IS to stand up for one's beliefs.

If you call that "getting political:" then we shall have to agree to disagree.

I can only imagine you trying to say this to the brave souls who performed sit-in's in Alabama, circa 1967; or to the folks who advocated divestment from S. Africa, in the '80's. Had they merely "turned the other cheek:" we'd be a lot worse off than we are, today.

There is not one freedom or liberty in this society that wasn't fought over, and won. Without the activism of Mother Jones, we might well still have children working in mines. Without MLK doing his time in Birmingham, we might still be stuck in archaic notions of "separate, but equal."

Our tax-dollars and our leaders' hesitancy to achieve a settlement (all done as a dry-run for an attack against Iran) caused a lot of unnecessary deaths, this time around. Somehow, turning other cheeks or lighting candles seems willfully inappropriate and callous, IMO.

It's impossible to say, but perhaps what caused our leaders to finally see reason were the united stands and demonstrations in major cities against this illegal invasion, last week.

Mark Uttech
08-17-2006, 04:17 PM
When I taught "turn the other cheek" for a church group, I had an uke slap me and the slap turned my other cheek all the way around in the general direction of the slap so that I ended up standing behind the uke. In other words, you can be 'actively non-violent' as were the civil rights marchers in the 60's.

Mark

Neil Mick
08-17-2006, 06:01 PM
you can be 'actively non-violent' as were the civil rights marchers in the 60's.

Mark

I hope you understand that when I mean, "stand up for your beliefs:" I only condone nonviolent means.

Violence only begets more violence.

Luc X Saroufim
08-18-2006, 07:45 AM
I hope you understand that when I mean, "stand up for your beliefs:" I only condone nonviolent means.

Violence only begets more violence.

i agree. we're in a new era these days. i think we went through a lot of wars in the 20th century to shape how the world is today, but we're starting to see the laws of diminishing returns when it comes to fighting.

and i honestly think our "superpower" status is a little overhyped. our economy is not doing so well anymore, and we are having a tough time winning our battles overseas. we don't even know how we would react if we received constant invasions from foreign countries, because that's never happened. i don't know where all our confidence is coming from.

Neil Mick
08-19-2006, 08:56 PM
Damage done to Lebanon, in US dollars: 10,000,000,000

Amount that Saudi Arabia has pledged to help with Lebanon: $1B
Amount that the EU has pledged to reconstruct Lebanon: $147M (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525901139&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
British aid to Lebanon: $25M (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1850808,00.html)
Cluster-bombs and bunker-busters that the US gave Israel, to bomb Lebanon: (info not found...US gov't seems quite mum, in revealing this factoid)
Amount, in US dollars, of jet-fuel sent to Israel: $210M (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N11334796.htm)
Amount of 5,000-pound "bunker buster" bombs the US sent to Israel: at LEAST 25 (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/11/news/cluster.php) (with more precision-guided munitions, likely coming from the US weapons-fairy)

Amount and manpower in reconstruction offered by the US, to help Lebanon: $50M, and 7 ppl (http://english.people.com.cn/200608/18/eng20060818_294325.html)
Amount and type of aid that Hezbollah is offering, to help Lebanese get back on their feet: 10,000/person for 1yr of rent, food, furniture (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/world/middleeast/16hezbollah.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1155787200&en=cff9f8a0eef01127&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin)

The REAL cost of "regime-change" (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20060817a2.html) (or, the dream and the lie of W...with apologies to Picasso)

PRAGUE -- Lebanon's reconstruction, so painstakingly carried out in the 1990s, is now at risk of being undone. But Lebanon is not alone in that respect: According to the United Nations and several independent studies, countries in transition from war to peace face roughly a 50 percent chance of sliding back into warfare. Indeed, in East Timor, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and many other countries, the transition to peace seems to be failing.

Of course, the legitimacy of the government or other policymaking body will determine what is possible in economic policymaking. A weak interim national government -- or a U.N. or foreign occupying administration -- should not attempt to implement policies such as privatizing national resources when doing so might incite political resistance.

Indeed, early privatization is likely to be destructive in its own terms, because property rights will remain in question for some time. Thus, a new yardstick is needed to measure success. Projects must be judged by whether they contribute to peace and reconciliation, rather than on purely economic grounds.

Cost to US foreign credibility: plumetting, and gaining speed

Number of days that Israel has held to the truce: 5 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/world/middleeast/20lebanon.html?ex=1156132800&en=1cc0013ce192c323&ei=5087%0A)

Hezbollah...in competition with Halliburton..? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KvM20G5rUQ&NR) ;)

Amir Krause
08-21-2006, 02:35 AM
Just returned from the army reserve to work yeterday. My job is such that I was far away from the front, and for obvious reasons I will not discuss specifics.

I have come to find out the Israeli army has a lot to think about, with regard to lack of basic military thoughts and the way of weiging a war when one decides to do that. This "war" was handled with half measures and even Aikido techniques do not work when you only try instead of do.


Do not have the time to write a long message. So I will have to leave lots of open points (as I often had to do in the past).

I hope someone in the Israeli Govt. will take Seniora proposal and try and make peace with Lebanon: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3293617,00.html
Such a change would be a benefit of the war.


The chances for a second round are too high, particularly given the Lebanese and international lack of willingess to disarm HA. And the organization continues arming:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/753064.html



Amir

Mike Sigman
08-22-2006, 07:52 AM
In re the posts of Neil Mick:


Our covert enemies
By Michael Barone
Monday, August 21, 2006



In our war against Islamo-fascist terrorism, we face enemies both overt and covert. The overt enemies are, of course, the terrorists themselves. Their motives are clear: They hate our society because of its freedoms and liberties, and want to make us all submit to their totalitarian form of Islam. They are busy trying to wreak harm on us in any way they can. Against them we can fight back, as we did when British authorities arrested the men and women who were plotting to blow up a dozen airliners over the Atlantic.

Our covert enemies are harder to identify, for they live in large numbers within our midst. And in terms of intentions, they are not enemies in the sense that they consciously wish to destroy our society. On the contrary, they enjoy our freedoms and often call for their expansion. But they have also been working, over many years, to undermine faith in our society and confidence in its goodness. These covert enemies are those among our elites who have promoted the ideas labeled as multiculturalism, moral relativism and (the term is Professor Samuel Huntington's) transnationalism.

At the center of their thinking is a notion of moral relativism. No idea is morally superior to another. Hitler had his way, we have ours -- who's to say who is right? No ideas should be "privileged," especially those that have been the guiding forces in the development and improvement of Western civilization. Rich white men have imposed their ideas because of their wealth and through the use of force. Rich white nations imposed their rule on benighted people of color around the world. For this sin of imperialism they must forever be regarded as morally stained and presumptively wrong. Our covert enemies go quickly from the notion that all societies are morally equal to the notion that all societies are morally equal except ours, which is worse.

These are the ideas that have been transmitted over a long generation by the elites who run our universities and our schools, and who dominate our mainstream media. They teach an American history with the good parts left out and the bad parts emphasized. We are taught that some of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders -- and are left ignorant of their proclamations of universal liberties and human rights. We are taught that Japanese-Americans were interned in World War II -- and not that American military forces liberated millions from tyranny. To be sure, the great mass of Americans tend to resist these teachings. By the millions they buy and read serious biographies of the Founders and accounts of the Greatest Generation. But the teachings of our covert enemies have their effect.

Of course, this distorts history. We are taught that American slavery was the most evil institution in human history. But every society in history has had slavery. Only one society set out to and did abolish it. The movement to abolish first the slave trade and then slavery was not started by the reason-guided philosophies of 18th century France. It was started, as Adam Hochschild documents in his admirable book "Bury the Chains," by Quakers and Evangelical Christians in Britain, followed in time by similar men and women in America. The slave trade was ended not by Africans, but by the Royal Navy, with aid from the U.S. Navy even before the Civil War.

Nevertheless, the default assumption of our covert enemies is that in any conflict between the West and the Rest, the West is wrong. That assumption can be rebutted by overwhelming fact: Few argued for the Taliban after Sept. 11. But in our continuing struggles, our covert enemies portray our work in Iraq through the lens of Abu Ghraib and consider Israel's self-defense against Hezbollah as the oppression of virtuous victims by evil men. In World War II, our elites understood that we were the forces of good and that victory was essential. Today, many of our elites subject our military and intelligence actions to fine-tooth-comb analysis and find that they are morally repugnant.

We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few until the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes. They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools and mainstream media to the point that they are the default assumptions of millions. Our covert enemies don't want the Islamo-fascists to win. But in some corner of their hearts, they would like us to lose.

RoyK
08-22-2006, 09:21 AM
first of all, thanks for showing sensitivity to the innocent Lebanese civilians and Lebanese governent during this masquerade of hell.


I'm sorry, I don't understand whether this sentence is cynical or not... But if so or not so, I want to clarify that no Israeli perceives Lebanon or the Lebanese people as the enemy. For the average Israeli, the Hizbollah is the enemy, and no one dances on the rooftops here when innocent Lebanese die.

Further, my personal point of view is that the Lebanese government is not a complete victim, since it had the responsibility of disarming the Hizbollah and reclaiming the South. By not doing so, and even more by not atleast trying to do so, they can't claim no responsibility for military attack on a sovereign state from within Lebanese territory.

Neil Mick
08-22-2006, 10:24 AM
I'm sorry, I don't understand whether this sentence is cynical or not... But if so or not so, I want to clarify that no Israeli perceives Lebanon or the Lebanese people as the enemy. For the average Israeli, the Hizbollah is the enemy, and no one dances on the rooftops here when innocent Lebanese die.

Roy, I wish that this were so. Perhaps it is, in Israel. Unfortunately, I have read a few personal remarks that suggest otherwise. There are actually a few twisted souls out there who think that the Lebanese people are responsible, and deserve to die.

I won't quote them here, because their words turn my stomach.

Further, my personal point of view is that the Lebanese government is not a complete victim, since it had the responsibility of disarming the Hizbollah and reclaiming the South. By not doing so, and even more by not atleast trying to do so, they can't claim no responsibility for military attack on a sovereign state from within Lebanese territory.

In the ME, no one is a complete victim. The region is a complicated place. However, the idea that the Lebanese gov't should try to disarm Hizbollah ignores the reality on the ground. The Lebanese army is mostly Shia. If the Lebanese gov't were to try and disarm Hizbollah: there would be civil war.

Hogan
08-22-2006, 01:56 PM
In re the posts of Neil Mick:


Our covert enemies
By Michael Barone
Monday, August 21, 2006
.... they would like us to lose.

Great article - spot on.

Ron Tisdale
08-22-2006, 02:03 PM
Amir, my best wishes to you and yours, stay safe in this time of trouble. Glad you returned safely.

Best,
Ron

Mark Gibbons
08-22-2006, 02:48 PM
In re the posts of Neil Mick:

Our covert enemies
By Michael Barone
Monday, August 21, 2006

.

The article wandered, was sloppy with facts and seemed devoid of logic. It seems unlikely to convince anyone not already converted. I don't see how it applies to anything Neil has posted except by a wild stretch of the imagination. The title of the post makes it personal and the post looks like an attempt to harass. In all a real waste of bandwidth.

Regards,
Mark

Mike Sigman
08-22-2006, 02:51 PM
The article wandered, was sloppy with facts and seemed devoid of logic. It seems unlikely to convince anyone not already converted. I don't see how it applies to anything Neil has posted I think you just made the connection with Neil's posts.

Mike Sigman

RoyK
08-22-2006, 03:35 PM
The article wandered, was sloppy with facts and seemed devoid of logic.

I don't think it was any worse than most editorials I read on newspapers or online.

I have to admit I was appalled with the general attitude of the Leftist/Liberal public. Despite the fact that the recent conflict wasn't a straight forward one, I failed to find a single liberal columnist who frankly discussed the issue. Everyone seems to fall back on the old Israel bashing rhetorics, regardless of the real complexities of the situation at hand.

The fact that the modern Left became biased, absent minded and thick headed just as their conservative counterparts was proven to me in this recent conflict. The article just tries to explain (with plenty of dubious guesswork) how all this came to be.

Mike Sigman
08-22-2006, 07:21 PM
Ari Fleischer To Jimmy Carter: You’re Music To Hezbollah’s Ears
August 22, 2006 at 4:46 pm

Extreme Mortman has a copy of the letter Ari Fleischer sent to Jimmy Carter.

Some favorite passages:

I just read the transcript of your interview with the German magazine, Der Spiegel, in which you accuse Israel of launching an “unjustified attack on Lebanon.”

Even after the interviewer reminded you that Israel was the first to get attacked, you charged Israel with lacking “any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon.”

As someone who served in the White House as a spokesman for a President, I am reluctant to criticize another President, but in this instance my conscience compels me to do so.

Mr. President, your words are music to Hezbollah’s ears and your message is a blow to long-term peace.

Just as you underestimated the threat of the Soviet Union in the 1970s, you underestimate the threat of radical Islam today. Your condemnation of Israel, the victim, only encourages Hezbollah, the attacker, to bide its time and attack again.


I’m sorry to see you articulate about Hezbollah and its aggression the same weak world-view that encouraged Soviet aggression. As Ronald Reagan showed us, peace through strength is the only formulation understood by those bent on destruction.

I understand your longing for peace and your fond hope that Hezbollah can be reasoned with. However, when you call Israel’s defense “an attack”, when you call what is justified “unjustified”, and when you call morality immoral, I conclude that the pro-defense, strong foreign policy lessons of the 70s and 80s remain unacceptable to you. Also, when you criticize Israel for targeting so-called “civilian” areas in Beirut and other areas where Hezbollah hides its operations, the result would be – if Israel listened to you – the creation of safe havens from which more violence and rocket attacks would be planned and launched.

Sadly, Hezbollah today is planning its next war. For the sake of peace, Israel deserves your praise, not your condemnation.

Neil Mick
08-22-2006, 07:53 PM
OK, so I did a search for the article in question: and, all I gotta say is :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I don't think it was any worse than most editorials I read on newspapers or online.

Oh, please: I can understand Mikey falling for the "Islamo-fascist network" nonsense: but I figured you'd know better, Roy.

IFN's (for short) are a stupid, "bolshevik's-are-lurking-in-your-bathroom" bugaboo. The concept is an oversimplification of Muslim extremism (as opposed to Christian extremism, or Israeli extremism...both of which seem lodged in sectors of our mutual gov't's).

I'm sure you know that, say: Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda are not some component of a "network." They all have separate goals, separate interests, separate methods.

Sure, they share a similar dislike of the US (many would argue, with good reason): but to lump them together is the same sort of syntactical error that many Rightwing pundits made (in '01-'04), in trying to claim that OBL and Hussein were secretly allies, when they were bitter enemies, of course. It's an oversimplification.

Next, the article applies the tired old "they hate us, because they hate freedom" saw: ignoring the pronouncements of OBL for why 9-11 was planned in the first place. Ah, how short-lived the memory, of Rightwing apologists. A pity the extremists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video) do not share the same aphasia.

The tape also contains bin Laden's first public acknowledgement of al-Qaida's involvement in the attacks on the U.S., noting that he first thought about attacking the World Trade Center in 1982, after watching Israeli aircraft bomb Lebanon during the 1982 Invasion of Lebanon:

"While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women."

He also admits for the first time a direct link to the attacks, saying that they were carried out because "we are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation". Bin Laden threatens further retaliation against the U.S., noting that the conditions which provoked the 2001 attacks still exists and compares America to "corrupt" Arab governments.

Offering a weak apology for "history's bias," Barone lock-step's toward the pat fearmongering of "our covert enemies."

Sad, that those who cannot understand the content of my posts fall toward their knee-jerk fear: "Yer either fer us, or agin' us." :rolleyes:

Sad, but not surprising.

I have to admit I was appalled with the general attitude of the Leftist/Liberal public. Despite the fact that the recent conflict wasn't a straight forward one, I failed to find a single liberal columnist who frankly discussed the issue. Everyone seems to fall back on the old Israel bashing rhetorics, regardless of the real complexities of the situation at hand.

Then, I humbly submit that you have not been looking, that hard.

I found this article, after a short google-search:

Adel Darwish (http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=6096)
(unfamiliar with this author, but in reading a review of his books: he co-wrote a book critical of the US gov't and int'l powers, blaming them for the rise of Hussein, at al, in the '90's. I suppose you could call this "Liberal")

Unsuccessfully, I tried to put forward my basic controversial points, which were the following:

- Differentiating between those who undermine the sovereignty of the Lebanese state by arming religious militias and those who offer billions of dollars to support the Lebanese economy and the reconstruction of Lebanon.

- Two questions for President Bashar al Assad:

1- Based on his support for the right of "resistance" to extend beyond the state, would any Syrian party be allowed to go to the occupied Golan Heights without authorization from the Baath party even to launch missiles that it had obtained from another country towards Israel?

2- During his reign and that of his father, why was not one bullet fired to "liberate" the Golan Heights for 33 years?

- Provoking Israelis with propaganda regarding their elimination from the region would obstruct peaceful settlement and lead to a regional war especially since the Palestinians have signed peace agreements.

Finally, I would like to highlight a thought that has been on my mind for a while and that is the impossibility of the coexistence of democracy, liberalism and legality with the fascist model of Arab Baathism and nationalism that imposes "Arabism" on other races and ethnicities in the region. This model only accepts its own chauvinistic Nazi vision and imposes its totalitarian dictatorship whilst there is no place for freedom of the individual, pluralism or even civilized conversation with others.

The repetition of the combined phenomenon, raising Goebbles from his grave through the image of Ahmed Said or Mohammed al Sahhaf or whoever follows their paths, is attributed to the role of the media, the short experience of which does not suit its massive funding and fails to obtain such experience in a competitive free market. This phenomenon uses fascist totalitarianism and threatens to eliminate what features remain of democracy and peace in the region. This phenomenon may be the cause of another war such as that through which Lebanon has survived in which civilians from both sides; most notably women and children, have paid the highest price.

And this blog... (http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/aug/07/the_war_israel_lebanon_from_here_brooklyn)

If there is any opportunity now, it's to re-engage and push the Israelis and the Palestinians toward some sort of a negotiated agreement. As one Palestinian analyst told me when I met with him in Ramallah two weeks ago, the Hezbollah action is not in the name of the Palestinians; it is a distraction. It's time for the U.S. to be a real ally to Israel; solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem so that Israel can fight the real fights it faces. As we enter into the election season, it would be most helpful if those politicians who will talk about how much they support Israel do so by strongly, strongly suggesting that she resolve the Israeli-Palestinian situation, and move to a viable two-state solution. Israel has wasted too many decades, aided by the U.S., in not resolving that problem.

In point of fact, there is a great deal of diversity of opinion within the Left. Among some sectors, it's almost a wedge-issue.

P.S. Oh yeah: there's this article: (http://www.alternet.org/story/40598/) which thought made a good point (you may/may not agree, of course).

Mike Sigman
08-22-2006, 07:59 PM
Er, I think what Neil is really stuttering and stammering around is the fact that he cannot explain how Michael Barrone of U.S. News & World Report, who doesn't even know Neil, was able to describe Neil to a "T".

Mike

Luc X Saroufim
08-23-2006, 06:39 AM
I'm sorry, I don't understand whether this sentence is cynical or not... But if so or not so, I want to clarify that no Israeli perceives Lebanon or the Lebanese people as the enemy. For the average Israeli, the Hizbollah is the enemy, and no one dances on the rooftops here when innocent Lebanese die.

Further, my personal point of view is that the Lebanese government is not a complete victim, since it had the responsibility of disarming the Hizbollah and reclaiming the South. By not doing so, and even more by not atleast trying to do so, they can't claim no responsibility for military attack on a sovereign state from within Lebanese territory.

i was not being cynical, i appreciate your sensitivity; i think looking at both sides is the true way of seeing the coin.

Mike Sigman
08-24-2006, 09:22 PM
From the blog "Volokh Conspiracy":

[David Bernstein, August 22, 2006 at 9:57pm] 0 Trackbacks /
The Decline of Amnesty International:

Ha'aretz:
"[In a report accusing Israel of war crimes, Amnesty International] accused Israel of applying an overly broad interpretation of what constituted a military objective when it attacked power plants, bridges, main roads, seaports and Beirut's international airport, all of which are 'presumed to be civilian.'"

I'm no military expert, but every book, movie, documentary, etc., I've ever seen on war assumes that at least bridges [how many WWII movies have a scene focused on taking a bridge?], roads and seaports are important military targets, and in modern times I'd have to put airports on that list, too. The idea that a country at war can't attack the enemy's resupply routes (at least until it has direct evidence that there is a particular military shipment arriving) has nothing to do with human rights or war crimes, and a lot to do with a pacifist attitude that seeks to make war, regardless of the justification for it or the restraint in prosecuting it [at least if it's a Western country doing it], an international "crime."* Not to mention that the Beirut airport was only temporarily shut down with minor damage, and is already reopen. [If Amnesty International wants to make the case that the Party of God would not and could not use any of the relevant targets for resupply, and Israel knew it, that's a different story, but I'd love to see such evidence, which, to say the least, would be counter-intuitive.]

I also have to question the "high number of civilian casualties" that Amnesty is reportedly relying on. Any innocent civilian death are tragic, but 1,000 or so (alleged, we don't really know) civilians in a month of urban warfare against an enemy that based itself in the middle of cities and villages hardly seems excessive by any objective standard. The idea that Israel deliberately targeted civilians should be self-refuting to anyone with common sense, given the low level of casualties relative to the destructive power of the Israeli air force.

I once generally admired Amnesty when it focused on protecting political dissidents on the like, but, like many other NGOs, it seems now to have simply become part of the international far Left, and should be seen in that light.

UPDATE: Does it change things from a human rights or "international law" perspective that Israel was in effect "at war" with the Party of God, not Lebanon? As a moral matter, I don't see why it should, especially because (a) the Party of God is operating from Lebanese sovereign territory, and is part of the Lebanese government and (b) Israel only has an armistice agreement with Lebanon, and the two countries are technically (that is, legally) still at war. If someone nevertheless wants to explain in the comments why it should matter, I'm all ears.

FURTHER UPDATE: This article by Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch is also revealing. Roth claims that international humanitarian law required Israel to "treat[] Lebanese civilians as human beings whose lives are as valuable as Israelis'." Can you imagine any government doing this? In other words, a terrorist group in Gaza or Lebanon is attacking Israeli civilian targets. According to Roth's logic, Israel can only retaliate if it's retaliation will cost no more civilian lives in Gaza or Lebanon than would be caused by the terrorists if Israel didn't try to stop them. This is a formula that would paralyze not only Israel, but the U.S., Russian, India, and any other country that feels the need to pursue a military response to terrorism. Surely, the Allied forces inadvertantly killed more Afghan civilians than the number of Westerners likely at immediate risk from Al Qaeda and the Taliban! The type of "international law" and "human rights" activism that Roth and co. represent is scrupulously amoral in failing to consider that the aggressor should be held responsible for the deaths on both sides, as you can't expect any nation to allow its civilians to be attacked and not retaliate militarily. And it's also ridiculously utopian, in the sense that it expects citizens of a democratic polity to value the lives of civilians on the other side, including civilians who openly support terrorist enemies, as highly as their own, their family's and their countrymen's.

*Relevant excerpt from the Amnesty report: "However, even if it could be argued that some of these objects could qualify as military objectives (because they serve a dual purpose), Israel is obligated to ensure that attacking these objects would not violate the principle of proportionality. For example, a road that can be used for military transport is still primarily civilian in nature. The military advantage anticipated from destroying the road must be measured against the likely effect on civilians, especially the most vulnerable, such as those requiring urgent medical attention."

In other words, no country can ever attack road, port, bridge, etc., facilities used by an irregular, guerrilla army, because by the very nature of such an army, these facilities will primarily be used by civilians. Or, put another way, a country at war must sacrifice the lives of its own soldiers and perhaps civilians by avoiding attacking military targets that are also used by civilians, unless you can come up with some sort of cockamamie calculation that somehow proves that the military benefit is greater than the harm to the other side's civilians. I'm sure there are people out there who believe this, but again, this is a highly ideological position that reflects a strongly pacifist sentiment, and should not be confused with the sort of objective human rights standard (e.g., don't lock up someone for writing a newspaper article critical of the government) that all "liberals" of good will could agree on.

Luc X Saroufim
08-25-2006, 12:35 PM
Mike,

you do realize the entire EU, the entire UN, every Arab state (including Sunni), and most of the world has considered Israel's attack a criminal one.

all, except the United States. Bush counts on naive people like you.

you asked for links: here they are. who's the terrorist, now?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/world/middleeast/25lebanon.html

and here is what Israel did to these people anyway. the damage is monstrous, Mike. the entire nation is crippled, and 99% of the people affected are completely innocent.

what's most disgusting is how Israeli soldiers continued on disrespecting the land, basically spitting on the Lebanese people, and kicking them while they're down. do you think they were any more respectful when they were firing bombs?

"They took the imam's car and returned it completely ruined," said Muhammad Hamoud, 40, the village mayor. "They want us to be afraid."

Much of a building that used to house 18 people was torn apart. One room was scarred by an explosion, and others were filled with overturned furniture, garbage, crumpled packets of Israeli cigarettes and slurs written over a picture of the Imam Musa al-Sadr, an Iraqi-born cleric who is revered by downtrodden Lebanese Shiites. (He disappeared in Libya in 1978.) Hussein Hussein, 66, who owns the building, said Israeli soldiers had thrown a television set into a well.

"The water in the well is spoiled now," Mr. Hussein said. Similar damage could be seen in other southern towns. In Khiam, the Israelis smashed the water tanks and pipes, said the deputy mayor, Muhammad Abdullah, 45. Residents now rely on tanks brought in by aid groups. About 800 of the 4,000 homes in Khiam were destroyed, he said. An additional 800 were heavily damaged, and nearly all of the others needed repairs. !!!!!!!!

EVERY SINGLE HOUSE IN THE VILLAGE, Mike.



United Nations peacekeepers estimate that 80 percent of the civilian houses had been destroyed in Taibe, 50 percent in Markaba and Qantara, 30 percent in Mais al Jabel. They reported that in one of the final battles, when Israeli paratroopers assaulted Ghanduriye, 80 percent of the houses were destroyed.

does that sound "tactical" to you, Mike? considering Hezbollah only has about 3000 people diluting MILLIONS of innocent civilians?

International aid agencies have documented enormous damage to wells, water mains, pumping stations and water treatment plants, and damage to pipes under destroyed roads. The agencies fear such conditions could lead to diarrhea and cholera. The Red Cross warns that many villages still lack clean water.

Electrical facilities, power plants and fuel stations have been damaged extensively. By the time the cease-fire was announced, southern Lebanon was without power, except for individual generators that depend on gas, also in short supply.





go ahead and continue thinking that bridges, railroads, and airports were what Israeli's were targetting.


Not to mention that every Israeli citizen i know in person is extremely disappointed in the behaviour of its government during the fighting. Back in the homeland, they're protesting outside Olmert's building.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/world/middleeast/25israel.html


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/world/middleeast/25sunnis.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

that's the article proving how not only was most of southern Lebanon helpless, but also politically against, Hezbollah.

Mike Sigman
08-25-2006, 12:44 PM
Mike,

you do realize the entire EU, the entire UN, every Arab state (including Sunni), and most of the world has considered Israel's attack a criminal one. No, I don't realize that. Cite? There are some popularity polls, but nothing about "criminal". Every speaker I've seen has been forced to admit that Hezbollah broke international law in a number of ways and that Israel can of course defend itself. The definition of "proportionality" was brought up and used by the press a lot, but then dropped because it is ridiculous. Just like your assertions. I realize that you think that Israel should not defend itself and should just allow Islam to kill the country and every Jew in it, but that's a thought process I thought (mistakenly) the Arabs had their fill of in World War II when they tried to deny their relationships to Germany.all, except the United States. Bush counts on naive people like you. Oh, boo hoo. I can't help it if I'm naive. It's genetic and I had a bad childhood. you asked for links: here they are. who's the terrorist, now? [[snip]] Oh stoppit. Everybody is getting tired of lying Arab "victimhood". Even the Qana incident has proved to be so bogus that the press won't even mention it. My ancient, saintly grandmother used to have a saying that covers situations like this: "Screw 'em".

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Luc X Saroufim
08-25-2006, 12:54 PM
No, I don't realize that. Cite?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/world/middleeast/24lebanon.html

Inquiry Opened Into Israeli Use of U.S. Bombs
By DAVID S. CLOUD
Published: August 25, 2006
The State Department is investigating whether Israel's use of cluster bombs in Lebanon violated agreements with the U.S., officials said.

there's the title of that article that they won't let me access.

that's TWO from TODAY's paper. let alone countless other articles regarding the issue since the war began.


where's YOUR proof? haven't you been accused of this before?

Luc X Saroufim
08-25-2006, 12:55 PM
My ancient, saintly grandmother

probably taught you how to ignore a plethory of evidence against your argument, and talk to others like a douchebag.

i'm through with your blind faith.

Mike Sigman
08-25-2006, 01:21 PM
where's YOUR proof? haven't you been accused of this before?Is this some sort of joke? You equate an "inquiry" with the unprovoked crossing of international boundaries to commit war crimes against Israel? Are you insane? Do you think the attacks, kidnappings, and murders by Hezbollah were legal????? Even Neil Mick isn't that crazy.

Mike Sigman

Luc X Saroufim
08-25-2006, 01:31 PM
Is this some sort of joke? You equate an "inquiry" with the unprovoked crossing of international boundaries to commit war crimes against Israel?

first of all i'm sorry for what i said. obviously i got emotional. to be honest with you, my parents and i were initially thrilled at the chance to wipe out hezbollah from lebanon. but my thrill turned to horror when not only was my country getting bombed back to the stone age, but the IDF wasn't getting the job done either.

i don't have much of a reason to hate Israel, but i certainly have a huge grip against the IDF. and i'm sure most Israeli citizens agree with me.

Hezbollah, IMO, are nothing but troublemakers for Lebanon and Israel. I'm sure that much we can hopefully agree on. I'm not defending Hezbollah by any means, i'm going directly against what you're saying about how Israel was *fully* justified in levelling an entire nation. partially, maybe, but your defense is highly one sided.

Are you insane? Do you think the attacks, kidnappings, and murders by Hezbollah were legal????? Even Neil Mick isn't that crazy.

Israel does the same exact things. so did Hamas, and Hezbollah. this argument is moot and dead: we all do it. why bother pointing fingers regarding this specific issue.

Ron Tisdale
08-25-2006, 01:45 PM
Heck, even the US has been known to kidnap the odd terrorist or two, and fly them around the globe a bit to keep their where abouts unknown.

You can do that when you are a super power...

Ron (yech, sometimes I really don't like the reality of the world)

Mike Sigman
08-25-2006, 01:50 PM
Israel does the same exact things. so did Hamas, and Hezbollah. this argument is moot and dead: we all do it. why bother pointing fingers regarding this specific issue.No, Israel does NOT do "the exact same things". If all the Arab countries would quit attacking Israel, Israel would do nothing. There would be peace in the region. This moral relativism that somehow Israel attacks Arab countries, uses human bombs, deliberately attacks civilians, lies at every agreement, etc., like the Arabs do is wrong, even to a casual observer. Like many people I used to try to think even-handedly about the Arabs and Israel... no longer. We have an Islamic problem. As long as Islamic people keep justifying it, they put themselves in the same boat. Which means they deserve whatever ultimate solution Islam brings on itself. You need to start by being able to scream at Arabs every time they start or do something wrong. Trying to make it "equal" is what is turning so many people against Islamic people. (Well, except for our Jew-haters who still hope that WWII can be continued with a pogrom or two).

FWIW

Mike

Luc X Saroufim
08-25-2006, 02:10 PM
No, Israel does NOT do "the exact same things". If all the Arab countries would quit attacking Israel, Israel would do nothing.

uhhh Mike,

Hamas and Hezbollah both got started as a result of Israeli occupation. Sure, Palestinians can stop attacking Israel, but they have a right to a home and a bed, don't they?

and i can't stand Hezbollah, but i can't blame them, either. southern Lebanon got pounded and occupied in the early 80's. you plant a seed, water it, and it will grow.

yes, this is my one-sided Arab point of view. Israel deserves peace, health, and prosperity. they are surrounded by people that hate them, and should use force when necessary.

just keep in mind that when there's over 30 years of continuous war, no one is innocent.








(Well, except for our Jew-haters who still hope that WWII can be continued with a pogrom or two).

FWIW

Mike

Mike,

"Jew Hater" is such a harsh term. you're throwing it around too loosely. i don't think anybody here hates jews, especially in the literal sense of the word. plus your mentioning of WWII implies that we got some Nazi's in here, which just isn't true.

Mike Sigman
08-25-2006, 02:22 PM
Hamas and Hezbollah both got started as a result of Israeli occupation. Sure, Palestinians can stop attacking Israel, but they have a right to a home and a bed, don't they? Er, without arguing ancient history (let's not forget that "Jew" is a word derived from "Judea", their homeland, which the Arabs try to call "The West Bank" to hide the fact).... you just basically said that Arabs have a "right ot a home and a bed" and that justifies attacking Israel. We have a right to peace in the world... does that justify killing the war-starting and primitive Arabs? Be careful of your reasoning; it works 2 ways, not just against the Jews.just keep in mind that when there's over 30 years of continuous war, no one is innocent. Israel has not done a single unprovoked attack against the Arabs. To say, once again, that they are somehow "equal in their misdeeds" is wrong. If you can only argue emotion... do you think that puts you on the side of logic and good? Or do you think it puts you on the side of chaos? "Jew Hater" is such a harsh term. you're throwing it around too loosely. i don't think anybody here hates jews, especially in the literal sense of the word. plus your mentioning of WWII implies that we got some Nazi's in here, which just isn't true. The Koran calls Jews "pigs" and suggests killing them. It is built-in hate against a specific group of people. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we? I think it will help speed the world to a resolution of the Islam crisis if we stop pretending that being nice to the Arabs, etc., will make them turn nice. It has never happened in all of history. The brief lull of the break-up of the Ottoman Empire is now over... the war with the West has begun again. Let the Muslims start calling out the misdeeds of their own people instead of always blaming the Jews and the West, would be my suggestion. People have noticed that Muslim voices against Muslim misdeeds are very faint and that the misdeeds only appear to be getting worse... and that is not anyone's doing but the Arab world's.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Amir Krause
08-27-2006, 08:19 AM
Israel has not done a single unprovoked attack against the Arabs

Sorry Mike, but this is not stricly true historicly.

Even as an Israeli I know Israel initiated the 56 war against Egypt. Israel did have more then one justification, including multiple penetrations of "Fedayun" (the 1950s name for Arab terrorists) into Israel (note, this was long before the 1967 occupation of Gaza and "Western Bank" / Juda & Shumaria ).

Yet, The historical fact is that Israel intitiated this attack with the urging of France and the UK. The main Israeli reason was to pre-empt against the Egyptians arms-race which Israel could not have faced at the time.

Thus, if one so chooses, he could find Arab provocation as the reasoning for the 56 war, but Israe did choose its war and the reasons for the war were not a specific provocation.



The same could be said with regard to most of the Israeli military operations in the Lebanese border. At 1978, 1982-2000 and the last "war". There were significant provocations that drove the Israeli public to support these operations for their first few days, but, the provocations were not the reasons for the war.

The reason for the current war was the Lebanese inability to disarm Hezbollah, which has become a real threat to Israeli security. Hezbollah became a threat Israel could not continue to grow. Further, a continuation of provocations since the 2000 Israeli retreat from all the Lebanese territoriy (even the UN approved this), has proven HA has every intention to continue harrasing Israel and kill Israelis. HA knew a full blown war would destroy it and thus prefered attacking Israel in small scale operations and asked for a "cease fire" immidiatly after each operation, until HA would be ready to attack again.


In the last few days, there are also multiple reports of Israeli soldiers from the battles, those soldiers were very frustrated since they saw HA observers targeting them from Mosque tops and populated areas, yet, when they asked for support fire (artilary or air) they were refused since the source of the fire was concidered "civilian". Thus Luc, I guess even the description of destruction is relative.

Further, some of the descriptions you gave seem to be of houses destryed due to HA fire on them, while the Israeli soldiers were inside (HA used anti-tank missiles in quantities larger then most armies have).


Amir

P.S.


I am was trying to find out about the precentage of Israeli Arabs who died in the last war. Was there some kind of neglect and discrimination as Neal claimed?
and if there was, who is to blame?

So far I found out the following facts:
a. About 50% of the Israeli civilian casualities in this war were Arabs.
b. Slightly less then 50% of the population in the areas attacked is Arab (it is difficult to estimate since this depends on the definition of the areas attacked and I have not seen any exact statistic about it, further one should decide if he counts the Druz and Cherkes populations as Arab, or does he only count the Muslims - saw some such casuality numbers which ignored the christian Arabs).
c. There is not any reliable statistic with regard to the number of people who remained in the Israeli North. Thus there is no distinctive statistic with Regard to Jews and Arabs.

due to the above, any attempt of accusing anyone based on disproportional casuality numbers should be seen with very sceptical eyes.


The Sheltering for Arabs is gnerally considered as less adequate. After being unable to find reliable data on who is responsible for public shelters construction, I asked about this in a lawyers forum, and was told the responsible party is the local councils, which have to finance and planing the shelter (planing= ground allocation - not engineering). Turns out the Israeli Military and defence ministry
only defines criteria for proper sheltering, and there the responsibility ends. The Local counciles in the Arab settlments are Arab, thus there is no justification for the scream of "discrimination"!

I started thinking of the larger combined cities, but at those areas, many houses have Jews in one apartment and Arabs in the next. Thus, no discrimination with regard to sheltering is possible. The only segregated areas are very old neighberhoods. But in those areas, I doubt it is technicly possible to build a shelter due to the density of those places. As a matter of fact, the ambulance drivers had a great problem in entering such an old neighberhood in Nazerth when it was hit. I doubt the locals would had been supportive of their local council had it sent several large tractors and trucks to build a public shelter two years ago, when the possibility of a missile attacking seemed ridiculus, and the likelihood of it falling on an Arabic populated area seemed even thiner.

Actually, many people who stayed in north Israel did not go to the public shelter, they had their own private shelter built as one of the rooms of their apartment. This type of sheltering has been mandated by law since 1992, and any house built or significantly renovated since then should have such a shelter. Again, the Gov. placed the obligation on the people, and the Gov. remains blamless.


Another claim raised was about the lack of computerized warning system in Nazerth for the first attack on the city. The Israeli army built a very complex computerized alert system and it had not been installed there. At first I thought this was an issue of discrimination, but then I read in Haaretz (the Israeli Liberal paper which normally throws such accusations at the army) the reason for not connecting the system was a refusal of the ity counsil, since the system automaticly operates a siren on the national memorial day. Surprise, but once again, no discrimination.


I did find one definite issue of discrimination. It took the army and Governement several weeks until they remembered to issue explenations of "proper civil defense behavior" in languages other then Hebrew. Personaly I find this issue to repeatedly be one of the most disterbing in the Israeli Govt. behavior towards our Arab civilians. Unlike the US, Israel has official language - Hebrew, and second languge - Arabic. Yet, most signs and documents the Govt. is responsible for can be found in Hebrew and English, not in Arabic. One should point out other minorities in Israel such as the Jewish newly immigrants from Russia and Ethyopya (two distinct largecommunities) had similar problems, thus one should doubt this was a deliberate act of discrimination and should consider it as more of neglection.


My final result is the Israeli Govt. did perform minor discrimination against Arabs, but mostly by neglect. Yet most of the responsibility for sheltering themselvs lies on the Arabs (just like it does for the Jews). The Israeli govt. main fault is in trasnfering duties it should have had, to other parties which in some cases were not up to the task, and in not supporting any of the population.


I have read some claims of much more severe discrimination with regard to compensations. And I know of a very big problem with many Arab villages and town with regard to overall planing.

Mike Sigman
08-27-2006, 08:42 AM
Sorry Mike, but this is not stricly true historicly.

Even as an Israeli I know Israel initiated the 56 war against Egypt. Israel did have more then one justification, including multiple penetrations of "Fedayun" (the 1950s name for Arab terrorists) into Israel (note, this was long before the 1967 occupation of Gaza and "Western Bank" / Juda & Shumaria ).

Yet, The historical fact is that Israel intitiated this attack with the urging of France and the UK. Hi Amir:

I as careful to say "unprovoked". Israel was certainly "provoked" in 1956. Your problem is that Israel is so used to being blamed by the Europeans and Arabs for everything wrong in the Middle East that you've come to accept the blame and think the 1956 war was "unprovoked".

Even though Egypt and some other countries (Jordan was one, IIRC) signed a formal "armistice" treaty in 1949, hostilities toward Irsrael continued. The first manifestation of this was the closing of the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping. On August 9, 1949, the UN Mixed Armistice Commission upheld Israel's complaint that Egypt was illegally blocking the canal.

On September 1, 1951, the Security Council ordered Egypt to open the Canal to Israeli shipping. Egypt refused to comply.

The Egyptian Foreign Minister, Muhammad Salah al-Din, said early in 1954:

The Arab people will not be embarrassed to declare: We shall not be satisfied except by the final obliteration of Israel from the map of the Middle East (Al-Misri, April 12, 1954).

In 1955, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser began to import arms from the Soviet Bloc to build his arsenal for the confrontation with Israel. In the short-term, however, he employed a new tactic to prosecute Egypt's war with Israel. He announced it on August 31, 1955:

Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of Pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the land of Palestine....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death.

Then came the "fedayeen" attacks on Israel. The terrorist attacks violated the armistice agreement provision that prohibited the initiation of hostilities by paramilitary forces; nevertheless, it was Israel that was condemned by the UN Security Council for its counterattacks.

The escalation continued with the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran, and Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956. On October 14, Nasser made clear his intent:

I am not solely fighting against Israel itself. My task is to deliver the Arab world from destruction through Israel's intrigue, which has its roots abroad. Our hatred is very strong. There is no sense in talking about peace with Israel. There is not even the smallest place for negotiations.

Less than two weeks later, on October 25, Egypt signed a tripartite agreement with Syria and Jordan placing Nasser in command of all three armies.

The continued blockade of the Suez Canal and Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, combined with the increased fedayeen attacks and the bellicosity of recent Arab statements, prompted Israel, with the backing of Britain and France, to attack Egypt on October 29, 1956.

Israeli Ambassador to the UN Abba Eban explained the provocations to the Security Council on October 30:

During the six years during which this belligerency has operated in violation of the Armistice Agreement there have occurred 1,843 cases of armed robbery and theft, 1,339 cases of armed clashes with Egyptian armed forces, 435 cases of incursion from Egyptian controlled territory, 172 cases of sabotage perpetrated by Egyptian military units and fedayeen in Israel. As a result of these actions of Egyptian hostility within Israel, 364 Israelis were wounded and 101 killed. In 1956 alone, as a result of this aspect of Egyptian aggression, 28 Israelis were killed and 127 wounded.

Would anyone reading the above say that Israel committed an "unprovoked" attack. Only someone listening to the whisper of malificence.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Luc X Saroufim
08-28-2006, 09:18 PM
In the last few days, there are also multiple reports of Israeli soldiers from the battles, those soldiers were very frustrated since they saw HA observers targeting them from Mosque tops and populated areas, yet, when they asked for support fire (artilary or air) they were refused since the source of the fire was concidered "civilian". Thus Luc, I guess even the description of destruction is relative.

Further, some of the descriptions you gave seem to be of houses destryed due to HA fire on them, while the Israeli soldiers were inside (HA used anti-tank missiles in quantities larger then most armies have).


Amir


that's definitely a good point. i didn't mean to sound so one-sided before; i just think Mike found the right buttons to push ;)


however, i wouldn't use statistics to prove a point. here's why:

1200 Lebanese dead, most of them civilians. 1/3 were children . 400 dead kids in one month? most casualties were civilians?

not to mention 5000 wounded Lebanese, no clean water in most of Southern Lebanon, no power in most of Lebanon, and Hezbollah standing strong.

this is why you can't talk statistics. you specifically stated that Israel attacked because of security concerns regarding Hezbollah.

if we went by the statistics, Israel invaded Lebanon to turn back the clock 30 years, and kill every civilian that got in the way. hardly the motive, no?

bottom line: IDF was sloppy, to say the least. they're not war criminals, they're not barbarians, but they are sloppy. imagine your wife giving you a grocery list; one month later, you come back, with a boatload of groceries, but none of them was on the list.

just check the statistics :D

Mike Sigman
08-28-2006, 09:40 PM
however, i wouldn't use statistics to prove a point. here's why:

1200 Lebanese dead, most of them civilians. 1/3 were children . 400 dead kids in one month? most casualties were civilians?

not to mention 5000 wounded Lebanese, no clean water in most of Southern Lebanon, no power in most of Lebanon, and Hezbollah standing strong. But see, this is the one-sided crap that makes everyone think that Arabs are simply dishonest. You don't mention that Hezbollah started it, that they fired rockets from in the middle of civilian populations, deliberately putting their own countrymen to death just so guys like you and Mick Neal can make bad noises about the Israelis (maybe this is all Arab civilians are good for? Is that what you would agree to?), they shot rockets into Israeli civilian targets where there were no military and they loaded the rockets with ball-bearings so more people would be maimed and killed, etc., etc. And you still want to blame the Israelis? As I said, I used to have some concern about being honest and even-handed about the Arabs and Israelis, but we've now seen up close for decades that Arabs lie, don't keep bargains, continually attack Israel time and again, etc., etc. I'm not particularly pro-Israeli, but I've definitely gotten tired of the myth of the nice-guy Arabs if only you got to know them. It's a completely different culture where lying is an admired part of life. What is there to admire about Islam, seriously? They haven't contributed anything positive to civilazation for more than 3 centuries. Maybe instead of worrying what Israel, the US, and the West are doing wrong, maybe Islam should worry more about itself. I'd ask the Eurabians to help worry about Islam, but they're already being taken over. ;)

Mike

Luc X Saroufim
08-29-2006, 07:02 AM
But see, this is the one-sided crap that makes everyone think that Arabs are simply dishonest. You don't mention that Hezbollah started it...

i don't know who started this conflict. i'll tell you one thing, though: it wasn't started over a couple of prisoners, and you'd be naive to think it did.

the only thing i can conclude is that Israel and Hezbollah make natural mortal enemies, and this conflict was inevitable.



that they fired rockets from in the middle of civilian populations, deliberately putting their own countrymen to death.....they shot rockets into Israeli civilian targets where there were no military and they loaded the rockets with ball-bearings so more people would be maimed and killed, etc., etc.



if a hezbollah member was starving in the street, i would take pleasure in watching him suffer.


And you still want to blame the Israelis? It's a completely different culture where lying is an admired part of life. What is there to admire about Islam, seriously? They haven't contributed anything positive to civilazation for more than 3 centuries.


let me make myself perfectly clear: i have no beef with Israeli civilians, their way of life, or my Israeli friends. one day, we *will* live together in peace, and that's how it should be. i hope, that's how it will be.

i also hope that one day, a full investigation can be opened about war crimes committed by Hezbollah and the IDF. this battle was nothing more than a pissing contest. Hezbollah fires more rockets, Israel bombs more buildings. Hezbollah fires even more rockets, Israel bombs even more buildings. like little kids. pathetic.

when 100% of Hezbollah rockets hit 0% army bases, you have the right to call them animals, because that's what they are.

and when there's more dead children than Hezbollah "in the name of self defense", i'm not gonna sit around and accept that, as nobody should. you would think that "the superpower of the middle east" would have more than trained chimps looking through the scopes. Israel deserves better leadership, and that's exactly what they're protesting about. don't take my word for it, take theirs if you have to.


the letters on the keyboard that you're using to communicate with us were descended from Arab culture, it's clear you're the one with the one-sided approach.

my favourite quote from a certain movie: "when my people were writing philosophy, yours were still swinging from the trees"

Lebanon can trace its roots back thousands of years. Jesus walked those great lands. maybe you should find out why the Cedar tree is on our flag. was the US anything but a barren wasteland 2000 years ago? i think there might've been some buffalo. at least a couple of worms.

Guilty Spark
08-30-2006, 10:17 PM
Lebanon can trace its roots back thousands of years. Jesus walked those great lands. maybe you should find out why the Cedar tree is on our flag. was the US anything but a barren wasteland 2000 years ago?

How do you know Jesus didn't walk around the US 2000 years ago?

Luc X Saroufim
08-31-2006, 07:08 AM
How do you know Jesus didn't walk around the US 2000 years ago?

because he was apalled by everyone's big, fat ass. :p

Mark Uttech
08-31-2006, 08:39 AM
The US is a very rich country, it is true. And people are not as active as they once. The MiddleEast is in flames as it has been for hundreds of years. Perhaps that is why discussion about it is 'heated discussion'. I am not trying to be funny here. Maybe when the bombs fall closer and closer to home,
(and they are already falling closer to home), we will step aside and look again. On another note,
Saddam Hussein said in the days leading up to the Iraq invasion: "If you come here, your young soldiers will find their coffins."

Luc X Saroufim
08-31-2006, 09:37 AM
Maybe when the bombs fall closer and closer to home,
(and they are already falling closer to home), we will step aside and look again. ."

they fell on our home in September of 2001. double the Lebanese civilian casualties in a matter of minutes.

i'll leave it up to you to decide whether we "stepped aside and looked again," but i have my doubts.

Luc X Saroufim
08-31-2006, 11:57 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/world/middleeast/31cnd-mideast.html?hp&ex=1157083200&en=1e9e65b0a8ceba6f&ei=5094&partner=homepage

more rockets fired into Israel today. are these guys idiots? i wouldn't touch israel right now....

hapkidoike
09-01-2006, 01:01 AM
yeah, but you have not had Isreal killing and maiming your friends and faimly all of your life, nor have you had the influence of radical Islam. The thing that is really complicating about the Isreal/Palistine *thing* is that NEITHER of them are right insofar as their behaviour is conserned. They are all acting like animals.

Luc X Saroufim
09-01-2006, 08:52 AM
yeah, but you have not had Isreal killing and maiming your friends and faimly all of your life.

actually i have. and i'm proud to say that all my life, i've made a lot of good Israeli friends, and will continue to do so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/world/middleeast/01lebanon.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

another display of IDF arrogance and oppression. i don't have a single good thing to say about these people anymore.



it's clear that military tactics are not going to work in Lebanon. the IDF has made that abundantly clear. so what's the point of continuing to oppress the citizens, raise Israeli flags in a land that they wish was theirs, and conduct over 70 violations of a cease-fiire?

simple: their pride has been hurt, and they're taking it out on the civilians. seems like a popular strategy for them.

Mike Sigman
09-01-2006, 09:01 AM
another display of IDF arrogance and oppression. i don't have a single good thing to say about these people anymore.Why is that surprising, coming from an Arab? Lebanon and Hezbollah have not lived up to a single part of their half of the agreement... I notice you have not mentioned a word about that. Hezbollah is not disarmed. Arms are still being smuggled in to Hezbollah. The Israeli soldiers have not been released. Etc., Etc. Not a word

Not a word when Arabs forced 2 American news-journalists to "convert" to Islam under gunpoint. If Americans or Jews had done that to an Arab there would have been screaming from all the usual suspects (including Neil Mick). But not a word. Not even a fatwa from any Arab clerics. Not a word.

Oh, well, I guess there is some word... complaints from Arabs/Muslims that people don't like them. And more finger-pointing at Israel to try to sway the dumbed-down.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

David Orange
09-01-2006, 09:07 AM
Arms are still being smuggled in to Hezbollah.

That's taken care of now. Kofi Anan announced that Syria will be guarding the border to make sure no arms get through...

That oughta work! The border will be as tight as a Canal Street levy!

David

Hogan
09-01-2006, 09:07 AM
...simple: their pride has been hurt, and they're taking it out on the civilians. seems like a popular strategy for them.


Is this why the terrorists kill civilians, too? Their pride been hurt?

...the IDF... they are criminals, oppressors, and flat out idiots that don't mind killing children and burning schools as long as a Hezbollah member is hiding behind it.

Any condemnation about the terrorists using civilians as shields, knowing that the west won't hunt them because they will be condemned? Does the IDF actually willingly target civilians to get through to the terrorists behind them, or are the civilians 'collatetral damage' because they are there only because the terrorists hide behind them? Is it right for terrorists to hide behind civilians? Any resentment towards terrorists?

Luc X Saroufim
09-01-2006, 09:17 AM
Lebanon and Hezbollah have not lived up to a single part of their half of the agreement... I notice you have not mentioned a word about that. Hezbollah is not disarmed. Arms are still being smuggled in to Hezbollah. The Israeli soldiers have not been released.

you don't read much, Mike. almost 9000 Lebanese soldiers will have the sole duty of guarding the Lebanese border to make sure arms aren't smuggled in. Israel made its point, and Lebanon is listening. you may question whether this will work, but the point is Lebanon is doing everything it can to comply.

and Hezbollah is disarmed. after 70 cease fire violations, hezbollah only committed 4. that's an astounding record, and as good as it's gonna get.

it's Olmert who did not want to negotiate the soldiers during war. only now is Olmert willing to have talks. Siniora offered their release countless times.

compare all this with all the facts in the article i just linked (did you read it?), and the fact that Israel is not allowing Lebanon to rebuild because it's not lifting its air and sea blockade. nice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/world/middleeast/01nations.html?ref=world

do you know what you're talking about?


and i love how you use blanket statements like "when the ARABS...". let me asking you something: have the Lebanese army ever kidnapped anyone? when was the last time the Lebanese army fired a single bullet into Israel?

find me one bullet, ONE, and I will retract every statement i ever made. you won't find it.

Hezbollah was asking for trouble. why the IDF continues to take out its frustration on Lebanon is beyond me.

they couldn't get the job done and Olmert will not accept defeat because he's under a lot of public pressure to show some sort of victory. that's still no excuse for kicking a wounded lamb when it's down.

Mike Sigman
09-01-2006, 09:32 AM
you don't read much, Mike. almost 9000 Lebanese soldiers will have the sole duty of guarding the Lebanese border to make sure arms aren't smuggled in. Israel made its point, and Lebanon is listening. you may question whether this will work, but the point is Lebanon is doing everything it can to comply. Bullshit. Lebanon has announced that its army will not disarm Hezbollah and half the Lebanese Army is Hezbollah anyway. Are you deliberately being disingenuous? and Hezbollah is disarmed. That's completely false. You're the first person to try to claim that. Siniora just explained again yesterday that they will not disarm Hezbollah. You should correct him. it's Olmert who did not want to negotiate the soldiers during war. only now is Olmert willing to have talks. Siniora offered their release countless times. It was part of the cease-fire to return the soldiers! The cease-fire was NOT an agreement to "start negotiations". Once again the lying, corrupt, dumb, duplicitous Arabs have done what they usually do. They never change. And the civilians continue to blame Israel for what the Arabs do to themselves. It is time for the world to be free of Muslims unless they can prove themselves to have some worth.

Did you notice that the BS about Hezbollah "winning" the war has now come back to haunt Nasrallah and he is openly saying he should never have kidnapped the soldiers? Yet he doesn't return them. I would be happy to see Israel mount a *real* attack on Lebanon now. Show them what a real "all out" attack is. The Arabs will not live up to their side of the agreement ... as is usual with all Arabs... so why not use Lebanon as an example? Let's quit making a joke of Israel... let's make a joke of Lebanon. When Arabs start paying for their crimes, perhaps they will start listening, eh? Wait... I'll bet you don't like someone talking about Arabs the way you talk about the Jews, do you?compare all this with all the facts in the article i just linked (did you read it?), and the fact that Israel is not allowing Lebanon to rebuild because it's not lifting its air and sea blockade. nice. Another lie? The cease-fire agreement called for UN forces before the blockade was lifted. They're not there yet, are they. The cease-fire agreement called for the release of the 2 Israeli soldiers... didn't happen. And you have the gall to suggest that Israel "negotiate" for their release, despite the fact that the release was part of the cease-fire agreement? Let's suppose it is your family, not just some sorry "Jooz" that are kidnapped sometime. Perhaps you will not speak so offhandedly about people who were criminally kidnapped by sorry excuses for human beings?

Mike Sigman

Hogan
09-01-2006, 09:41 AM
...Hezbollah was asking for trouble. why the IDF continues to take out its frustration on Lebanon is beyond me.....

Ummm, maybe because Hezbollah is using Lebanon for their actions/hideout/living?? Should the IDF have attacked Canada for Hezbollah actions against Isreal from Lebanon? I can see it now:
Terrorist (in Lebanon): We must attack IDF. Fire rockets!
Isreal: Damn those terrorists firing rockets from land located in Lebanon! Attack Iceland!

Luc X Saroufim
09-01-2006, 10:12 AM
Ummm, maybe because Hezbollah is using Lebanon for their actions/hideout/living??



like i said countless times during this thread, i was very much in favour of Israel helping Lebanon wipe out Hezbollah. there is no excuse for how IDF has been handling the situation ever since.

it's clear you don't have any ties to Lebanon, and i say: lucky you.

Luc X Saroufim
09-01-2006, 10:28 AM
Wait... I'll bet you don't like someone talking about Arabs the way you talk about the Jews, do you?


let's get this out of the way: you're the one over-generalizing a race of people. not once in this thread have i said anything bad about Jews. i'm making it specifically clear that my beef lies with the IDF.

if i can make an analogy: most Americans love the US, but hate Bush.

It is time for the world to be free of Muslims unless they can prove themselves to have some worth.


you start losing credibility when you start sounding like a certain totalitarian dictator.



Bullshit. Lebanon has announced that its army will not disarm Hezbollah and half the Lebanese Army is Hezbollah anyway. Are you deliberately being disingenuous? That's completely false




in other words, back to square one. a lot of good this battle did. and you're saying Lebanon did this to itself because it can't disarm Hezbollah?

how about helping Lebanon instead of destroying it? kind of win-win, don't you think? you hold a lot of hostility towards the Lebanese government considering they're the *only* neighbor that doesn't want every Israeli to burn, and actually recognizes Israel as a State. unless you really think we're better off now.

60% of the Lebanese army is Shi'ite. Most, if not all, had no qualms with Israel whatsoever. 0% of the Lebanese army is Hezbollah.

you made fair enough points about the violation of cease-fire agreements, but i am outraged right now about how Israel is not letting Lebanon rebuild. considering the 70:4 ratio of offensive strikes, it's safe to say the IDF is the only agrressor.

there's no reason for Israel to feel threatened right now. no rockets have been fired into Israel, and Hezbollah violated the cease-fire 4 times as opposed to Israel's 70. let the country re-build, for God's sake. they're not allowing aid to get in, they're continuing to destory roads, and about 25% of the displaced people are homeless.

Mike Sigman
09-01-2006, 10:49 AM
let's get this out of the way: you're the one over-generalizing a race of people. not once in this thread have i said anything bad about Jews. i'm making it specifically clear that my beef lies with the IDF.Sure, but how many people do you think are fooled by disingenuousness? Really?

Notice in your post you now suddenly don't want to mention the kidnapped Israeli soldiers, once your untrue comments are revealed.in other words, back to square one. a lot of good this battle did. and you're saying Lebanon did this to itself because it can't disarm Hezbollah? What was the point in having a "cease fire AGREEMENT" if Lebanon officially and unilaterally refuses to disarm Hezbollah, refuses to stop trafficking arms with Syria for Hezbollah, and suddenly/shamefully refuses to return the Israeli soldiers? If you're saying that the Lebanese government does NOT really represent Lebanon, then why should anyone deal with it as a government? Let's just assume then that it was Lebanon that attacked Israel and fire-bomb Beirut to see if we can get Lebanon to finally honor the things it agreed to in the cease-fire. This one-sided stuff where Arabs never scream about Hezbollah using civilians as shields or Hezbollah deliberately attacking civilians while using ball-bearing-clad armaments, yet decrying the "IDF" is false and dishonest. Criminal. Let's treat the Arabs like the criminals they are. They're the ones that actually violated internaltional law, but it seems that other Arabs don't want to talk about that, etc. If Arabs are always this dishonest (and years of Arab "agreements" have proved it), what good is talking to them? Oh..... and of course I don't mean the good Arabs, I mean the bad Arabs. The good Arabs are all those people openly protesting against Arab corruption, dishonesty, lying, duplicity, crimes, etc. Lessee... hmmmmm...... Where *are* those good Arabs, BTW? how about helping Lebanon instead of destroying it? kind of win-win, don't you think? you hold a lot of hostility towards the Lebanese government considering they're the *only* neighbor that doesn't want every Israeli to burn, and actually recognizes Israel as a State. unless you really think we're better off now. Excuse me.... Lebanon just attacked Israel. Bona fide members of the Lebanese government just attacked Israel, kidnapped 2 Israelis, killed more of them, and fired rockets into Israel, killing civilians. Lebanon had 6 years to disarm Hezbollah or call for international help in doing so. They didn't. Now they should accept the responsibility. Have you ever noticed that all the Arabs call for a "cease fire" everytime they attack Israel and Israel starts pounding their sorry asses? 60% of the Lebanese army is Shi'ite. Most, if not all, had no qualms with Israel whatsoever. 0% of the Lebanese army is Hezbollah. It's estimated that up to 50% of the Lebanese army is Hezbollah or sympathizers. you made fair enough points about the violation of cease-fire agreements, but i am outraged right now about how Israel is ......Yeah, I know. Damned Jooz.

Mike

Luc X Saroufim
09-01-2006, 11:23 AM
Sure, but how many people do you think are fooled by disingenuousness? Really?

not you, Mike. you know me so well :rolleyes:



What was the point in having a "cease fire AGREEMENT" if Lebanon officially and unilaterally refuses to disarm Hezbollah, refuses to stop trafficking arms with Syria for Hezbollah, and suddenly/shamefully refuses to return the Israeli soldiers? If you're saying that the Lebanese government does NOT really represent Lebanon, then why should anyone deal with it as a government?

and what's the point of having a cease-fire agreement if Israel continues to oppress innocent civilians, denying them homes, clean water, power, and a right to live? denying Lebanon the opportunity to clean up Israel's mess? do you think Israel has earned the right to be dealt with respectfully?

where are you getting this information that the Lebanese government is not trying to control Hezbollah or stop arms dealing. Annan just left Lebanon and he was highly impressed with Lebanon's cooperation. those are his words, not mine.




Excuse me.... Lebanon just attacked Israel.


think of every Lebanese person you know in the US, and see if any one of them advocates war or hate towards Israel. even after all this mess, i don't hate Israel.

Lebanese are doctors, lawyers, businessmen, engineers, and know how to thrive in times of peace. they have also felt the spoils of war, and it's the last thing they want.

Hezbollah are militant shi'ite losers that attacked Israel without Lebanon's permission. their sole purpose of existence is to destroy Israel.

sorry, i don't follow how one equates to the other.

Mike Sigman
09-01-2006, 12:10 PM
not you, Mike. you know me so well :rolleyes:
I do. So does anyone who reads your posts. You are very obviously anti-Israel, anti-Jew. Your rants never have anything to do with the vast Arab wrong-doings. They're always about Israel, with a little token acknowledgement of a few Arab wrongdoings, immediately followed by larger complaints about Israel. Do you think any thinks of you as not "anti-Israel"? You're part of the problem, not the solution.

FWIW


Mike

Hogan
09-01-2006, 12:22 PM
like i said countless times during this thread, i was very much in favour of Israel helping Lebanon wipe out Hezbollah. there is no excuse for how IDF has been handling the situation ever since.

it's clear you don't have any ties to Lebanon, and i say: lucky you.

Nope I don't. And thanks for the lucky wishes.

But, I'm curious, how would you have handled it if you were the IDF? (And excuse me if you stated prior in this thread - I don't have the time or energy to search it).

Luc X Saroufim
09-01-2006, 03:42 PM
But, I'm curious, how would you have handled it if you were the IDF? (And excuse me if you stated prior in this thread - I don't have the time or energy to search it).

Hi John:

refreshing to be asked a question that's open to discussion.

ok, you got me: i'm not a military expert. maybe bashing the IDF with no military experience is an ignorant thing to do or say.

sorry to disappoint you, but at least i will give you my very specific beefs with the IDF right now:

1) Basically violated the cease-fire agreement right away. that famous, failed 3:00AM raid in the Bekaa Valley? that happened the day after. *i understand Lebanon is not in compliance either*, but there's no catastrophic destruction or murdered civilians as a result. when Israel violates a cease-fire, Lebanon bleeds as a nation, and profusely at that.

2) Violated the cease-fire at a ratio of 70:4 according to the NY Times. they have no right to call anyone the aggressor if that's the case, but they continue to state that they feel threatened. no bombs have been fired from Hez., and Lebanon has proven to the UN how serious it is about complying with 1701. so why the need for more bullets and bombs?


3) As Israel continues to occupy the South, they continue to bully the civilians. they have destroyed cars (of people which are extremely poor), thrown debris in the wells as to render them inaccessible, hoisted Israeli flags, wrote things like "We will be back", and other things. i linked the article in my initial tirade to Mike.

4) They are not lifting the air and sea blockade. it's a pretty arrogant statement to make 250,000 people homeless and then deny them aid. meanwhile, Lebanon is trying to rebuild, and Israel is not allowing them to. Israel will claim that until a UN force arrives, they will keep the blockade per the agreement. however hezbollah is basically guaranteed not to attack, and Israel is stronger than the UN force anyway! there's basically no reason to keep the blockade, even Annan demanded they lift it.

5) 70-80% of the cluster bombs that were dropped were done so in the last 3 days of the war. go back to the last 3 days of the war: it was pretty clear at that point that there was not going to be a winner. so why the grand finale? they dropped tens of thousands of them. you know what that means? IDF saw the cease-fire coming, and basically said, "Well, we got three days. let's just go nuts" how else can you justify dropping 10,000 - 20,000 bombs designed to kill people, in a heavily congested area, in a very short time frame?

Israel should never have to go through what Lebanon has been through the last 30 years. i know they're just trying to prevent that. and let me be the first to denounce the Hezbollah pigs that are putting Israel and Lebanon in a bind. i still think my 5 points are indeed valid, and have nothing to do with Israel's national security. for the kabillionth time, i was in full support of Israel doing a job Lebanon can't do: wipe out Hezbollah. however, if i knew the IDF would be doing these things, i would've thought differently.


You are very obviously anti-Israel, anti-Jew. Your rants never have anything to do with the vast Arab wrong-doings.

what i am is damn proud to be from the greatest country in the world. i love my country, and i will kiss its soil when i get married there next year. as we all know, love is blind: i don't care who does it: if i feel what is happening to Lebanon is unfair, i'm going to speak my mind. you can either have a conversation with me, or you can continue with your racial slurs.

30 years of war, and we still stand proud and strong :cool: i wouldn't call that anti-anything, i would call it Bulletproof Lebanese Spirit, with capital letters, Mike :p

Luc X Saroufim
09-01-2006, 09:29 PM
update: more proof Syria and Lebanon are de-militarizing hez...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/world/middleeast/02nations.html


Lebanon is cooperating, Hezbollah has not fired a single rocket, and now Syria is cooperating. time to lift the embargo.

Mike Sigman
09-02-2006, 08:59 AM
update: more proof Syria and Lebanon are de-militarizing hez...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/world/middleeast/02nations.html


Lebanon is cooperating, Hezbollah has not fired a single rocket, and now Syria is cooperating. time to lift the embargo.There was no "proof" any such thing is happening, Luc. If an article "talks" about something, that is not proof it is happening. I think the whole world got a laugh at Kofi Annan saying that Syria, the country illegally supplying arms to Hezbollah, is going to police the border between Syria and Lebanon to stop the illegal arms to Hezbollah. You may be so caught up in a fantasy that you don't see how really stupid that was (no news reporter was able to report it with a straight face), but it's a joke.

In re my previous comment that Arabs have contributed nothing significant to world civiliazation in over 3 centuries:

The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000, or 20% of the world population.
They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:
1988 - Najib Mahfooz

Peace:
1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1994 - Yaser Arafat:
1990 - Elias James Corey
1999 - Ahmed Zewai
Economics:

(none)

Medicine:

1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad

**************************************************************************

The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000, or about 0.02% of the world population.

They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:

1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer World

Peace:

1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin

Physics:


1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloc h
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - William Howard Stein
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1979 - Herbert Charle s Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1989 - Sidney Altman
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1995 - Martin Perl
2000 - Alan J. Heeger

Economics:

1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel

Medicine:

1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abra ham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jaco b
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis

The Jews are not promoting brain washing the children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims.

The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics.

The Jews don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.

Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel's part , the following two sentences really say it all:

If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.
If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.

Amir Krause
09-03-2006, 02:51 AM
bottom line: IDF was sloppy, to say the least. they're not war criminals, they're not barbarians, but they are sloppy.


With this I can surly agree. Too many in the IDF were sloppy, and only few did fulfill their role as they should have. If you read the news, you can see most of the Israeli politics are now having a huge backlash due to this.


Amir

Amir Krause
09-03-2006, 04:52 AM
Mike

As an Israeli and a Jew, I must tell you. I really do not like your turning this into an Anti-Arab discussion.


It is true, the Arab (& more then that Islamic) society has a lot to answer to. Mostly in the last century or so. But, Many others also have a lot to look at.

I hate it when people blame Israel for not being able to do things none has ever been capable of, such as Luc expectation from the IDF to wipe out Hezbollah from Lebanon without harming Lebanon. Even though Luc himself knows how deeply HA is ingrained inside Lebanon, the popular support it has among Shiite, and the impossibility of distinguishing HA fighter from a HA "political activist" or even just supporter, when the first can easily masquerade as the last when he is not shooting, and the last might be willing to hide weapons for the first.

I agree with Luc the Israeli army has not shown any ingenuity in this war, and has shown sloppiness, lack of organization and planning, rather poor soldering and no professionalism. This has increased the cost of this war in human lives, both for Israeli soldiers and for Lebanese.

As for the current situation. So far it seems Israel has had to prove it can be the "crazy neighbor" as seen in Nassrallah last statement about the kidnap being wrong. It is also clear the message has not gone through well enough to the Lebanese and worldwide leaders, who were willing to promise anything for a cease fire, but are not as affirmative when they have to send their own soldiers.

Amir

Mark Uttech
09-03-2006, 07:39 AM
Becoming aware of the world situation is entering a type of labyrinth. Studying only violence may make us highly realistic, and highly cynical as well. Studying only peace may make us highly idealistic and naive. When we don't know what to do, we have to keep going, hoping that some fresh insight will emerge.

In gassho
Mark

Luc X Saroufim
09-03-2006, 01:06 PM
I hate it when people blame Israel for not being able to do things none has ever been capable of, such as Luc expectation from the IDF to wipe out Hezbollah from Lebanon without harming Lebanon.

I agree with Luc the Israeli army has not shown any ingenuity in this war, and has shown sloppiness, lack of organization and planning, rather poor soldering and no professionalism. This has increased the cost of this war in human lives, both for Israeli soldiers and for Lebanese.



Amir

thanks Amir for helping me look at both sides. i feel like we are getting somewhere.

i've decided to make it clear and specific what my beefs are with the IDF because:

1) I want to offend Israel and my Jewish friends as little as possible,

and

2) If i make it specific what my issues are, we can discuss them and find a middle ground.

i stand behind my five points and if you want to discuss or dispute them, i'm all ears. they're in post #355

Mike Sigman
09-03-2006, 04:34 PM
As an Israeli and a Jew, I must tell you. I really do not like your turning this into an Anti-Arab discussion. Funny... I had a couple of emails from Israelis who were happy some non-Jew took up their cause on this list, rather than selling them down the river, as so many others do. Still, those people don't speak for all of Israel; do you?[/QUOTE]It is true, the Arab (& more then that Islamic) society has a lot to answer to. Mostly in the last century or so. But, Many others also have a lot to look at.[/QUOTE] I'm just not into moral equivalancy, Amir. Sorry. Personally, I think the Left Wing in Israel will pretty much guarantee that Israel comes to an end, Amir. In fact, I have no doubt about it, so I think of these discussions as simply killing time until the Left Wing in Israel commits suicide for the whole country. So don't take my remarks at being serious... I don't. I think it's over for Israel.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Luc X Saroufim
09-03-2006, 05:49 PM
I think the Left Wing in Israel will pretty much guarantee that Israel comes to an end, Amir.

it's Olmert's right-wing approach that moved Hezbollah north, and in spite of all the protesting, Olmert isn't budging to the left in the least bit.

not to mention that most of the Israeli civilians were 100% behind this war, even with all the Lebanese casualties going on. even most of the left was behind it.

i think the Israeli "right" is here to stay.

Amir Krause
09-04-2006, 02:09 AM
Funny... I had a couple of emails from Israelis who were happy some non-Jew took up their cause on this list, rather than selling them down the river, as so many others do. Still, those people don't speak for all of Israel; do you

No, I do not speak for the whole of Israel, neither do these others. Further, I am happy you are pro-Israeli, I just do not see the connection to being anti-Arab.

My personal political view is neither right nor left, I am a pragmatist. In some cases I supported very right wing actions, on others, I supported left wing actions. I have a strong admiration for people who show long term thought and great dislike to leaders who continously try to solve a current problem by generating a much larger one, further in the future.
I did not support the Oslo agreement, I felt it was too full of holes and based on wishes, not on realistic cold assesments of plausible scenarios. In this, many would have considered me to be "right Wing".
I supported the drawback from Gaza. Looking at the map I could not understand what "Gush Katif" did there. I was not as sure as to the the settlements at the norhten part of strip, which were on the border and were not surrounded with Palestinian population.

I believe the Arabs and Palestinian deserve a good quality of life, and their personal dignity and rights should be kept as much as possible. I am not willing to accept a cost of blood for this belief, neither soldier nor civilian.

I have sometimes been appaled at the way soldiers treat palestinians in the territories. When I had a short guard duty there (a couple of days which each soldier was sent to guard the gates), I did my best not to become a buly, even when I did have to insist on refusing entrence to a Palestinian worker.


I understand the logic which dictates the basic problem of Israel and Palestine can reach a full solution Palestinian if on side is removed. Yet, I am not willing to accept EIther solution. I believe we should endure until the time comes at which both sides will truely accept the existence of the other, and be willing to find some real compromise (so far, I have not heard of true willingness for significant compromise from the Palestinian people. And neither are most of us Israeli willing to compromise in things we hold important).
When some claim Israel should "pay for peace", I keep wondering if peace is not wothwhile for the Arabs as well and why should they not participate in the actual payment instead of just demanding "Justice" as they see it. When I hear those claim again Israel is the strong side in the conflict, and thus should make amends. I wonder if the speakers ever took a look in a map of the region. Have they noticed the size of the Arab world and do they notice the entire Islamic world is involved in this conflict too.

Living here, and being slightly educated. having learnet some of the history of this conflict, and having felt what it means to truely be under a terror attack for months. I know the situation is not simple,
I recognize the complexity faced by any who wishes for a peaceful solution.

[B[Israel is not always right, and the Arabs are not always wrong. But the reverse is even further then the truth [/B].

Amir

Amir Krause
09-04-2006, 02:17 AM
it's Olmert's right-wing approach that moved Hezbollah.


Luc, I am sure you know better. HA attacked Israel long before Olmert days, and the fprevious soldiers kidnap has been done only months after the Israeli withrawl from Lebanon, when Ehud Barak was the Israeli PM and his position was far to the Left.

Olmert govrement was not right-wing. And the main mandate they had was for a uniletral withrawl from parts of the Juda and Shamera (or the "occupied territories"). This mandate has been practicly taken back due to this war.

not to mention that most of the Israeli civilians were 100% behind this war, even with all the Lebanese casualties going on. even most of the left was behind it.

I read your posts, Luc, and I see the same phenomena that drives most Israelis: you look at your people first. Just as we do. When Israel is provoked, there is no "right" nor "left" just a people at war. This has happened many times, and will happen again.
By the way, if you ask me. Not realizing this very natural phenomena was one of the main mistakes of the Israeli Govt. and army.

Sorry, no more time for this thread today. I may take a look at your claims some other day.


amir

Luc X Saroufim
09-04-2006, 08:13 AM
HA attacked Israel long before Olmert days, and the fprevious soldiers kidnap has been done only months after the Israeli withrawl from Lebanon, when Ehud Barak was the Israeli PM and his position was far to the Left.

Amir,

the issue of who's been attacking whom is still confusing for me. if you consider what Hezbollah did before the fighting an "attack," then Israel was attacking Lebanon just as often. i think this is proof that all these initial border crossing skirmishes was inevitably going to lead up to this point. prisoner swaps were as common as vanilla ice cream, i think Israel was just waiting for a good time to strike.


Olmert govrement was not right-wing. And the main mandate they had was for a uniletral withrawl from parts of the Juda and Shamera (or the "occupied territories"). This mandate has been practicly taken back due to this war.


I knew this before, and you're right, i should've known better. good point.


I read your posts, Luc, and I see the same phenomena that drives most Israelis: you look at your people first. Just as we do. When Israel is provoked, there is no "right" nor "left" just a people at war. This has happened many times, and will happen again.


another good point, but if you'll allow me to be stubborn, most of the hippie-dippie, tree hugging, Israeli's were also behind the invasion. only a very small minority of PEACE NOW was marching against the invasion, and from what i've read they're usually huge advocates for peace.

Luc X Saroufim
09-06-2006, 01:55 PM
sorry to bump this thread but Israel is lifting the blockade on Thursday night! this is great news for two reasons:

1) Israel feels relatively safe that Hezbollah is not re-arming

and

2) Lebanon can continue to rebuild, and citizens can get aid.

Mike Sigman
09-06-2006, 02:10 PM
sorry to bump this thread but Israel is lifting the blockade on Thursday night! this is great news for two reasons:

1) Israel feels relatively safe that Hezbollah is not re-arming

and

2) Lebanon can continue to rebuild, and citizens can get aid.Israel knows full well that Hezbollah is re-arming. They should demand the 2 soldiers be released before any blockade lift is done. They should also say that Lebanon will be left in ruins if Hezbollah is allowed to attack Israel from the safety of Lebanon again. Does anyone really trust Muslims to keep their part of a "cease-fire"???????

Luc X Saroufim
09-06-2006, 02:35 PM
Israel knows full well that Hezbollah is re-arming. "???????

after what's happened, I wouldn't blame them.

If there's one positive thing to come out of this, it's the realization that talks have to be made, and mediated by the UN or another third party. the blockade lifting was successfully mediated, and I believe the prisoner swap will be as well.



They should demand the 2 soldiers be released before any blockade lift is done. They should also say that Lebanon will be left in ruins if Hezbollah is allowed to attack Israel from the safety of Lebanon again.

you're almost right. they should've said all this before they displaced 500,000 of their own civilians, killed 200 of their own soldiers, and killed the economy in Northern Israel.



Does anyone really trust Muslims to keep their part of a "cease-fire"???????

as i've stated twice before and backed up just as many times, Hezbollah is resiliently keeping their end of the bargain. this is the poison behind Nasrallah; he's an Islamic fascist when the guns start blazing, and he's a politician when the firing stops.

Mike Sigman
09-07-2006, 08:55 AM
as i've stated twice before and backed up just as many times, Hezbollah is resiliently keeping their end of the bargain. Really? They agreed to release the 2 Israeli soldiers as "part of their agreement". Where are they? They agreed, as part of the cease-fire, to dis-arm.... but reneged immediately, once the cease-fire started. And so on. Why do you lie for these liars, Luc? Why do you say they are keeping their end of the deal when anyone who can read knows that Hezbollah, like all Arab organizations, simply lies for convenience?

Mike Sigman

Luc X Saroufim
09-07-2006, 09:21 AM
Why do you lie for these liars, Luc?

you're right, Hezbollah are a bunch of liars, and are scum. i'm sick and tired of Hezbollah's cancerous growth in my great country, but i'm blaming the IDF for their increase in Lebanese popularity. i can't believe you continue to deny the fact that there was a very thick, distinct line between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah, regardless of them holding a few seats in the government. it was the IDF that blurred that line, and virtually erased it, because they thought it would be ok to piss off every Lebanese person in the world. they thought that by annihilating Lebanon, they could turn the Lebanese civilians against HA. when the bombs have your name written all over it, do you expect a diversionary tactic to work?

Mike, they will release the prisoners, for two reasons:

1) Israel has lifted the blockade, but there's no free lunch. I'm sure many Israeli's are seeing this is a sign of weakness on Olmert's part, and if he doesn't get the prisoners back somehow, he will be doomed. Olmert will negotiate for their release, and the UN will mediate.

2) If HA doesn't release the prisoners, then they are seen, once again, as the aggressors. this is the last thing Lebanon and Nasrallah want.

i don't lie for Hezbollah, Mike. even midway through the fighting, i had no issues with the IDF. in post #355, i've listed my 5 issues with them. you can knock that down to 4, now that they have lifted the blockade. as a Lebanese citizen, i am not happy at all with the amount of destruction that took place, and the oppression in southern Lebanon that continues to happen after the cease-fire.

in my own happy little world, excluding any notions of reality, de-popularizing Hezbollah can best be achieved by israel , not lebanon.

Luc X Saroufim
09-07-2006, 09:38 AM
i'd like to retract my statement about pissing off every Lebanese person the world. i certainly am pissed off, which is why i'm being a little harsh on the IDF right now, but in the end, i want to see Israel and Lebanon unite as the two democracy's in the Middle East, and set a standard for the rest of it.

you do a great job in bringing out the best in people , Mike

Mike Sigman
09-07-2006, 11:41 AM
.in my own happy little world, excluding any notions of reality, de-popularizing Hezbollah can best be achieved by israel , not lebanon. [[snip]]you do a great job in bringing out the best in people , Mike [[snip]]as i've stated twice before and backed up just as many times, Hezbollah is resiliently keeping their end of the bargain.???? Israel is the cause for Hezbollah attacking Israel and using human Lebanse shields? I'm the cause of your personality and deliberate untruths??? You don't retract your comments and agree that Hezbollah is NOT keeping "their end of the bargain"??? You and I have some problems in what we agree is honest and ethical, Luc.... but don't blame that problem on me or the Jooz. Don't pretend to be fair in your judgement when you're obviously putting Lebanon's problems on the Jooz, Luc. Just speak your piece and let the chips fall where they will. Maybe no one has noticed that you have this er, antipathy for the folk of the Israeli persuasion. ;)

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Hogan
09-07-2006, 01:54 PM
..
1) Israel has lifted the blockade,...

I think they lifted the air blockade - naval blockade continues.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14697319/

Luc X Saroufim
09-07-2006, 02:38 PM
???? Israel is the cause for Hezbollah attacking Israel and using human Lebanse shields?

no, but the IDF's handling of the situation has increased Hezbollah's popularity globally, and basically guaranteed them a permanent military and governmental position in Lebanon. this is NOT what the innocent Lebanese wanted, and they certainly didn't want to die or have their entire villages reduced to rubble.

not to mention Israel is in a worse position than they were before, on so many levels. i mean, all this is common sense, Mike. most Israeli's agree with me on the IDF's shortcomings, otherwise they wouldn't be protesting and demanding that Olmert step down!

when Olmert is criticized internationally and Nasrallah is praised as a global hero, and when there are more children than Hezbollah members, there is something seriously wrong with that, Mike, and it all starts with the IDF's military tactics!


You don't retract your comments and agree that Hezbollah is NOT keeping "their end of the bargain"

you will get your soldiers, Mike, I promise. beyond that, i have to call a spade a spade; HA has packed up and gone home.


Don't pretend to be fair in your judgement....

besides my obvious love and natural bias towards Lebanon, i was hoping for the best on all sides. needless to say, i'm disappointed.



Just speak your piece and let the chips fall where they will.


that's what i've been doing (minus some emotional outbursts). i won't even dignify your ridiculous remarks with a response.

Amir Krause
09-10-2006, 04:17 AM
no, but the IDF's handling of the situation has increased Hezbollah's popularity globally, and basically guaranteed them a permanent military and governmental position in Lebanon. this is NOT what the innocent Lebanese wanted, and they certainly didn't want to die or have their entire villages reduced to rubble.


Luc, those innocent Lebanese you write about were not willing to DO anything about their wishes. They practically refused to demand HA disarm, and they continue with this line. They (and you) know very well those weapons will be used according to HA agenda, in order to harass Israel until it will be provoked again, and not in order of defending Lebanon or Lebanese.

Those "innocent" Lebanese were just like citizens who watch a criminal bully and rob an old lady and do nothing about it. Surprisingly the old lady pulled out a machine gun and now they complain about being hit by her, and forget they should have stopped the robber in the first place. Obviously, the punishment those not fit their crime, but are they morally justified and should they not remeber who the robber was?




not to mention Israel is in a worse position than they were before, on so many levels. i mean, all this is common sense, Mike. most Israeli's agree with me on the IDF's shortcomings, otherwise they wouldn't be protesting and demanding that Olmert step down!



Many Israelis criticize Olmert and the IDF for lots of things. But those things are quite different then your criticism. Thus, the above paragraph is deceptive.
Some of the protesters claim Israel should have acted much more harshly, and the leaders were hesitant, and did not let the IDF act as it should.
Some protest about army logistics and organizational matters, and claim the Generals lacked basic soldering professionalism.
Others protest about the Israeli Government poor handling of the Israeli civilian population under attack. The gov. refused to define this situation as a war and did not activate emergency plans to save money, at the expense of the poor.
And some protest along lines similar to those you wrote, this war had been counter-productive. Even among those many often talk about this result as due to bad leadership and command and do not object as strongly to the idea of going to this war.



when Olmert is criticized internationally and Nasrallah is praised as a global hero,

By whom? Was there any chance those people would have given any other response?

when there are more children than Hezbollah members, there is something seriously wrong with that, Mike, and it all starts with the IDF's military tactics!

OK, I will bite: what military tactics would you have proposed to the IDF? Can you suggest a tactic that would have freed the prisoners, and severely jeopardized HA, and would not have harmed any Lebanese innocent civilian?
P.S. if a person kept weapons for the HA in his house, but was not a fighter himself, is he innocent?


Amir

Mike Sigman
09-10-2006, 09:23 AM
no, but the IDF's handling of the situation has increased Hezbollah's popularity globally, Hezbollah is only popular among Arabs, Luc. And in Lebanon the "popularity" is pretty low, according to recent reports. Worldwide, I don't think you should worry about the IDF's popularity... you should worry about Muslim popularity after one more of a long string of Islamic attacks appears ridiculous and the Arab support for those attacks makes all Muslims look more ridiculous.

Granted, the recent surge in condemnation of Hezbollah in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc., has been unusual and says that even some Muslims are getting tired of being branded as idiots.... but luckily the American press doesn't want to report that part of it, so Arab popularity in the US continues to go down and down. Perhaps instead of worrying about the Jooz and the IDF you should worry about the third-world, incompetent Arab cultures who are reduced to blaming Israel for all their problems? Maybe if people like you started complaining about the Arabs instead of the Jooz you'd actually do some good?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Luc X Saroufim
09-10-2006, 12:01 PM
Mike and Amir,

My family, my Lebanese friends, my Israeli friends, the people reading this thread, the Aikidoka in my dojo, and now you, have seen me go through emotional ups and downs regarding this conflict.

I have had a good amount of time to reflect, to calm down, to make peace with myself. This will be my last post in this thread, to summarize the truth on how I feel.

My brother sends me pictures of the destruction in Lebanon. i am stunned. literally. my jaw drops, i shed some tears, and i am speechless.

an oil spill 80 miles long that will take a hundreds of millions to clean up. it will kill tourism in Lebanon, and has turned the beautiful white sands into a thick coat of black

Beirut, my pride and joy, my blood, the "Paris of the Middle East," is reduced to a pile of rubble.

i am not married yet, but Lebanon will recover economically only after my grandkids are born.

and our biggest fear as Christian (Maronite) Lebanese has come true: Hezbollah has sealed itself a permanent government position, and the Shi'ite Lebanese in the South will now teach their children to hate Israel.

i don't know how you truly feel, Mike, but from my point of view, i don't feel all this was necessary.

Israel is a strong, proud nation, and gives a small glimmer of hope that democracy can exist in the Middle East. but there was another nation just like it: Lebanon. sure, its government was weak, and its army nonexistent, but like Israel: they preferred democracy, they are entrepreneurial, and in the end, the want the right to exist without war breaking out.

there is potential for great friendship and great alliance here. i am friends with a lot of Israeli's because we worked hard together, shared the same ideals, and partied like rock stars together. My best man in my wedding is from Tel Aviv, Mike. what a sight it will be when I'm experiencing the greatest day of my life with an Israeli by my side to support me.

like two people fighting over the remote control: why are they fighting, when they both want the same thing? you give Lebanon too little credit, Mike: we are strong, we are proud, we will succeed. it is one of the greatest and most beautiful nations on this Earth. you should come visit us.

as far as Hezbollah is concerned, most of them are confused human beings looking for a reason to exist. the blind leading the blind. hopefully they will behave, and if they don't, Lord have mercy on Lebanon.

to finally get to my point: you talk about blame, Mike. in the end, who cares. the damage is done. all parties involved (Lebanese government, Israeli government, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, US) should all share the blame.

blame is not the point. the point is to move on. what have we learned? how can we be friends? why do Olmert and Siniora's ears stick out so much? these are the real questions to be answered.

i was foolish and childish to try and understand a complex situation in a linear fashion. i have decided to move on, and not to blame, but to continue loving, and taking responsibility for my own actions.


let's also give credit where credit is due: the UN and EU have stepped up tremendously to make sure this didn't get out of control, and i am ashamed for not mentioning this earlier. simply put: Kofi Annan is the man, and i would love to shake his hand one day.

if anything, this conflict has brought me and my Israeli friends a little bit closer. we are living proof that Lebanon and Israel can co-exist without war, because we both love our countries so much.

if i ever meet you, Mike, remind me to buy you a beer.

thanks Amir, for mediating when mediation was necessary.

God bless Israel and Lebanon, and let's hope it never has to come to this again.

this has been a great conversation.

Amir Krause
09-11-2006, 02:28 AM
blame is not the point. the point is to move on. what have we learned? how can we be friends? why do Olmert and Siniora's ears stick out so much? these are the real questions to be answered.


Hope we will Sit over an after practice beer one day, in Tel-Aviv or a renovated Beirut. The whole region can earn so much from some peace and tranquility.


Amir

Neil Mick
09-12-2006, 11:16 AM
This quote (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html) for me says it all:

What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war.

Quoting his battalion commander, the rocket unit head stated that the IDF fired around 1,800 cluster bombs, containing over 1.2 million cluster bomblets.

Insane. Monstrous. Complete overkill.

How refreshing, to hear a critique minus the softshell frosting of apology.

But still, you have the get the usual IDF spin, for dessert...it comes with the meal...

In response, the IDF Spokesman's Office stated that "International law does not include a sweeping prohibition of the use of cluster bombs. The convention on conventional weaponry does not declare a prohibition on [phosphorous weapons], rather, on principles regulating the use of such weapons.

"For understandable operational reasons, the IDF does not respond to [accounts of] details of weaponry in its possession.

"The IDF makes use only of methods and weaponry which are permissible under international law. Artillery fire in general, including MLRS fire, were used in response solely to firing on the state of Israel."

Oh, apology, apology... :rolleyes:

Mike Sigman
09-12-2006, 11:37 AM
This quote (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html) for me says it all:



Insane. Monstrous. Complete overkill.

How refreshing, to hear a critique minus the softshell frosting of apology.

But still, you have the get the usual IDF spin, for dessert...it comes with the meal...
Oh, apology, apology... :rolleyes:To sum it up, Israel was attacked and it responded with weapons, none of which are illegal under international law (particularly in response to a deliberate attack by elements of the Lebanese government).... yet Neil Mick mentions not a word about the fact that wherever possible, Israel tried not to target civilian populations. What Neil Mick doesn't want to mention is that under international law it was:

Illegal to attack Israel
Illegal to kidnap soldiers
Illegal for Hezbollah to fire from within civilian populations.
Illegal for Hezbollah to deliberately target Israeli civilian targets.

Illegal for Hezbollah to fire rockets with ball-bearing "frag" attachments which are used only to maim and destroy civilians.

No, Neil Mick wants to blame the "Jooz" and carefully wants to avoid mentioning what the enemy did. And Neil wants to blame the US. Any enemy of the US and the Jooz is a friend of Neil Micks, it would appear.

Neil Mick
09-14-2006, 10:50 PM
This quote (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html) for me says it all:

Insane. Monstrous. Complete overkill.

How refreshing, to hear a critique minus the softshell frosting of apology.

What...? Silence (except, of course: the usual nonlogical and personal replies frm the shunted voices of the ignored, lol)...? Where's the apology?

Face it: the IDF committed big warcrimes. THIS remark, from one of their own. So, now you cannot pull the anti-Semite race card. Next?

This can mean only one thing...the IDF really DID commit an atrocity*. Now...the only lawful (and appropriate) thing to do would be a demand for a trial of Israeli leaders responsible, followed by a swift payment of reparations, to Lebanon.


* as did Hezbollah

KarateCowboy
09-15-2006, 12:20 PM
I've been following the ongoing Israeli invasion of Lebanon recently, and my government's non-response (read, thumbs-up support and rush-order issue of more bombs, more weapons) to the war-crimes.

So, where are we at now? The Israeli army has killed 370 people (at about a 10:1 ratio, of the Hizbollah attacks), made about 900,000 refugee's, destroyed wholesale Lebanon's infrastructure, and what does the government of Israel's ally--the US--do? They pass a bill offering 100% support to the war-crimes. Bush gives the military incursion (a well-planned military operation, presented more than a year ago) (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/MIDEAST.TMP) the green light, while Condi finally (sort of) does her job and arrives in the MidEast, facetiously calling these war-crimes the "birth-pangs of a new MidEast." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/21/AR2006072100889.html) :grr:

And if you're looking for a balanced perspective from the US mainstream media: look elsewhere. Amid the techno-rave soundtrack, we see a completely one-sided perspective from CNN, (of course!) Fox, et al. I had to search to find one carefully worded article on CNN about the costs of war.

BBC, as usual: was a bit more balanced (sort of...the latest was all IDF perspectives), offering pictures of the wholesale destruction, now completely panned by the UN.

What can you do? Well, when the mightiest armies of the world decide that a weak nation in the MidEast needs to be flattened, in order to stop a few hundred extremists: the least you can do is not be fooled by the mainstream media's attempt to act as a press release by the Israeli army. Stay vigilant: read beneath the headlines. To quote one song: don't believe the hype!

Writing your Congressman is good, altho they gave nearly total support in their votes (in the Senate, all 100 voted in support; while in the House, only 8 Congressppl dissented). March in local protests, if/when they are in town. Or, best of all, organize your own. These are OUR tax-dollars going over to drop widespread death on the heads of the Lebanese people: WE bear some of the responsibility.

You know, mortality != morality. If more Israeli's died than hezzbollah terrorists, would that change things? No, it would just mean that hezbollah was winning.

Neil Mick
09-15-2006, 12:30 PM
You know, mortality != morality. If more Israeli's died than hezzbollah terrorists, would that change things? No, it would just mean that hezbollah was winning.

And, that Israel, and Hezbollah, both: still need to answer for their crimes.

But you're right: the nationality of the victims is unimportant. Crimes were committed, and those responsible need to answer for them.

Mike Sigman
09-15-2006, 09:42 PM
quote from the Age newspaper Oz is about as good as it gets...

"Middle Eastern leaders and analysts warned today of a potentially violent backlash in the region to Pope Benedict XVI's remarks implicity linking Islam to violence."

roninroshi
09-15-2006, 10:18 PM
When you read the history everybody is dirty...But Islam is for all it's early achievment's is dedicated to destruction of the infidel...Shiia vs Sunni vs Shiia both vs Sufi and every one else...when the west had their "Dark Ages" those cat's were on the "roll "...I think they are experienceing there "Dark Ages"now...What "roll" are we on???

Mike Sigman
09-16-2006, 08:23 AM
When you read the history everybody is dirty...But Islam is for all it's early achievment's is dedicated to destruction of the infidel...Shiia vs Sunni vs Shiia both vs Sufi and every one else...when the west had their "Dark Ages" those cat's were on the "roll "...I think they are experienceing there "Dark Ages"now...What "roll" are we on???For all practical purposes, I think we're back on the WWII roll. Islamic leaders are stating publicly who they're going to wipe out and Europe is saying "oh they must just be talking; let's negotiate". It's not that all of Europe is blind, it's that they let the French (who want to be the world's leader) lead them down these paths of doom. Anybody care to guess how much money from Sadam and others that Chirac has salted away in Swiss accounts?

Mike

Neil Mick
09-16-2006, 10:34 AM
I think they are experienceing there "Dark Ages"now...What "roll" are we on???

"They" are experiencing their "Dark Ages" largely because of us.

doronin
09-17-2006, 12:22 AM
Because of you, Neil?
What did you do to them? Poor guys... :eek:

Neil Mick
09-17-2006, 03:00 AM
Because of you, Neil?

Us, meaning, "The U.S."

What did you do to them? Poor guys... :eek:

To answer that question, would take a long time, on an extended tangent.

Neil Mick
09-18-2006, 11:58 AM
This quote (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html) for me says it all:



Insane. Monstrous. Complete overkill.

How refreshing, to hear a critique minus the softshell frosting of apology.

It appears now that this comment is almost prescient...

# of Lebanese who have died of cluster bomblets exploding since the ceasefire: 83 :mad:

Overkill, indeed.

deepsoup
09-18-2006, 02:10 PM
I heard a radio programme last week, about the recent work of UN mine clearance teams working in the Southern Lebanon, and it was quite an eye-opener.

Its available on the BBC's 'listen again' streaming audio service for another day or two, if anyone is interested, there's a link here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pip/xboni/

Neil Mick
09-18-2006, 06:24 PM
I heard a radio programme last week, about the recent work of UN mine clearance teams working in the Southern Lebanon, and it was quite an eye-opener.

Thanks for that link, Sean. Yes, it certainly was an eye-opener.

Why did Israel use cluster-bombs with a high failure-rate (instead of using bombs in their arsenal with a low failure-rate), I wonder? Willful COMPLICITY in collective punishment; or simply incompetence? Personally, I expect the former.

KarateCowboy
10-03-2006, 02:17 PM
Thanks for that link, Sean. Yes, it certainly was an eye-opener.

Why did Israel use cluster-bombs with a high failure-rate (instead of using bombs in their arsenal with a low failure-rate), I wonder? Willful COMPLICITY in collective punishment; or simply incompetence? Personally, I expect the former.
Maybe with all the thousands of warnings they dropped via plane on the target spot before bombing they figured they did not need to worry, and that people would be smart enough to think "Oh, they are going to bomb where I am standing. Maybe I should put one foot in front of the other".

Neil Mick
10-04-2006, 03:41 PM
Maybe with all the thousands of warnings they dropped via plane on the target spot before bombing they figured they did not need to worry, and that people would be smart enough to think "Oh, they are going to bomb where I am standing. Maybe I should put one foot in front of the other".

Maybe. But, the vast majority of cluster bombs dropped were in the last week of the war, when a ceasefire seemed imminent.

Now, why do you suppose they stepped up their bombing campaign on civilians, hmm?

Must have been those Lebanese civilians: too stupid to put one foot in front of the other.... :grr:

Mike Sigman
01-21-2007, 07:00 PM
Hizballah puts a tight rein on UN peacekeepers’ movements and policing operations in S. Lebanon - with threats to their safety

January 20, 2007, 9:11 PM (GMT+02:00)





The Shiite terrorist group last week set up military checkpoints and roadblocks to keep UN troops off the main roads connecting the Lebanese-Israeli border to Shiite villages and small towns in the south. Hizballah warned UN commanders that monitors flouting Hizballah’s injunctions and conducting searches would be fired on.

These restrictions box the international force, expanded by the Security Council last August to keep the whole of S. Lebanon free of armed men except for the Lebanese army, into a narrow border strip. Hizballah has again manned its pre-war border positions – albeit by unarmed operatives – and their yellow flags are flying from their roofs. But most dangerously, Hizballah has moved most of its weapons stockpiles into the blocked villages in breach of the ceasefire rules and is anxious to keep them out of sight of UN monitors.

Having beaten UNIFIL into a corner, Hizballah leader Hassan Nasralllah celebrated the resignation of Israeli chief of staff Lt. General Dan Halutz as proof of his strategic victory in the Lebanon conflict of summer 2006. In a speech Friday, Jan 19, he crowed that Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz would be next to go. The speech was pre-taped, as are all Nasrallah’s public appearances since last year, in view of his status as an internationally wanted terrorist.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the episode Thursday, Jan 18, when Lebanese “villagers” from Zaoutar north of the Litani drove away Spanish UNIFIL members, was in fact the first time Hizballah had publicly turned the screw on the international peacekeepers. The Lebanese group has acted in advance of the arrival of the new Italian UNIFIL commander in Lebanon, Maj. Gen. Claudio Graziano, who takes over from Maj. Gen. Alain Pellegrini. He is expected to be a lot tougher about keeping Hizballah in line with the ceasefire conditions than Pellegrini who, the Shiite group found to be a soft touch.

DEBKAfile’s political sources note that all of Hizballah’s breaches and its advance ever closer to the border have evoked no Israeli response, whether diplomatic or military. This is causing deep concern in Israel’s northern border towns and villages.

Guilty Spark
01-21-2007, 07:37 PM
Just send in Nato, we'll sort them out :)

Take everyones guns away until they learn to play nice with each other,

Amir Krause
01-22-2007, 09:14 AM
DEBKAfile's

Be serious, DEBKAfile's is not a serious source and is well known as a source of impossible and totally abnormal conspiracy theories.

Amir

Mike Sigman
01-22-2007, 09:26 AM
Be serious? Are you saying that there was not a confrontation between Hezbollah supporters and the Spanish UNIFIL group? It's in several other sources, if you'll look. Here's one:
http://www.brooksbulletin.com/news/world_news.asp?itemid=59958

If you want to refute the information, please do so. So far it looks like DebkaFile is more accurate than you are. ;)

Mike

Neil Mick
01-22-2007, 01:56 PM
If you want to refute the information, please do so. So far it looks like DebkaFile is more accurate than you are. ;)

Sorry. Amir and I might not see eye to eye on several things: but, inaccurate, he is not.

So, since I'd never heard of DEBKAfiles, I thought I'd give both of your sources a dispassionate look.


The second one was an AP source, so...no problem there. I pretty much know what I am getting, with AP.

Be serious? Are you saying that there was not a confrontation between Hezbollah supporters and the Spanish UNIFIL group? It's in several other sources, if you'll look. Here's one:
http://www.brooksbulletin.com/news/world_news.asp?itemid=59958

Mike

And so, after looking at both sources...the verdict is....

:D :D :D :D

OK, Mike, I have to admit that I knew nothing of the event, that is mentioned. So, I am going just by your own sources.

And looking at your second AP source, I see nothing about the villagers being Hezbollah supporters. OR, even, that there was a violent attack, at all. Your own article disputes that claim. From your own source:

The newspaper An-Nahar said dozens of villagers confronted the peacekeepers and tried to take the cameras. The Spanish troops took up precautionary combat positions.

On Thursday, UNIFIL spokesman Liam McDowall said the Spanish unit was inspecting the roads when "some residents expressed concern" about their presence.

The situation was aggravated by a "complete breakdown of communications" because of the language barrier, but McDowall insisted in an interview there was "absolutely no confrontation and no weapons involved."
He said the UNIFIL does not operate north of the Litani River and that the troops were there to inspect routes that could be used by their vehicles.

Not one word in the article, about the residents being supporters of Hezbollah.

For balance, I looked in on the DEBKAfile website, and I found the usual "Israel Right/All Others Bad/Israel Can Do No Wrong" nonsense. On a closer look, you can find such "astoundingly true" stories as "European Lebanon Force Is Cast as Shield for Iranian-Hizballah Military Buildup;" and "DEBKA-Net-Weekly reveals: Iran’s footprint in Iraq is deeper and more broadly-based than supposed,"

National-Enquirer stuff, for the Greater-Israel cheerleading section.

But, please, Mike: do go on posting sources that contradict themselves. It puts some of your theories in a certain, em, context: and is VERY entertaining! :cool:

Maybe next you'll start arguing with your own posts? :freaky:

Luc X Saroufim
01-22-2007, 02:21 PM
I'm glad to see Hezbollah has dug itself in quite a hole. My brother just got back from Beirut, and had these things to share:

1) Most Lebanese, including the Shiah's, don't want more war. this means no civil war, and no harassing Israel.

2) Taking into account 1), HA doesn't know what to do. without force, all they can do is continue their lame protests, which haven't been working.

3) As previously stated, their "sit in" protests have done nothing except hurt the economy, and pro-HA Lebanese are feeling bad about this.

4) the Paris donor conference, if successful, will boost the government's influence significantly.

this is all positive news for the pro-west government of Siniora. Unless HA uses force, it looks like they won't be taking over the government.

taking all this into account, there is no ridding Lebanon of HA's influence, and i have no idea what is going to happen.

the only miracle is that US sanctions on Iran actually deplete them of resources, and Iran has no choice but to pull the plug on HA. if that happens, Nasrallah is a dead man.

Mike Sigman
01-22-2007, 02:32 PM
I thought I'd give both of your sources a dispassionate look. You, Neil Mick, are saying this with a straight face???? The second one was an AP source, so...no problem there. I pretty much know what I am getting, with AP.Sure. With the AP you're getting a proven pro-Arab, anti-Semite source. They are now in hiding and won't respond to the numerous charges against them. Take for instance their now famous anti-US source in Iraq, "Captain Jamail Hussein".... turns out there is no such person, despite his 62 "eye-witness accounts" about how bad the war is going for the US.

Take the AP's numerous retractions, retractions without comment, and quiet changes.... all in stories that are biased to the liberal side, not one biased to the conservative side. I suppose the AP is a source that Neil Mick would say is "moderate" since they're not overtly anti-American (er, at least they deny it when questioned).

Insofar as Debka file goes.... are you suggesting that there are these innocent villagers in southern Lebanon who opposed UNIFIL observers from taking a look at Hezbollah sites, just because they had nothing better to do?

Are you saying that Hezbollah is not arming and getting ready to attack Israel again, for the umpteenth time? You're suggesting maybe that it's slanderous to make such a judgement. Oh... BTW... where are the 2 prisoners Hezbollah took, Neil? What if some "freedom fighters" decide to take part of your family... would you be so blase' about it? I doubt it.... but as long as you're in the world of theory, away from the real action....

Mike

Neil Mick
01-22-2007, 03:04 PM
You, Neil Mick, are saying this with a straight face????

Yes, Mike Sigman: I, Neil Mick, can be quite dispassionate, when need be. In fact, some ppl might describe me as being quite droll, at times. :p

Sure. With the AP you're getting a proven pro-Arab, anti-Semite source.

Nope. Words in my mouth again, Mike. What I am getting from the AP is the closest source to dispassionate facts you'll find. Yeah, the AP is biased...everything is...but it takes pains to be just a source of news, for other news agencies.

And once again, Mike: I am highly amused at you, attacking your own sources. Really, you oughta start attacking your own posts. It makes you sound so...rational. :hypno:

They are now in hiding and won't respond to the numerous charges against them. Take for instance their now famous anti-US source in Iraq, "Captain Jamail Hussein".... turns out there is no such person, despite his 62 "eye-witness accounts" about how bad the war is going for the US.

Wrong, Mike. More nonsense you picked up from the Rightwingblogblather. Captain Jamal Hussein turned out to be real.

BREAKING: Will Michelle Malkin interview Jamil Hussein in an Iraqi jail? (http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/01/breaking_will_m.html)

Right wing blogger Michelle Malkin is going to Iraq.

Eason Jordan, the former head of CNN, offered Malkin a free trip to Iraq to report on the story the AP and (putative) eyewitness to atrocity Hussein.

The Associated Press cited Hussein as its only eyewitness to the immolation six Iraqis. In the original article, he was identified as "Jamal Hussein," an Iraqi police officer.

Today, the Iraqi government now confirmed that officer Jamal Hussein exists and says that he will be arrested for talking to the AP:

NEW YORK The Associated Press has just sent E&P the following dispatch from Baghdad, as it was about to be distributed on its wire.

BAGHDAD-- The Interior Ministry acknowledged Thursday that an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been denied by the Iraqis and the U.S. military is in fact an active member of the force, and said he now faces arrest for speaking to the media.

Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who had previously denied there was any such police employee as Capt. Jamil Hussein, said in an interview that Hussein is an officer assigned to the Khadra police station, as had been reported by The Associated Press.
The captain, whose full name is Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, was one of the sources for an AP story in late November about the burning and shooting of six people during a sectarian attack at a Sunni mosque.

Take the AP's numerous retractions, retractions without comment, and quiet changes.... all in stories that are biased to the liberal side, not one biased to the conservative side.

Oh, please. What drivel.

You know the worst thing that a journalist can be labelled, the "kiss of death" for anchorpersons and commentators? No, it's NOT to be labelled "Conservative:" it's to be tarred as a Liberal.

I suppose the AP is a source that Neil Mick would say is "moderate" since they're not overtly anti-American (er, at least they deny it when questioned).

I suppose that Mike Sigman can possibly prove that they're anti-American, and stop getting ppl to prove a negative.

Or more likely, I suppose not. :uch:

Insofar as Debka file goes.... are you suggesting that there are these innocent villagers in southern Lebanon who opposed UNIFIL observers from taking a look at Hezbollah sites, just because they had nothing better to do?

No. I am saying that, as someone who just walked in on the news you posted, that your OWN SECOND SOURCE CONTRADICTED YOUR FIRST.

Now, go ahead and try to spin that statement as some anti-Jewish, anti-Bush remark. Go on, Mike...it's what you do so well. :rolleyes:

Are you saying that Hezbollah is not arming and getting ready to attack Israel again, for the umpteenth time?

I. am. typing. very. slowly. so. that. you. will. un. der. stand.

I am saying that your second source contradicts your first, that there is no proof to show that the residents were Hezbollah supporters, or that there was a violent confrontation, because all you have are the heavily slanted and National-Enquirer-type claims of DEBKAfiles.

But, please...do post another source. Maybe the next one will contradict the other two... :hypno: :crazy: Now, THAT would be entertaining!

You're suggesting maybe that it's slanderous to make such a judgement.

You're suggesting that by attempting to box me in a position and putting words in my mouth: that you can divert ppl's attention from the fact that your own sources countradict each other. :p

Oh... BTW...

Here it comes, the final, parting slur (posted, no doubt, to make Mike think to himself that he's somehow intellectually superior)...

where are the 2 prisoners Hezbollah took, Neil?

I dunno, Mike: why would you think I would know??

Since we're popping in non sequitors, where are the thousands of Lebanese and Palestinians held under indefinite "administrative detentions?" :crazy:

What if some "freedom fighters" decide to take part of your family...

What if I desperately tried to put ppl's attention off the fact that I posted two contradictory sources?

would you be so blase' about it? I doubt it.... but as long as you're in the world of theory, away from the real action....

Mike

Ah, but you, OTOH...you're right in the middle of it all, reporting dispassionately from your eagle-eye perch.

Thanks, Mike! You never fail to entertain! Better than Aqua Teen Hunger Force, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwwFmNQUK_4) by a mile!! :D

Luc X Saroufim
01-22-2007, 03:14 PM
Are you saying that Hezbollah is not arming and getting ready to attack Israel again, for the umpteenth time?

i hope this is the case; it will sound the death knoll for HA and is complete political suicide for Nasrallah. if Lebanon goes through another round of devastation, HA is finished.


Oh... BTW... where are the 2 prisoners Hezbollah took, Neil?

with all the ridiculous claims Ahmadinejad is making, Israel needed to destroy HA and send a message to Iran. this will be the first of many proxy wars in the area.

Mike Sigman
01-22-2007, 03:20 PM
Yes, Mike Sigman: I, Neil Mick, can be quite dispassionate, when need be. In fact, some ppl might describe me as being quite droll, at times. :p Well, "droll" you just proved. ;) Wrong, Mike. More nonsense you picked up from the Rightwingblogblather. Captain Jamal Hussein turned out to be real.

BREAKING: Will Michelle Malkin interview Jamil Hussein in an Iraqi jail? (http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/01/breaking_will_m.html) No, look at the date of your "story"... after months of heat, the AP came out with the "Found!" story and that turns out to be a lie, too. They are not commenting or answering any questions at the moment. I.e., you have egg on your face. No. I am saying that, as someone who just walked in on the news you posted, that your OWN SECOND SOURCE CONTRADICTED YOUR FIRST. No it didn't. The AP is a known liberal source... they supported that the actual confrontation *did* take place. Are you losing your marbles. Of course, in the AP story, these were just innocent south-Lebanon villagers out for a stroll who accidentally blocked the UNIFIL from doing their job, but the facts were still supported. What do you mean "contradicted"? I am saying that your second source contradicts your first, that there is no proof to show that the residents were Hezbollah supporters, or that there was a violent confrontation, because all you have are the heavily slanted and National-Enquirer-type claims of DEBKAfiles. So you want to posit, despite all the news stories during the war that these villages are Hezbollah supporters, that the villagers that confronted UNIFIL were not Hezbollah supporters? Is that really your position.

Tell me once more about your compassion for the 2 kidnapped Israelis, Neil.... you seem to have inadvertantly not responded about those Jooz. You changed to subject to some vague thing about people who commited crimes being wrongly held by Israel.

Let's just hope that Lebanon is leveled this time if they allow Hezbollah to attack from within the borders of Lebanon. Siniora had offers to help and he refused. Let's call any future Hezbollah attack what it is... an attack by Lebanon and any response is legitimately open-ended. There is no such thing as "disproportionate" that applies under international law, despite the bleatings of the Pro-Arab, Anti-Jew factions, right? ;)

Mike

Mike Sigman
01-22-2007, 03:23 PM
i hope this is the case; it will sound the death knoll for HA and is complete political suicide for Nasrallah. if Lebanon goes through another round of devastation, HA is finished.



with all the ridiculous claims Ahmadinejad is making, Israel needed to destroy HA and send a message to Iran. this will be the first of many proxy wars in the area.No, I don't think there will be many more proxy wars. I think this time Israel will attack if Nasrallah even smiles crooked and they will lay many portions of Lebanon waste, this time. The worst mistake the international community (read "The EU") made was to try to act like all they needed to do was step in and make friends with Nasrallah and he would be a nice guy. I think it's over this time. If Iran is beginning to talk about attacking Israel (which Iran is certainly doing), Israel would be foolish to leave a threat on the northern border. Say goodbye to Lebanon... they brought it on themselves.

FWIW

Mike

Neil Mick
01-22-2007, 03:42 PM
You know, I wondered how long I'd have to wait till Mike would come back and keep that spinning machine going.

And, surprise, surprise: I didn't have to wait long...

No, look at the date of your "story"...

Right...here we go. The story was January 4. Here we are at Jan. 22.

Hardly "old news," Mike.

after months of heat, the AP came out with the "Found!" story and that turns out to be a lie, too. They are not commenting or answering any questions at the moment. I.e., you have egg on your face.

Spin, o meister, spin! :crazy:

No, Mike: what that means is that there is no new information on the story, and as it stands Malkin has yet to go to Iraq to interview Hussein.

Next!

No it didn't. The AP is a known liberal source... they supported that the actual confrontation *did* take place.

"Known," by such lauds as DEPKAfiles, no doubr. :crazy:

Are you losing your marbles.

Are you trying to misdirect, with personal remarks (um, that's a 10-4!)

I'm not going into your usual digging to find some dirt, Mike. Sorry, but on its face, your claim that Hussein doesn't exist has proven to be untrue, apparently. The Interior Ministry of Iraq has confirmed that claim.

Till that time, I suppose the only guy here with egg on his face is the guy who posts sources that contradict each other. :D

Of course, in the AP story, these were just innocent south-Lebanon villagers out for a stroll who accidentally blocked the UNIFIL from doing their job, but the facts were still supported.

No, Mike: the "facts" are not supported. Your two sources contradict each other. And, no amount of your flame-baiting or misdirection will change that point. You tried to paint the residents as Hezbollah-supporters, and your source said no such thing.

What do you mean "contradicted"? So you want to posit, despite all the news stories during the war that these villages are Hezbollah supporters, that the villagers that confronted UNIFIL were not Hezbollah supporters? Is that really your position.

Try and try tho he does, Mike simply CANNOT seem to make those words fit into my mouth!

No, Mike: my position is that you have provided no proof of the loyalties of the villagers, one way or another.

Tell me once more about your compassion for the 2 kidnapped Israelis, Neil....

Tell me once more about your passion for misdirection, and hyperbole (oh, yeah, and tell me of this irrational need to make final, OOC insults)...

you seem to have inadvertantly not responded about those Jooz.

You seem to keep dodging the admission that your sources don't match up.

You changed to subject to some vague thing about people who commited crimes being wrongly held by Israel.

Sorry, Mike: but it's plain as day, who's doing the misdirection, here...

Let's just hope that Lebanon is leveled this time if they allow Hezbollah to attack from within the borders of Lebanon.

Let's just hope that your usual black-is-white view of the world and oversimplistic ideas are not seriously considered by those in power.

Siniora had offers to help and he refused. Let's call any future Hezbollah attack what it is... an attack by Lebanon and any response is legitimately open-ended.

You see? I almost don't need to say anything. This idea is absurd, on its face.

There is no such thing as "disproportionate" that applies under international law, despite the bleatings of the Pro-Arab, Anti-Jew factions, right? ;)

Mike

Mike: "Spin, spin spin....have you all been disoriented enough, to notice that I posted two contradictory sources?" :p

Hogan
01-22-2007, 03:54 PM
My favorite flavor is chocolate.

doronin
01-22-2007, 04:29 PM
Let's just hope ...
Let's just hope it won't happen any soon, Mike. I don't think this is a good time for Israel to became involved... in anything. Too much of a good thing... They're live people after all, those who happen to live on the north. Unlike Israeli army, Hezbollah deliberately attempts to hit civilians, and no one can do anything about it... not a pleasant experience for residents over there.
Also, you can't do much by mere fighting Hezbollah. Unless you hit the roots, they'll reappear and say "We just fooled West again!".

Mike Sigman
01-22-2007, 04:51 PM
You know, I wondered how long I'd have to wait till Mike would come back and keep that spinning machine going.

And, surprise, surprise: I didn't have to wait long...



Right...here we go. The story was January 4. Here we are at Jan. 22.

Hardly "old news," Mike.



Spin, o meister, spin! :crazy:

No, Mike: what that means is that there is no new information on the story, and as it stands Malkin has yet to go to Iraq to interview Hussein.

Next! Well, Neil, she's back and the results are posted on her website. More egg on your face. However, you have a reputation for ignoring facts and posting what you *feel* as the truth, regardless. Please carry on. I wouldn't want anyone to think you really looked for balanced factual discussion.



"Known," by such lauds as DEPKAfiles, no doubr. :crazy:



Are you trying to misdirect, with personal remarks (um, that's a 10-4!)

I'm not going into your usual digging to find some dirt, Mike. Sorry, but on its face, your claim that Hussein doesn't exist has proven to be untrue, apparently. The Interior Ministry of Iraq has confirmed that claim.

Till that time, I suppose the only guy here with egg on his face is the guy who posts sources that contradict each other. :D



No, Mike: the "facts" are not supported. Your two sources contradict each other. And, no amount of your flame-baiting or misdirection will change that point. You tried to paint the residents as Hezbollah-supporters, and your source said no such thing.



Try and try tho he does, Mike simply CANNOT seem to make those words fit into my mouth!

No, Mike: my position is that you have provided no proof of the loyalties of the villagers, one way or another.



Tell me once more about your passion for misdirection, and hyperbole (oh, yeah, and tell me of this irrational need to make final, OOC insults)...



You seem to keep dodging the admission that your sources don't match up. Er.... well... looks like you get to be red-faced, doesn't it, Neil? Except that you don't really mind. You'd tell an anti-US falsehood when the truth would do you good. ;)

Mike

Neil Mick
01-22-2007, 10:45 PM
Well, Neil, she's back and the results are posted on her website. More egg on your face.

Oh, Mike, Mike.... :uch: :uch:

Debating you reminds me of another great fight, um...now how did it go...? hmmm (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgQx-ZYwHyA) (hint: I'm the guy using the white cocoanuts :p ).

So, I went to Malkin's site expecting to see some form of "proof " that Jamil Hussein doesn't exist...and guess what?

He does. Right from Malkin's blog:

WELL, the Iraqi Ministry of Interior says disputed Associated Press source Jamil Hussein does exist.

Hello? Mike? Are you on the same planet, as the rest of us?

Yeah, sure: now you're going to go on and bleat with Malkin that it wasn't really about whether Jamil Hussein existed or not...it was the stories he was telling. Typical vitriolic hate-mongering tactic, is to attack a source and then, when the basic charge is proven to be untrue: attack the details, of the source. And attack, and attack, and attack.

A lie oft repeated, becomes the truth.

Now, OK, maybe the AP should have investigated a little further...I really don't see the point of scrutinizing whether or not it was six mosques. Things are certainly not rosy in Baghdad...(and, I have to laugh at Malkin, and her trip. She spends all her time embedded, and she says she "came into Iraq anxious and fearful; and left it, feeling hopeful and determined."

Oh, man...it's amazing: some people's breadth of self-deception. The woman barely stepped five feet from the US Army the whole time she was there, and she thinks she's "seen it all." :rolleyes:

However, you have a reputation for ignoring facts and posting what you *feel* as the truth, regardless.

Hyperbole, hyperbole: who's got the hyperbole...?

Please carry on. I wouldn't want anyone to think you really looked for balanced factual discussion. Er.... well... looks like you get to be red-faced, doesn't it, Neil?

As I was saying...some ppl's capacity for self-deception.

So, a reminder for those who have Mike on ignore:

1. Mike makes this claim that the AP is liberally biased, because they lied about the existence of Jamil Hussein.

Take for instance their now famous anti-US source in Iraq, "Captain Jamail Hussein".... turns out there is no such person, despite his 62 "eye-witness accounts" about how bad the war is going for the US.

2. I said no, that that wasn't true.

And, of course, etc, ad nauseum...

No, look at the date of your "story"... after months of heat, the AP came out with the "Found!" story and that turns out to be a lie, too.

,,,etc.

And of course, in the end it WAS true that Jamal Hussein exists. What Malkin is going on about, is whether or not he's exaggerating, etc.

Or, perhaps Mike doesn't read all of his own sources?? :crazy: :crazy:

Maybe Mike Sigman just reads 1/2 of nutpages like Frontpagemagazine and DEBKAfiles, and then makes it up as he goes along?? :crazy: Well, that does explain a lot... :uch:

So, you have to wonder...does he really think he can just spout this stuff, expect no one to read it, and (when some one inevitably does, and calls him on it) he'll just shrug, and go on to the next venal lie?

You betcha. Because, Mike's posts are the hallmark of mendacity, switching the baseline, and dittoheading the rightwingblogosphere.


You'd tell an anti-US falsehood when the truth would do you good. ;)

Mike

If either of us is more anti-American...it's probably you.

Amir Krause
01-23-2007, 02:03 AM
Be serious? Are you saying that there was not a confrontation between Hezbollah supporters and the Spanish UNIFIL group? It's in several other sources, if you'll look. Here's one:
http://www.brooksbulletin.com/news/world_news.asp?itemid=59958

If you want to refute the information, please do so. So far it looks like DebkaFile is more accurate than you are. ;)

Mike


Mike

I am not saying there was no confrontation, I read about a confrontation in other sources too, the difference is the scale of the confrontation different sources imply (Level of violence, intentions, etc..) the very important human factor that gives color to the pictures...
DebkaFile is known to have a sensational tendency. They take something real and small and describe it as a world turning point, to the level of a "world-ender". I would agree this occurs in their analysis\opinion more then in their news, but often it is very hard to distinguish between the two.
I have read more then one article of theirs that took occurrence A and described it as a much more important and out of scale occurrence B. I will admit understanding how much bullshit was there required me to have prior knowledge of the situation (in some cases, it had to do with deeper technical understanding then the common person or with information that would be considered classified as it came from my military service).


This is my reason for being extremely skeptical of anything posted in DebkaFiles, I would recommend looking at other sources for a more reliable info (and common interpretations) and looking at DebkaFiles to see less likely points of view and interpretations.

Amir

statisticool
01-23-2007, 04:29 AM
My favorite flavor is chocolate.

Liberal.

Luc X Saroufim
01-23-2007, 06:30 AM
Say goodbye to Lebanon.

never crossed my mind.


.. they brought it on themselves.


there isn't a single problem in the Middle East that wasn't a team effort.

Mike Sigman
01-23-2007, 07:25 AM
there isn't a single problem in the Middle East that wasn't a team effort.You need to start somewhere, Luc. Here once again, Israel has lost its own soldiers and agreed to a cease-fire.... and Arabs are arming to attack it again. This has played out time after time after time. This is not a "team effort". It is the Arabs. They need to be annihilated, as was suggested in World War I. They never stop until they are stopped by massive force; diplomacy is just a joke to an Arab, as is "keeping their word". I love the way the Arabs want back India, Andalucia (Spain), and all the other places that they conquered and desecrated in the past because they "own" them. Absolutely amazing. :cool:

Mike

Mike Sigman
01-23-2007, 07:49 AM
So, I went to Malkin's site expecting to see some form of "proof " that Jamil Hussein doesn't exist...and guess what?

He does. Right from Malkin's blog:

Michelle Malkin wrote:
WELL, the Iraqi Ministry of Interior says disputed Associated Press source Jamil Hussein does exist. First of all, if that's the only part you excerpted to print, your ethics haven't changed a bit, Neil.

Secondly, the Ministry has a spokesman that has changed their previeous stance (that was probably 100 bucks well spent by the AP), but notice that Michelle does NOT say Jamil has been found. A fairly complete roundup on the scurrilous AP and Jamil can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamil_Hussein


Now, OK, maybe the AP should have investigated a little further... Why should they? They're about as truthful as you are and that seems to work for many liberals.

And of course, in the end it WAS true that Jamal Hussein exists. What Malkin is going on about, is whether or not he's exaggerating, etc. See. This is a complete lie. At no point does Michelle acknowledge that Jamil has been pinpointed, Neil. What is it with you and your constant untruths?

Mike Sigman

statisticool
01-23-2007, 09:42 AM
It is the Arabs. They need to be annihilated, as was suggested in World War I. They never stop until they are stopped by massive force; diplomacy is just a joke to an Arab, as is "keeping their word".


Yeah Neil, it is your ethics that are questionable. ;)

Neil Mick
01-23-2007, 11:27 AM
Yeah Neil, it is your ethics that are questionable. ;)

Yeah, I suppose that I should print anti-Arab diatribes on MA sites that I don't practice....THAT should make me more ethical... :freaky:


First of all, if that's the only part you excerpted to print, your ethics haven't changed a bit, Neil.

Secondly, the Ministry has a spokesman that has changed their previeous stance (that was probably 100 bucks well spent by the AP), but notice that Michelle does NOT say Jamil has been found. A fairly complete roundup on the scurrilous AP and Jamil can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamil_Hussein

Ah, Mike...I'm so embarrassed for you. :sorry:

So, let me just re-cap what athletics you've gone through.

You started off by claiming that Hezbollah rebels were attacking UN positions, citing 2 references.

Yet, one of your references directly contradicted your claim.

Rather than provide more sources to buttress your claim, you resort to the curious tactic of attacking your source that belies your claim, stating that they are liberally biased, pointing to a recent question over whether or not a named source (Jamal, or Jamil, Hussein) exists.

To prove your claim, you rely on the investigation of Michelle Malkin, an activity that surely must come as something new, to her.

But even worse, you cite links but don't even bother to consider the greater picture suggested by your own sources.

This, from wikipedia:

This article documents a current event.
Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

A "current event," Mike, is one that has new information coming in all the time. Yet, you're all ready to believe Hussein is a fraud.

Why? So that AP can spread its liberal bias or (for some unknown reason, possibly because all Liberals hate America :rolleyes: ) to stunt the war-effort.

It was noted at the "Flopping Aces" blog that the only named source for the story was Jamil Hussein, and that there was no evidence that he was an Iraqi police officer as claimed. Apart from such concerns over "journalistic integrity", the stated concern was that Hussein might be using AP to spread disinformation in the media

So, really, you're getting all these ideas from blogs. But, of course there's more.

However, a Civilian Police Advisory Training Team (CPATT) official claims that Khalaf did not acknowledge the existence of Jamil Hussein, but rather that of Jamil Gulaim, whom AP has agreed is its source.[8] If true, the deliberate use of a pseudonym for a source by AP, without the revelation of this fact to readers, would be a breach of its stated ethical principles.

OK, so in the end, what have we got? We have a news source that possibly violated its ethical principles. How this is proof of Liberal bias, you have yet to show. Nor, I might add, have you conclusively proven that Hussein does not exist, in spite of your frequent crowing to the contrary.

Certainly, if AP violated its own ethical principles, it should be taken to task for it, as it questions the veracity of all its reports. But you've got a long, long way to go, before you've shown that this is proof of Liberal bias. If anything, it's proof of questionable ethics, sort of like the time Jeraldo Rivera paid kids to throw rocks at soldiers, so that he could film it.

Disreputable and unethical, yes. But proof of any sort of bias...? Of course not.

See. This is a complete lie.

No Mike. At best you have Malkin who claims that she has yet to meet Hussein, and the Ministry of Defence (for some unknown reason, if not the truth) claiming that he does.

Do you just regularly go over the world news of the day and systematically re-tell the stories in your head, to fit your worldview?

At no point does Michelle acknowledge that Jamil has been pinpointed, Neil. What is it with you and your constant untruths?

Mike Sigman

She acknowledged that the controversy is unfinished, in her mind. YOU, OTOH, pretend that it is, for your own partisan reasons. Untrue, of course: but that won't stop you from pretending otherwise.



This is my reason for being extremely skeptical of anything posted in DebkaFiles, I would recommend looking at other sources for a more reliable info (and common interpretations) and looking at DebkaFiles to see less likely points of view and interpretations.

Amir

I agree. You could have saved yourself a lot of time and spinmongering by simply citing another source, instead of attacking your own, Mike.

Next!

Hogan
01-23-2007, 11:44 AM
No one else likes chocolate?

I like guns, too.

Neil Mick
01-23-2007, 12:05 PM
And finally, you have to wonder at the sheer stubbornness to accept reality, when you crow about a victory, where your own feted source is issuing a public apology for being wrong...

I relayed information from multiple sources--CPATT, Centcom, and two other military sources on the ground in Iraq-- that the Associated Press's disputed source, Jamil Hussein, could not be found. As I noted on the 4th, the AP reported that the Ministry of Interior in Iraq has now said a Captain Jamil Hussein does work in the al Khadra police station. I regret the error.

Mike Sigman
01-23-2007, 12:26 PM
And finally, you have to wonder at the sheer stubbornness to accept reality, when you crow about a victory, where your own feted source is issuing a public apology for being wrong... I relayed information from multiple sources--CPATT, Centcom, and two other military sources on the ground in Iraq-- that the Associated Press's disputed source, Jamil Hussein, could not be found. As I noted on the 4th, the AP reported that the Ministry of Interior in Iraq has now said a Captain Jamil Hussein does work in the al Khadra police station. I regret the error. Er, Neil. Listen carefully. That "quote" you just gave is from the first week in January. Since then Michelle Malkin and others have looked into this more closely and the AP has now gone mum.... because the guy they claimed was Jamil, the guy some stooge at the Ministry suddenly changed stories for the AP, *doesn't work out.* I.e., for the third time you have egg on your face.

The attack by Hezbollah villagers... look at Amir's post. He doesn't like Debka either, but he admits the attack happened. So does the AP. What is this crap of spinning stories even when you know people can read the news?????

Mike

Luc X Saroufim
01-23-2007, 12:57 PM
Mike,

If HA gives Israel any reason to attack, they will be finished. Hezbollah *supporters*, on the other hand, cannot be controlled as easily.

I think a 2 state solution is the only viable option left for Lebanon. Have the Christians, Sunni's, and Druze up North, and separate the Shia's and Hezbollah down South.

Israel will then proceed to bomb Nasrallah and his ancestors, and every Shiite that supports him, without any harm to the Lebanese who actually care about Lebanon.

and send UNIFIL back home. i still don't understand where a Pakistani soldier's motivation to disarm HA and protect Lebanon is coming from.

Neil Mick
01-23-2007, 02:25 PM
Er, Neil. Listen carefully. That "quote" you just gave is from the first week in January.

Err, Mike. Listen carefully. Rightwingbloggers, and you, made a claim that Jamil Hussein DID NOT EXIST.

Since then Michelle Malkin and others have looked into this more closely and the AP has now gone mum.... because the guy they claimed was Jamil, the guy some stooge at the Ministry suddenly changed stories for the AP, *doesn't work out.*

Sorry. Patent, absolute falsehood. Nice try, but the REAL story is that the guy might have been operating under a surname.

BUT, the guy really exists.


I.e., for the third time you have egg on your face.

Jeez, will you ever stop?

The attack by Hezbollah villagers... look at Amir's post. He doesn't like Debka either, but he admits the attack happened. So does the AP. What is this crap of spinning stories even when you know people can read the news?????

Mike

Oh, Mike (*facepalm*).

Spin it any way you like, but anyone reading it can see that I was DISPUTING YOUR CLAIM, BASED SOLELY UPON YOUR TWO SOURCES.

Frankly, I have no position on what were the loyalties of the villagers, because YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN ME ANY REPUTABLE SOURCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM. And, all I have to contradict you, is your OWN SOURCE, an AP article.

You see...you display this deterministic need to spin the news to fit your tortured world views. The rest of us like to sit back, evaluate the different views (as Amir has suggested that you do), before making an opinion. You seem to like to do the reverse, to make wild revilements about the media you so often use, courtesy of the blogosphere. And, when those claims prove false (get it? JAMIL HUSSEIN, OR SOMEONE USING THIS NAME AS A PEN NAME, EXISTS...YOU, & MALKIN, WERE WRONG), on an on you crow as if the world were, actually, proven flat.

Uh huh.

But really, I found that this blog said much, about all the real cause for the crowing.

Michelle Malkin's Credibility, RIP (http://mediamatters.org/columns/200701090003)

It's time for warbloggers to find a new conspiracy theory to promote because their most recent one, which involved accusing the Associated Press of manufacturing a source in Iraq and colluding with the insurgents, blew up in their faces. But don't look for detailed corrections, let alone heartfelt apologies. Being a warblogger means not having to say you're sorry.

I've written extensively about this controversy because I think it perfectly captures the right-wing warbloggers and their never-ending goal to undermine the press. Not with thoughtful, factual analysis -- which is always welcome -- but by feverishly trying to undercut news reports that might pose a problem for President Bush's war in Iraq and by shifting attention onto the media. They want to simultaneously create confusion about facts, while undermining news consumers' confidence in the mainstream news media.

Indeed, warbloggers want to have it both ways. They want to be seen as tenacious press critics, thoroughly scrutinizing the media's work and doing democracy a favor. But in reality they can't control their naked disdain for progressives, not to mention their consuming hatred of the "liberal media." It's a combination that routinely prompts them to launch dim-witted crusades built around flimsy, what-if conspiracy theories. (Glenn Greenwald assembled a Greatest Hits list here; the Terri Schiavo talking points memo hoax represents a particularly telling chapter in warblogger foolery.)

I'm not necessarily surprised by the outcome of the AP controversy. In December I noted, "Warbloggers, who have been wrong about Iraq for going on 50 straight months, are looking for a scapegoat. I don't think the AP is their answer."

Their press offensive began over Thanksgiving weekend when an AP dispatch, quoting Iraqi police Capt. Jamil Hussein, reported that Shiite militiamen had "grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive near Iraqi soldiers who did not intervene." Warbloggers were skeptical of the chilling report, and actually raised some legitimate journalism questions, in part because no other news organizations could confirm the horrific event. The U.S. Central Command's communications machine, relying on the information from Iraq's Ministry of Interior, then issued a statement that it could not corroborate the Burned Alive story, followed by another statement that Hussein was not a Baghdad police captain.

That's when the warbloggers became unhinged. Piling on, they claimed the disputed story raised doubts about all the mainstream media's reporting in Iraq. Warbloggers also accused American journalists of being too cowardly to go get the news in Iraq themselves and relying on local Iraqi news stringers with obvious terrorist sympathies and who purposefully push insurgent propaganda into the news stream -- the way Hussein did with the Burned Alive story -- to create the illusion of turmoil.

Despite the volcanic violence unfolding inside Iraq recently, the pursuit of the Hussein story produced giddy times for warbloggers. They named the scandal "Jamilgate" and created a special "Free Jamil Hussein" logo for bumper stickers. Somebody even produced a phony Jamil Hussein blog, while fake Jamil Hussein emails (aka "JMail") were posted online amidst much chuckling and backslapping.

At the height of the self-congratulatory frenzy, Michelle Malkin, who wrote incessantly about the Hussein "scandal," triumphantly announced warbloggers had caught the AP faking a source. The verdict for the mainstream media? As delivered by Malkin it was simple: "MSM credibility, R.I.P."

But turnabout is fair play, and suddenly it's Malkin's already-thin credibility that has expired. Thursday afternoon the AP reported that the Iraqi government had flip-flopped and confirmed the disputed officer's existence. The Ministry of Interior confirmed the source's name was Jamil Hussein, that he was a captain, that he was assigned to the Khadra police station, and that he had talked with AP reporters, which is precisely what the AP had insisted for months.

I must concede the discipline warbloggers have shown in maintaining their denial in the wake of the crumbling Hussein story is impressive. For instance, last month Power Line, busy hyping the "fake" Hussein story, wrote , "Of course, if Jamil Hussein turns up and [journalists] interview him in his office in a Baghdad police station, the AP will be vindicated." Well, Hussein not only turned up in Baghdad but his position was confirmed by the Ministry of Interior -- the same source warbloggers had used to deny Hussein's existence. So the AP was "vindicated," right? Not by Power Line, which for 96 hours stoically ignored the inconvenient development.

The same's true of Flopping Aces, the warblog at the center of the Hussein conspiracy story. In a rare moment of reflection last month, Curt, who was supposed to travel with Malkin to Baghdad in search of the "mysterious" Hussein, wondered out loud what would happen if the source was found. Imagining himself locating Hussein on a Baghdad street, Curt pondered the scenario "[w]hen we say that we would like him to come with us to the Ministry of Interior and have the MoI verify he is indeed a employee [sic]."

For Curt, having the Ministry of Interior verify Hussein's position would be the best way to end the controversy. Of course, last week the Ministry of Interior did verify Hussein's position -- but Curt refused to admit his pursuit had been pointless.

More? At the height of Hussein frenzy, warblogger Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse wrote, "If it can be shown that Jamil Hussein is a fake or doesn't exist, where does that leave AP's coverage of the war over the last three years?" Note the emphasis Moran put on proving that Hussein "is a fake" and "doesn't exist." Yet now that we know the truth, warbloggers like Moran insist proving whether Hussein was "a fake" was never all that important. And of course, the inverse of Moran's statement now boomerangs back on the warbloggers; if it can be shown that Jamil Hussein is not a fake, where does that leave warbloggers and their coverage over the last seven weeks?

I don't want to spend too much time debunking the conspiracy point-by-point, in part because warbloggers have chased the Hussein rabbit so far down the hole they've burrowed beyond Alice's Wonderland and popped out in another dimension. They truly have proven the truism that it's not possible to argue rationally with conspiracy theorists because logic rarely deters them.

He could well be talking about some of YOUR ideas, Mike!

For instance, despite insisting just days earlier that Hussein was "fake," Curt at Flopping Aces wrote of the confirmation that Hussein exists: "Actually it makes it better." This from the same warblogger who previously lectured the AP, complaining that it "refuses to acknowledge that they screwed up, and screwed up royally."

Warbloggers: Jamil Hussein does not exist

It's important to understand that the entire premise of the warbloggers' press conspiracy revolved around the fact that Hussein did not exist. That's the angle that drove the story and drove their excitement. Period. Warbloggers were going to make national headlines by proving the AP had manufactured a "bogus" source in Iraq. I realize warbloggers now deny that point and argue they never pushed the angle that Hussein was a fake. Unfortunately for warbloggers, they're bloggers, which means they typed up all their dark press assertions and gleefully posted them on the Internet where people can easily go back and see what they wrote:

Curt at Flopping Aces described the police captain as "the fraud we know as Jamil Hussein."
Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs mocked the AP and "their nonexistent news sources."
SeeDubya at JunkYardBlog categorically announced "There is no Captain Jamil Hussein," stressed "he doesn't really exist," that he's "non-existent," and suggested the AP source might actually be "Ayman Al-Zawahiri calling up the AP to give his version of events."
Armed Liberal at Winds of Change declared, "We don't believe [Hussein] exists."
Michelle Malkin mocked the AP's "bogus source Capt. Jamil Hussein."
Since Hussein is not fake, that means warbloggers are right back where they started, obsessing about a single AP dispatch filed Nov. 24, and claiming that one story somehow taints all the AP's reporting from Iraq. When I wrote a column pointing out the absurdity of that warblogger claim, arguing that they were extrapolating all kinds of dark inferences from a single news report about six deaths at a time when thousands of Iraqis were being killed each month (i.e. "Michelle Malkin fiddles while Baghdad burns"), warbloggers reacted with anger. They insisted I was missing the point, which was that the AP had manufactured a "fake" source in Jamil Hussein, and if the AP did that for one article, who knows how many other stories the AP faked. Meaning: Hussein was the tip of an enormous press scandal iceberg.

But now Iraq's own Ministry of Interior has confirmed Hussein's title, warbloggers are racing in reverse, insisting Hussein's existence was never the issue. (It "changes very little," SeeDubya assured his readers.) The disputed facts from the Nov. 24 dispatch, that's what warbloggers really wanted to nail down. Which, if you're following this loop, means that warbloggers just spent the last seven weeks and untold man-hours compiling a laundry list of vicious smears against the AP because warbloggers took issue with part of a single article the AP posted about Iraq. One article out of more than 10,000 articles the AP has posted about Iraq since the 2003 invasion.

To date, the warbloggers' admissions of errors have been grudging and brief, despite the fact they wrote enthusiastically and freely while lodging their nasty allegations. I'd estimate that over the last seven weeks, warbloggers have posted at least 40,000 words combined about the alleged Hussein scandal. By contrast, I'd estimate the combined expressions of regret so far have totaled less than 100 words. For instance, Malkin's belated mea culpa was posted late on Saturday night, perhaps the least-read time of the blogger week, and was attached to the bottom of a 900-word item that dealt with an unrelated topic (a different assertion that she had to correct). Warbloggers badger the press for "transparency," but they often show little use for it themselves.

Also, in Malkin's correction, she claimed she had nothing to be ashamed of for pushing the phony Hussein saga because she was simply asking "legitimate questions" about the AP. Actually, what she did was attack the AP for being part of the "terrorist-sympathizing, anti-Bush press" and dubbed it "The Associated (with terrorists) Press."

That's legitimate?

Meanwhile, the Hussein charade helped spotlight the perpetually low regard warbloggers have for the free press, particularly in times of war. Indeed, for warbloggers, the process of information gathering appears to be a simple one. Namely, if the U.S. government, or more importantly officials with CENTCOM, say something is so (i.e. Jamil Hussein does not exist), than that ends the discussion. Over and over again warbloggers announced they trust government officials more than they do journalists.

"I'm still willing to take the word of an officer in the US Military over others," announced warblogger Anchoress. (Keep in mind that the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recently concluded that for years, the U.S. military wildly underreported violence inside Iraq.) In reality that means you don't really need a press corps, because if wartime information is coming straight from the top, what's the point of filtering it through the press? More importantly, it means if journalists report something that contradicts CENTCOM, that simply proves reporters are dishonest and aiding the enemy.

Mike Sigman
01-23-2007, 02:54 PM
Mike,

If HA gives Israel any reason to attack, they will be finished. Hezbollah *supporters*, on the other hand, cannot be controlled as easily.

I think a 2 state solution is the only viable option left for Lebanon. Have the Christians, Sunni's, and Druze up North, and separate the Shia's and Hezbollah down South.

Israel will then proceed to bomb Nasrallah and his ancestors, and every Shiite that supports him, without any harm to the Lebanese who actually care about Lebanon.

and send UNIFIL back home. i still don't understand where a Pakistani soldier's motivation to disarm HA and protect Lebanon is coming from.Agreed. BUT.... think of all the people who supported a "ceasefire agreement" and condemned Israel instead of piling on the real culprit. Those choices all cost. Instead of blaming the real culprit, the world hopped on Israel, got a bogus cease-fire and now have no room to complain when Israel rightfully destroys what's left of Lebanon when Hezbollah starts again. This is what's wrong with the constant blame Israel, blame the US stuff... it finally will come home to roost.

Same thing with the EU.... think the US will willingly support the EU the next time they get a Bosnia they can't handle? Nope. They've made enemies and isolationists out of the US, just like they did prior to WWII.

Mike

Mike Sigman
01-23-2007, 02:57 PM
Err, Mike. Listen carefully. Rightwingbloggers, and you, made a claim that Jamil Hussein DID NOT EXIST.



Sorry. Patent, absolute falsehood. Nice try, but the REAL story is that the guy might have been operating under a surname.

BUT, the guy really exists. This is insane, Neil. There was no such thing as a Jamil Hussein who, as a member of the Iraqi police, could have been in all the places claimed in 60-odd stories. But there is indeed some guy with a similar name at one of the precincts who exists. Yes, he does. But he couldn't have done all the AP claimed and they've gone silent. So has the Iraqi minister... wonder why?

Mike

statisticool
01-23-2007, 06:56 PM
This is insane, Neil.


Really?

I thought that


It is the Arabs. They need to be annihilated, as was suggested in World War I. They never stop until they are stopped by massive force; diplomacy is just a joke to an Arab, as is "keeping their word".


could be described like that.

Neil Mick
01-23-2007, 09:32 PM
This is insane, Neil. There was no such thing as a Jamil Hussein who, as a member of the Iraqi police, could have been in all the places claimed in 60-odd stories. But there is indeed some guy with a similar name at one of the precincts who exists. Yes, he does. But he couldn't have done all the AP claimed and they've gone silent. So has the Iraqi minister... wonder why?

Mike

Not really. It's simple...the rightwingblogosphere made a claim, and got their strawman handed back to them on a virtual platter.

So the Iraqi minister has fallen silent, as has AP. Big deal. Hussein--or a person using that pseudonym--exists, and its silly to suggest that AP somehow bribed the Ministry of the Interior, to keep their story sources mum.

But the silliest thing of all is you, trying to prove "liberal bias" on your own source, based on a half-baked accusation about a source using a pseudonym, in violation of AP's ethical standards.

If you want to find outrage, Mike: direct it there, not at some prosaic and so-far unproven "Liberal bias."

The real crime lay in the lapse of journalistic standards. And that goes for ALL journalists, no matter what their beliefs.

Neil Mick
01-23-2007, 09:35 PM
Really?

I thought that

(Mike's racist comments)

could be described like that.

No, not insane, unfortunately...just massively uninformed.

That's where all racism emerges...from ignorance.

Amir Krause
01-24-2007, 12:57 AM
You need to start somewhere, Luc. Here once again, Israel has lost its own soldiers and agreed to a cease-fire.... and Arabs are arming to attack it again. This has played out time after time after time. This is not a "team effort". It is the Arabs. They need to be annihilated, as was suggested in World War I. They never stop until they are stopped by massive force; diplomacy is just a joke to an Arab, as is "keeping their word". I love the way the Arabs want back India, Andalucia (Spain), and all the other places that they conquered and desecrated in the past because they "own" them. Absolutely amazing. :cool:

Mike


I must protest against this post. Mike, this is not the first time you have posted RACIST posts against the Arab nation.
For me, RACISM is way of line, even when it is directed against a nation who stands in against my own nation in some sense. RACIST claims should not have a place anywhere, under any condition.

One can discuss the behaviors of groups and protest against them even without this type of arguments. This would even make the discussion more accurate, relating to groups inside the Arab world who ...
(and there are just as crazy groups among Israeli Jews and US Christians)

Amir

Amir Krause
01-24-2007, 01:02 AM
The attack by Hezbollah villagers... look at Amir's post. He doesn't like Debka either, but he admits the attack happened. So does the AP. What is this crap of spinning stories even when you know people can read the news?????

Mike


Mike
This is a misquote, yes, I agreed there was a COFRONTATION between Shiite villagers and the Spanish UN forces. But not an attack, and while I too suspect the villagers were Hezbollah supporters, I do not know this….

This misquote spins the story to a totally different proportion and is exactly the typ of thing I protested against with regard to DebkaFiles. One should separate well known and proven fact from opinion (a thing most news sources do badly, and particularly those that are well identified with some political view).

Amir

Michael Varin
01-24-2007, 01:55 AM
think the US will willingly support the EU the next time they get a Bosnia they can't handle? Nope. They've made enemies and isolationists out of the US, just like they did prior to WWII.
FDR was champing at the bit to get into WWII and liked the British just fine, so I guess it depends on whom in the US we're talking about and what interests are at stake. All it took was an attack on an American territory, and without knowing what was going on behind the scenes, the general public was convinced to go to war.

"The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves." From Henry Stimson's (FDR's Secretarary of War) diary concerning a cabinet meeting 11/25/1941 (before the "surprise" attack).

Some things don't change much.

Michael

Mike Sigman
01-24-2007, 06:58 AM
I must protest against this post. Mike, this is not the first time you have posted RACIST posts against the Arab nation.
For me, RACISM is way of line, even when it is directed against a nation who stands in against my own nation in some sense. RACIST claims should not have a place anywhere, under any condition.

One can discuss the behaviors of groups and protest against them even without this type of arguments. This would even make the discussion more accurate, relating to groups inside the Arab world who ...
(and there are just as crazy groups among Israeli Jews and US Christians)Uh oh... I'm doomed... namecalling. Amir I can appreciate your viewpoint, but notice how you try to take a diplomatically more-level approach against continued assaults on Israel (under the thin veil of "I'm only attacking the government") by people like Neil. I've watched the over-the-top rhetoric by the Far Left (I suspect you're somewhat to the Left in Israeli politics, correct?) which makes all sorts of very negative comments about "Neo-cons", "dumb Bush", "the US", "Israel", refuses to back their own country, etc., and no one says a word. When someone takes their emotional approach and reverses it, notice the screaming. In other words, reply fiercely to fierce attacks... diplomacy doesn't work.

In terms of "racism", remember that Mohammed killed all Jews and Christians on the Arabian Peninsula after he prevailed. He would do it again and there would be no protests from the Arab countries.

Regards,

Mike

Mike Sigman
01-24-2007, 07:04 AM
FDR was champing at the bit to get into WWII and liked the British just fine, so I guess it depends on whom in the US we're talking about and what interests are at stake. All it took was an attack on an American territory, and without knowing what was going on behind the scenes, the general public was convinced to go to war.

"The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves." From Henry Stimson's (FDR's Secretarary of War) diary concerning a cabinet meeting 11/25/1941 (before the "surprise" attack).I just meant that 2 factors need to be considered, in the present, about whether the US would willingly help the EU:

1. The conservative side has seen the EU not really help the US and in fact hinder it too many times. So they've become anti-EU.

2. The liberal side has stood so staunchly on the anti-war position that they would be brought quickly to task if they suggested getting involved in someone else's problems (the purported reason why we shouldn't go to war; one of the talking points).

Right now, the EU would probably be allowed to suffer because the American will to get involved has been greatly diminished. About the only country which the US would go to war for at the moment is Israel, yet many Americans will resist that... when it comes to pass, as it will.

Regards,

Mike

Hogan
01-24-2007, 08:45 AM
......RACIST claims should not have a place anywhere, under any condition....

Sure they do - in a free society where freedom of speech is protected.

Mike Sigman
01-24-2007, 08:54 AM
I'll say it up front.... I'll bet the "horror" at a perceived "racist" (this is the first term a liberal uses from the namecalling bag) remark against Islamic Arabs is going to be far greater than any outrage at calls by Iran to nuke Israel off the face of the earth. It has become a trendy thought that it is better to stab ourselves than to ever stab our sworn enemies. It's not politically correct. Smelling that suicidal impulse, the "Arabs" have already begun to attack the West. But let's not respond.. it might make them madder, eh? ;) That's the logic of liberals and it was the logic of liberals in parts of Europe, even as Hitler began his conquests. "Maybe if we act nice they'll leave us alone and become our good friends and we can go outside and play". :cool:

Regards,

Mike

Ron Tisdale
01-24-2007, 09:03 AM
In terms of "racism", remember that Mohammed killed all Jews and Christians on the Arabian Peninsula after he prevailed. He would do it again and there would be no protests from the Arab countries.

I'm sorry...but that does not excuse racist behavior or statements that I might make. There were a lot of people who happened to be white who made my parent's and their parent's lives miserable...just because of the color of their skin.

This fact does not give me the right to turn around and be racist to whites. To me that suggestion is morally repugnant. And I don't care who uses the justification...be they jewish, white, black, muslim or otherwise.

Best,
Ron

Mike Sigman
01-24-2007, 09:15 AM
I'm sorry...but that does not excuse racist behavior or statements that I might make. There were a lot of people who happened to be white who made my parent's and their parent's lives miserable...just because of the color of their skin.

This fact does not give me the right to turn around and be racist to whites. To me that suggestion is morally repugnant. And I don't care who uses the justification...be they jewish, white, black, muslim or otherwise.Ron, while I'm having fun pointing out the liberal reliance on the term "racist" (it's almost exactly equivalent to the way religious zealots use the term "heretic"), don't mistake my lack of comment as an agreement that this discussion is "racist" in any way. "Genocidal" maybe, but the discussion is certainly not "racist".

Besides, as literally as I tend to view words, the term "racist" seems to be so subjective that it's useless. It appears to be a word that people apply as they subjectively deem it, nowadays. Let's stick to something clearer like "genocide".... and indeed, it was mentioned in World War I, as I said, that going the soft way and trying to civilize the Islamicists would be a waste of time. Until the religion is rectified to not include encouragement to kill Jews and Christians (is that "racist" or should we not discuss it since it wouldn't be politically correct?), there will always be a problem.

What I was laughing at was that it is "against the rules" to point out atrocious behavior in Islamic Arabs because to do so would be "racist", even if their religion calls for and encourages pogroms.

Regards,

Mike

Luc X Saroufim
01-24-2007, 09:22 AM
In terms of "racism", remember that Mohammed killed all Jews and Christians on the Arabian Peninsula after he prevailed. He would do it again and there would be no protests from the Arab countries.

And 900 years later, the Christians held the Spanish Incquisition. whoops, forgot about the Crusades too. it's obvious Jesus preached nothing but war and hatred.

and while some circumstances are completely understandable, even unavoidable, Israel and the IDF are by no means innocent. they have a tougher case, because there's no prophet to fall back on! :D

all monotheistic religions started in the Middle East. so by your logic, Mike, we should either kill every Christian, Jewish, and Muslim person in the world, or we should nuke the entire Middle East and Arab Peninsula.

Mike, i've seen you post enough times to know that when you want to, you can easily educate yourself. your ignorance is not a consequence; no, you simply choose to be ignorant.

the biggest irony in your post? picking a side and proposing to kill everybody else sounds exactly like the religious fundamentalism that you're supposedly against.

Ron Tisdale
01-24-2007, 09:29 AM
Until the religion is rectified to not include encouragement to kill Jews and Christians (is that "racist" or should we not discuss it since it wouldn't be politically correct?), there will always be a problem.

I know plenty of people of Islamic faith who do not interpret the religion that way. I personally know no one who interprets it the way you have stated. Certainly, 911 proves that there are people like that out there. So my own personal focus would be on fanatics who fly planes into buildings...not on "rectifying" someone else's religion. And the discussion MUST be had. I'd just like to avoid making racist statements in the process of that discussion. That's just my preference.

Best,
Ron

Mike Sigman
01-24-2007, 10:41 AM
Mike, i've seen you post enough times to know that when you want to, you can easily educate yourself. your ignorance is not a consequence; no, you simply choose to be ignorant.

the biggest irony in your post? picking a side and proposing to kill everybody else sounds exactly like the religious fundamentalism that you're supposedly against.Why do we suddenly bring *me* into the discussion, Luc? Notice how quickly on these forums that there is a quick devolvement to the personal in so many cases? And I say that knowing that I personally attack Neil Mick often, but I do it more to highlight his own personal hypocrisy than anything else. I tend to be a complete iconoclast, an image breaker. I dislike extremes, whether from the Left or from the Right (I got tossed from a mainly Rightist martial arts list for exactly the same behaviour once). My position is that a balance martial artist shouldn't be unbalanced in any direction.

I object to the "racist" card, because nobody denigrated any race. Granted, a deliberate call for "annihilation" was used, but that's not "racist".... although I admit that it was so extreme it had satisfactory shock value. ;)

See if you can post rebuttals without worrying out loud about my character, Luc. Your anti-Israeli stance is very prominent... don't bolster it by attacking anyone who questions your position, please.

Regards,

Mike

Mark Freeman
01-24-2007, 10:48 AM
I object to the "racist" card, because nobody denigrated any race. Granted, a deliberate call for "annihilation" was used, but that's not "racist".... although I admit that it was so extreme it had satisfactory shock value.

hmmmm, so a 'non-racist' call for annihalation of a large number of humans, is somehow more acceptable than a racist one? :rolleyes:

Mike Sigman
01-24-2007, 10:53 AM
I know plenty of people of Islamic faith who do not interpret the religion that way. OK, that's fair... but do you really know Islam or do you have just a superficial knowledge of the culture of Islam. I think that many westerners have this feeling that Islamists are really good guys, almost Christians, if you will, if only you will treat them nice and give them what they want. Maybe, maybe not. Try this quote from Ayatollah Khomeini. Note: Khomeni is Shia muslim, but shia, sunni, or sufi, A muslim is a muslim. To be fair, many Muslims disagree with Khomeni, but he still represents a view/interpretation of what's right and what's wrong that Muslims have, Ron.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, The Supreme Leader of Iran, the Shia Grand Ayatollah, 1979-89 said in his official statements:

Question: ‘It has become widespread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufa'khathat of the children. (mufa'khathat - literally translated, it means "placing between the thighs" which means placing the male member between the thighs of a child) What is the opinion of scholars, knowing full well that the prophet, the peace of Allah be upon him, also practiced the "thighing" of Aisha - the mother of believers - may Allah be pleased with her.'

Answer: After studying the issue, the committee has answered as follows:
As for the prophet, thighing his fiancée Aisha when she was six years of age and not able to consummate the relationship due to her small age. That is why the Prophet used to place his male member between her thighs and massage it, as the prophet had control of his male member not like other men.


"A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. Sodomizing the baby is halal (allowed by sharia). If the man penetrates and damages the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister. It is better for a girl to marry when her menstruation starts, and at her husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven."

Khomeini, "Tahrirolvasyleh" fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990
"It is not illegal for an adult male to 'thigh' or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her."

Ayatu Allah Al Khumaini's "Tahrir Al wasila" p. 241, issue number 12
"Young boys or girls in full sexual effervescence are kept from getting married before they reach the legal age of majority. This is against the intention of divine laws. Why should the marriage of pubescent girls and boys be forbidden because they are still minors, when they are allowed to listen to the radio and to sexually arousing music?"
"The Little Green Book" "Sayings of the Ayatollah Khomeini", Bantam Books

If there are no children available, an animal will do:
A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.
Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh" fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990
"If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed and as quickly as possible and burned."
The Little Green Book, Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political,
Philosophical, Social and Religious, ISBN number 0-553-14032-9, page 47

Mike Sigman
01-24-2007, 10:57 AM
hmmmm, so a 'non-racist' call for annihalation of a large number of humans, is somehow more acceptable than a racist one? :rolleyes:Ah.... so point me to any previous quote of yours where you have objected to Islamists calling for the actual annihilation of Israel, Mark. Thanks for helping me make my point.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mark Freeman
01-24-2007, 11:11 AM
Ah.... so point me to any previous quote of yours where you have objected to Islamists calling for the actual annihilation of Israel, Mark. Thanks for helping me make my point.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

I object to any call for annihalation of anyone. I don't care what their label is. So I don't help you to make your point at all.

I highlighted a statement and posed a question. Answering a question with an attack using the evidence of 'what I didn't say', your point is somehow supported. I dispair :rolleyes:

regards,

Mark

Ron Tisdale
01-24-2007, 11:30 AM
I repeat my original statement. Nothing Khomeni says invalidates my position. As far as I'm concerned, you can drop him and his ilk into the ring of fire. I in no way support flying planes into buildings, and neither do ANY of my islamic friends.

I have actually LIVED with muslims, and worshiped in their mosques. I'd say that my knowledge is more superficial than some, and less superficial than others. Which again, says nothing about the statements I have made.

Best,
Ron

Neil Mick
01-24-2007, 12:34 PM
but notice how you try to take a diplomatically more-level approach against continued assaults on Israel (under the thin veil of "I'm only attacking the government") by people like Neil.

Notice how you try to spin my position. In this case, I am taking exactly the same position as Amir.

I only call into question our sources, as they contradict each other. Of course, you'll try to spin everything I say as some sort of anti-US diatribe...in the end, its your only resource.


In terms of "racism", remember that Mohammed killed all Jews and Christians on the Arabian Peninsula after he prevailed. He would do it again and there would be no protests from the Arab countries.

Regards,

Mike

In terms of racism, remember that your comments toward Arabs ARE racist, and therefore unwelcome here. Whatever you think Mohammed did, and your prosaic ideas on what Arabs would do, are irrelevant to that fact.

Mike Sigman
01-24-2007, 12:42 PM
you'll try to spin everything I say as some sort of anti-US diatribe...in the end, its your only resource. I admit it... that one made me laugh out loud, Neil. In terms of racism, remember that your comments toward Arabs ARE racist, and therefore unwelcome here. Whatever you think Mohammed did, and your prosaic ideas on what Arabs would do, are irrelevant to that fact.Oh, I'm not against Arabs, Neil, just their governments. ;) ;) ;) Nod Nod Nod. Sort of like you and the Jooz, eh?

Except, the difference between you and I is that your argument is againt the Jooz and my argument is against hypocrisy. You don't like it when you see the same sort of name-calling used against you and your belief-system, do you, Neil. You'd like to stop anyone from using the same sort of verbal weapons you do by "outlawing" it as "bad" or "racist". You're "tolerant", like most liberals, only when people conform to your way of thinking. :)

Regards,

Mike

Ron Tisdale
01-24-2007, 12:45 PM
To be fair, many Muslims disagree with Khomeni, but he still represents a view/interpretation of what's right and what's wrong that Muslims have, Ron.

Oh, I almost forgot, that statement should read "but he still represents a view/interpretation of what's right and what's wrong that ***SOME*** Muslims have, Ron."

We can talk about how many have that view, we can quibble about whether it is many, a lot, too many, etc. But it is my personal belief, we should avoid wording that suggests ALL.

Best,
Ron

Neil Mick
01-24-2007, 12:57 PM
I tend to be a complete iconoclast, an image breaker.

In your head, maybe. In reality, all you are here, in sum, is an apologist for the Administration, and a racist against Arabs (and by extension, the Jews).

I dislike extremes, whether from the Left or from the Right

I'm trying to imagine George W Bush, Nasrallah or Blair mouthing the same empty platitude...would it sound as hypocritical?

No, probably not. :hypno:

I object to the "racist" card, because nobody denigrated any race. Granted, a deliberate call for "annihilation" was used, but that's not "racist".... although I admit that it was so extreme it had satisfactory shock value. ;)

Uh huh, sure, Mike. Newsflash, Mike, you can try to dance around the term all you want, but what you are calling for, is, in effect, ethnic cleansing...and with ethnic cleansing, comes genocide.

Care to try to argue that it doesn't? :rolleyes:

It is the Arabs. They need to be annihilated, as was suggested in World War I. They never stop until they are stopped by massive force; diplomacy is just a joke to an Arab, as is "keeping their word"

Here, a brief lesson in what racism really is (as you seem to be confused):

Racism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism)

1.The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2.Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

calls by Iran to nuke Israel off the face of the earth.

Of course, racism has its roots in ignorance. And, if you were better informed: you'd know that in fact, the opposite is true, that the Supreme Leader of Iran, the highest religious leader of that country, has actually called a fatwa against using nuclear weapons, and that the President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, actually has no power to launch a nuclear attack...their president has few powers and is quite weak, in comparison to ours.

But you go on, spout your ignorance here and pretend that you're "maintaining your center..." it only makes it more entertaining for the rest of us, when your posts truly nakedly reveal the racism and ignorance, for what it really is.

Neil Mick
01-24-2007, 01:04 PM
Except, the difference between you and I is that your argument is againt the Jooz and my argument is against hypocrisy.

This is simply a flat-out lie. I defy you to present one actual post where I said "The Jews are..." or "The Jews need to be (something negative)."

You can't, but that won't stop you from telling more lies.

You, OTOH, like to pretend that you're arguing against hypocrisy, when your posts are the epitomy of such. You call the AP a liar for a nonexistant source and then crow that you're right, when the opposite was proven. You call Joe Wilson a liar for comments on records he never saw, and then you frantically dig up more strawmen to prove that he lied about something.

Your posts are the epitomy of lies, mendacity, and racism. The only thing funnier than your meager and unimaginative epithets are how quickly your strawmen fall down to even the most cursory scrutiny.

You don't like it when you see the same sort of name-calling used against you and your belief-system, do you, Neil.

I don't like it when someone says something about me, that is untrue.

I am amused, when the same liar turns the same capacity for deception on himself, and pretends that he is "balanced," when he comes here and advocates collective punishment for an ethnicity.

It is so easy for me to pull up a post where you say that "Arabs need" some form of collective punishment, upon them. In fact, I just did it.

Still waiting for that post of mine where you quote me as stating some form of collective punishment against the Jews. Until then, you're just spouting hot air.

I assume that I'll be waiting a long, long time: so I won't be holding my breath.

Mike Sigman
01-24-2007, 03:39 PM
I object to any call for annihalation of anyone. I don't care what their label is. So I don't help you to make your point at all.

I highlighted a statement and posed a question. Answering a question with an attack using the evidence of 'what I didn't say', your point is somehow supported. I dispair :rolleyes: No, my point is that most of the posts by the regulars on the "Open Discussion" forum were pure anti-Bush, anti-US, anti-Israel, etc., a couple of years ago. Not whimper of objection to the attacks. When I essentially say the same things back at "liberal", "Europeans", the "Arabs" aka Islamists (some of whom actually threaten to destroy Israel), I get cries of "racism",etc., from the select few America-haters, etc. You do make my point, Mark, unless I can find similar objections to you from the other side. You're basically anti-US, anti-Israel, etc., OR you're quite tolerant of those that are. Finding you suddenly outraged at anti-Arab statements is interesting.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
01-24-2007, 03:41 PM
I don't like it when someone says something about me, that is untrue.That's the whole point, Neil. You tell lies about people, but you don't like it when you perceive lies are told about you. You smear peoples' names, but you don't like it when the same comes back to haunt. QED.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

statisticool
01-24-2007, 03:48 PM
I like vanilla too.

Mike Sigman
01-24-2007, 03:50 PM
I repeat my original statement. Nothing Khomeni says invalidates my position. As far as I'm concerned, you can drop him and his ilk into the ring of fire. I in no way support flying planes into buildings, and neither do ANY of my islamic friends. My point was the Khomeini's statements represent more of a consensus view in Islam than an exception, Ron. The value system is quite different from ours. Heard any cries of outrage from whole Muslim countries about crimes or attacks against westerners? My point is that while you may not personally know any Muslims who advocate violence against the West, unusual sexual mores when compared to western values, etc., you're certainly not accurately portraying what Islam really is or what it calls for. I realize that many people actually support Islam and would quietly cheer if they destroyed Israel as they claim to want to do, but the naive idea that Islam is a "religion of peace" is a marketting ploy, totally belied by what they've done for hundreds of years and are still doing today against Africans, S.E. Asians, Chinese, Russians, the US, India, etc., etc. This faith in Islamists is very much like the faith in Hitler that so many had right up until the end. ;)

Best.

Mike

Neil Mick
01-24-2007, 03:58 PM
That's the whole point, Neil. You tell lies about people, but you don't like it when you perceive lies are told about you. You smear peoples' names, but you don't like it when the same comes back to haunt. QED.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Sorry, Mike: but I tell what I perceive to be the truth about ppl. And, I am wondering--as are several readers here, I expect--how telling an untruth is resolved by telling another.

Dance all you like around the truth, Mike. Still awaiting that proof that my posts slander the Jews.

I like vanilla too.

Personally I go for coffee heath-bar crunch.

statisticool
01-24-2007, 04:00 PM
Heard any cries of outrage from whole Muslim countries about crimes or attacks against westerners?


Why would the silly criteria of a whole country need to be met? Oh, probably because of the fact that regularly, large groups of Muslims do denounce such crimes.


naive idea that Islam is a "religion of peace" is a marketting ploy, totally belied by what they've done for hundreds of years and are still doing today against Africans, S.E. Asians, Chinese, Russians, the US, India, etc., etc.

So you've confused fundamentalism with non-fundamentalism. OK.

stelios
01-25-2007, 01:50 AM
Imagine this (purely theoretical, right?):
The world consists of x number of countries that objectively belong to their respective borders and no other country can ever violate this.
Each and every country globaly wisely exploits and trades their own natural resources (be that oil, gas, wind, water, coal, manure etc) and never EVER needs to attach another country in order to sustain or expand their grownth.
Every country respects the difference of all the rest countries and does not interfere politically, socially, economically into the "house'' of any other country.
Every country supports and forwards knowledge, democracy, objectivity and only the well being of every citizen. Even laws are needless because every citizen can distinguish right from wrong.
Leader from every country agree on the future of our planet and forward means of protecting our environment regardless of individual scope.
Pure theory, right?
Maybe not so.
The Mediterranean basin was something like that some 4-5 thousand years ago, when the legendary king Minos ruled, his throne being on Crete. The only necessary thing betraying this is the fact that all around the Medditerranean sea no forts/castles were built at the time, cities even by the sea had not fortifications or weapons. Trade, arts, civilization flourished. One of the brightest eras ever.
Then all hell broke loose, still unknown why or exactly when. And we ended up today to invent & chase ghost criminals globaly in order to exterminate one another and drain this tiny planet first of resources and then of people. Hatred rules, the aroma of shamefulness is adamant and nobody seems to care. The dawn of civilisation?
Shame...
This old grandpa, O Sensei, once said that Aikido is in the mind and body of people who will have to provide enlightement to the rest of the world. Have we forgotten that? Are we, at least, following up his words which are only words of common sense and peace? Is respect and above all truth ("The true truth", as one Greek poet set it) the only window through which we examine things?
Please excuse my bad command of english and the sadness I feel about this world today.

Ron Tisdale
01-25-2007, 06:57 AM
Mike, I don't have any faith in "Islamists", what ever they are. Part of the problem with this conversation is that broad strokes just don't cover it accurately.

I can't take the rap for whatever someone else thinks, does, or did. But I can stand up and say...take me, and everyone else as they are. If the person likes to fly planes into buildings, put them away somewhere or kill them. If the person worships and lives peacefully, move on. No need to curse an entire religion or populace.

This back and forth has been going on for a LONG time between religions. Your language is NOT a solution to the problem.

Best,
Ron

Cady Goldfield
01-25-2007, 07:10 AM
Stelios wrote: Then all hell broke loose, still unknown why or exactly when. And we ended up today to invent & chase ghost criminals globaly in order to exterminate one another and drain this tiny planet first of resources and then of people. Hatred rules, the aroma of shamefulness is adamant and nobody seems to care. The dawn of civilisation?
Shame...

Maybe that's when Pandora opened the box, eh? The whole world went to hell after that. ;)

Keep in mind that history tends to embellish things considerably. Minos is alternately reputed to have been an enlightened son of Zeus, and a tyrant (using enforced population control on Crete by sequestering women and requiring homosexuality among men to divert their libido). And, Minos may not even have been any one man, but a succession of Minoan kings. But things do get fuzzy over a span of 4,000 or 5,000 years!

Furthermore, there was no perfect peace. Wars are recorded to have commonly occurred throughout this period. But the Minoan empire was so powerful that it served as "peacemaker" that no one else dared defy. When "Dad" is nearby, all of the kids play nice.

But no one power remains omnipotent forever. And it's naive for us to assume that the rulers of the various less-powerful countries weren't always looking for weaknesses and flaws in the larger power, hoping to eventually overthrow that power and assume that role themselves. Plus, the men on Crete wanted to have sex with women again... :D

Amir Krause
01-25-2007, 08:18 AM
Uh oh... I'm doomed... namecalling. Amir I can appreciate your viewpoint, but notice how you try to take a diplomatically more-level approach against continued assaults on Israel (under the thin veil of "I'm only attacking the government") by people like Neil. I've watched the over-the-top rhetoric by the Far Left (I suspect you're somewhat to the Left in Israeli politics, correct?) which makes all sorts of very negative comments about "Neo-cons", "dumb Bush", "the US", "Israel", refuses to back their own country, etc., and no one says a word. When someone takes their emotional approach and reverses it, notice the screaming. In other words, reply fiercely to fierce attacks... diplomacy doesn't work.

In terms of "racism", remember that Mohammed killed all Jews and Christians on the Arabian Peninsula after he prevailed. He would do it again and there would be no protests from the Arab countries.

Regards,

Mike


Mike

I have no problem with labeling Mohammed as a religious fanatic, who practically subjugated any opposition using all means available, including genocide and signing "cease fire" peace contracts he intends to break once he is strong enough. I would also agree that anyone who pursues the same goals today (global rule of Islam) is a racist.

It is Racism once you make distinctions about large groups of people based on their race, ethnicity or religion. In this thread, you have done the same thing about Arabs: generalizing and placing them all in a single unified group, which they definitely are not (in the last couple of years Arabs & Muslims have killed more of each other then any other nation has). Your placing labels on the intentions and beliefs of all Arabs & Muslims and deciding they are all bad is racist.

I strongly object to the Iranian claims regarding the annihilation of Israel (after all, this is my place of living and I wish to raise my family here, something non of you can say). As far s political approach, I would place myself somewhere in the center, I have leftist tendencies at times and right winged tendencies at others, based on my perception of the logical choices.
Yes, I have a lot of criticism on my Govt. I always thought it is the duty of every citizen in a democratic country – to criticize His won Govt. and demand better of it, threatening to replace it otherwise. Still, in the history of this very thread (and others) you could find me arguing against Neal multiple times, when his opinions about solutions for the mid-east conflicts seem Naïve at best to me, placing me and family at risk for the remote chance of someone succeeding in providing ideal peace while I hear the crowd wishes echo all around.
Due to my own criticism, I find it surprising you have problems with people who are critic of your own leadership. Are you sure they could not have done anything better?

Heard any cries of outrage from whole Muslim countries about crimes or attacks against westerners?

YES, I have, and I even read translations to Hebrew of articles they wrote in Arabic (some Arab politicians are blamed for writing one thing in Arabic and another in English, I am not talking of those).
I also know, some of those I have heard about were and are persecuted by large “elite” groups in their own nations.


My point is that while you may not personally know any Muslims who advocate violence against the West, unusual sexual mores when compared to western values, etc., you're certainly not accurately portraying what Islam really is or what it calls for. I realize that many people actually support Islam and would quietly cheer if they destroyed Israel as they claim to want to do, but the naive idea that Islam is a "religion of peace" is a marketting ploy, totally belied by what they've done for hundreds of years and are still doing today against Africans, S.E. Asians, Chinese, Russians, the US, India, etc., etc. This faith in Islamists is very much like the faith in Hitler that so many had right up until the end.

This concept has a well established name in the Israeli culture, the “ladder steps theory”. And it is a thing that frightens every Israeli. If one asks of the reason many Israelis reject current ideas of an interim “cease-fire”, this concept is the very reason, we have no wish to negotiate and give significant strategic assets, only to find ourselves in an armed conflict in another decade or two. Given this option, Israelis prefer the current situation – it is militarily better for us.
But, the thing you miss Mike, is that no one wishes to have to fight for ever, no person and no nation. Particularly when the Jewish nation size is so small relatively, and one mistake might be too many. Therefore, a situation of a real peace with a real settlement “forever” is something most Israelis strive for. The internal Jewish Israeli conflict continuously has too sides, divided on the extent of concessions such a peace is worthy, but a vast majority is willing for a lot. However, this very same majority is very suspicious and wishes for assurances this is not the “ladder steps theory” and will be a true and lasting peace.


Amir

Ron Tisdale
01-25-2007, 08:43 AM
Amir, nice post. Happy New Year, and may you and yours be well.

Best,
Ron

Mike Sigman
01-25-2007, 08:57 AM
It is Racism once you make distinctions about large groups of people based on their race, ethnicity or religion. Well, I dunno about that. Certainly distinctions can be made about "race" that are true and yet which do not have the negative connotation of "racism", Amir. This is what I mean about shutting off debate, even worthwhile debate, at the whim of people shouting "racism!". It smacks of the same spurious motives that religious fanatics use when they cut off heads because someone is not a true believer. And I mean that very seriously, for once. I deride "liberals" and fanatical "conservatives" and "religious fanatics" as essentially being the same things.... people who want to impose their beliefs on someone else. When you start labelling someone "racist", you open that particular door, if you're not careful.

First of all, "racism" does not apply to religion, in the proper sense, so let's toss it out. We're talking about Islamists, in reality.

Secondly, there are very many "distinctions" about race and gender diferences which are used all the time.... so the application of "racist" or "sexist" becomes a subjective name-calling, with people whimsically applying the term in order to win an argument solely by trying to apply a label that trivializes the speaker.

Several years ago a lot of the medical community simply shifted gears on the "race" issue because it saves more lives to just acknowledge the fact that there are physiological differences between the races. Hence, many medicines now mention the effects of pharmocalogical drugs on Caucasians, Asians, and Blacks. Is that "racist"? Depends on how you use the term "racist", but certainly not in a negative sense.

"Minorities" as the term is used in the US, applies mainly to Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Indians (I live in an area that has many native Indians). Asians are seldom mentioned in "minority" statistics because they tend to do so well economically, in educational scores, etc. Is it "racist" to mention the statistics of "minority test scores" in the newspapers as part of the overall effort to statistically increase "minority" achievements?

You get the point. Your use of the term "racist" is meaningless as anything other than an attempt to trivialize or denigrate... so let's drop it, shall we? Next thing you know, you'll be calling me an "anti-Semite". ;) In this thread, you have done the same thing about Arabs: generalizing and placing them all in a single unified group, which they definitely are not (in the last couple of years Arabs & Muslims have killed more of each other then any other nation has). Your placing labels on the intentions and beliefs of all Arabs & Muslims and deciding they are all bad is racist. Islam is bad. It has a proven track record that is *far* worse over time and deed than any other single "religion". It calls for the destruction and/or subjugation of Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. I know you'd like to say "they don't really mean that", but it's in writing and history proves you wrong, no matter how much you hope today that by being nice they will change. I strongly object to the Iranian claims regarding the annihilation of Israel (after all, this is my place of living and I wish to raise my family here, something non of you can say). As far s political approach, I would place myself somewhere in the center, I have leftist tendencies at times and right winged tendencies at others, based on my perception of the logical choices.
Yes, I have a lot of criticism on my Govt. I always thought it is the duty of every citizen in a democratic country -- to criticize His won Govt. and demand better of it, threatening to replace it otherwise. Still, in the history of this very thread (and others) you could find me arguing against Neal multiple times, when his opinions about solutions for the mid-east conflicts seem Naïve at best to me, placing me and family at risk for the remote chance of someone succeeding in providing ideal peace while I hear the crowd wishes echo all around.
Due to my own criticism, I find it surprising you have problems with people who are critic of your own leadership. Are you sure they could not have done anything better? The big difference between your disagreements with the government and someone like Neil (who is part of a surprisingly large group of fat, dumb, and happy liberal theorists in the US) is that you at least will shut up and support your own troops once they are at risk, holding back your criticism so as not to endanger the Israeli troops. Neil and his fellow-believers actively hope for more US deaths so that "the war will end due to popular pressure", etc.

Sure, they give an almost humorous "we support the troops" insult while they're encouraging the enemy, but no one I've ever met really is fooled. That's the difference. Protest and dissent are fine... up until the troops are at risk; then it should stop. Unlike Israel, though, we have a volunteer military which is staffed overwhelmingly by "conservatives"... liberals don't protect the country in great numbers. In fact, knowing that conservatives comprise most of the military, the liberal Al Gore tried to block some military vote during the 2000 election because he knew most of the vote would go to the Republicans. See the problem?But, the thing you miss Mike, is that no one wishes to have to fight for ever, no person and no nation. Particularly when the Jewish nation size is so small relatively, and one mistake might be too many. Therefore, a situation of a real peace with a real settlement "forever" is something most Israelis strive for. The internal Jewish Israeli conflict continuously has too sides, divided on the extent of concessions such a peace is worthy, but a vast majority is willing for a lot. However, this very same majority is very suspicious and wishes for assurances this is not the "ladder steps theory" and will be a true and lasting peace.If you have been negotiating with someone who never keeps their word and who only wants you dead, at some time you have to understand that negotiating simply doesn't work and you must make them realize that the other option is indeed horrible for them. Then they will negotiate. Israeli appeasement has so far been just as successful as the appeasement of the Europeans prior to World War II. How many Israelis must be sacrificed before that point is driven home?

Regards,

Mike

Ron Tisdale
01-25-2007, 10:07 AM
Islam is bad. It has a proven track record that is *far* worse over time and deed than any other single "religion"

Sorry, you'll have to prove that. The old testament glorifies "dashing the heads of the children of your enemies against rocks". Does that mean that all Christians, Jews and Muslims (they all venerate the old testament in one form or another) would do that today? Please...

I'm going to bow out of this now, my points have been stated. While I agree that the term "racist" is fundamentally flawed (there is *one* human race, the issues that you cite are valid, etc.) unless we intend to propose an alternate word, and take the implications involved seriously, I don't see how a meaningful conversation can move forward.

Best,
Ron

Mike Sigman
01-25-2007, 10:19 AM
Sorry, you'll have to prove that. The old testament glorifies "dashing the heads of the children of your enemies against rocks". Does that mean that all Christians, Jews and Muslims (they all venerate the old testament in one form or another) would do that today? Ron, you're speaking superficially about the "Old Testament".... perhaps you believe that the same "Old Testament" is used by Islam as the "Old Testament" of the Christians or the "Old Testament" of the Jews? There are differences. In some cases there are marked differences. I told you that a superficial understanding was not accurate.

There is a big difference between an someone saying to do something to "your enemies" and someone saying "do something to the Jews" or "the Christians" or "people who don't believe as we do". In other words, your comparison doesn't stand up. If the Christian or Jewish "Old Testament" specifically pointed out who "the enemy" was, as is done in Islam, I'd agree with you. It's easy for us to shrug of talk of "the enemy" when we all know that "the enemy" is some long-ago warring and competing tribe. It's quite a different thing when your holy book specifically names people who exist today and against whom active attacks have been continuously made for hundreds of years. If you want to pretend that Israel is not really under attack and that several countries are still not actively in a "State of War" because of what is in the Quran, then you're in denial. ;)

As long as Islam specifically names its enemies and is attacking them (without any censure at all from the rest of the Muslim world), to pretend they aren't really doint it is insane.

Regards,

Mike

Cady Goldfield
01-25-2007, 10:25 AM
Not trying to add fuel to the flames, here, but I found this website that I find interesting and disturbing:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina40908.htm

Its homepage has a statement that this website is banned in all Muslim countries.

Mike Sigman
01-25-2007, 10:37 AM
Interestingly enough, I think we're watching the "Politically Correct" approach show its worst downside. If you believe that everyone and every culture is somehow "equal facets of the same basic humanity", you're naive... and you're naive, humorously, based on Judeo-Christian ideas that are being mixed into socialism. Other cultures are mystified about this roll-over-and-play-dead aspect of social/liberal thought in the West. They simply want to take us out of the breeding competition and they probably will.

It's sort of like an article I saw about some "environmentally conscious" women's religious group that thinks people should only have one child if we really want to be good stewards to the environment. Where do they think that leads for the environment when a lot of I-couldn't-care-less-about-the-environment cultures are having 5 or 6 children per couple. Who is really going to wind up controlling the environment? ;)

Mike

Mike Sigman
01-25-2007, 11:00 AM
While I agree that the term "racist" is fundamentally flawed (there is *one* human race, the issues that you cite are valid, etc.) unless we intend to propose an alternate word, and take the implications involved seriously, I don't see how a meaningful conversation can move forward.Yes, there is one human race, in a broad sense, Ron, but that human race has evolved through competition and varying survival strategies, depending on the geographical areas in which it evolved. Just like other widespread animal species have done. To pretend that we're all homogeneously the same would be to deny the very competition that is the essence of all animals. Finding a way to handle being realistic and matching it with the western-trendy socialist-equality paradigm is a nice idea, but I don't know if it will work, frankly. My approach is simply to be open to everyone I meet and to judge them on the kind of person they are. Competitively, I think that gives me the best options of all plans.

I don't "stereotype" needlessly, but I don't ignore what's going on in the real world in an attempt to meet some current idea of how I should think, according to the Thought Police. My general response is "you guys tend to your knitting; I'll tend to mine". :)

Best.

Mike

Ron Tisdale
01-25-2007, 11:09 AM
Again, you keep painting with the broad brush...most of the things in your riposts have nothing to do with me...they are assumptions about "liberals, PC, etc", which simply do not apply in my case.

Here's another example...I specifically said "(they all venerate the old testament in one form or another)"...yet you ignore that because it doesn't allow you the snipe about how "superficial" I am. If I wasn't aware of the differences...I wouldn't have put that in there. You are so caught up in your diatribe you aren't even reading anymore.

That's kind of sad. And it doesn't move the conversation forward.

Best,
Ron (now I'm really done...)

Mike Sigman
01-25-2007, 11:31 AM
Here's another example...I specifically said "(they all venerate the old testament in one form or another)"...yet you ignore that because it doesn't allow you the snipe about how "superficial" I am. If I wasn't aware of the differences...I wouldn't have put that in there. You are so caught up in your diatribe you aren't even reading anymore.

That's kind of sad. And it doesn't move the conversation forward.
Oh, I dunno what's really sad, Ron. The fact that you glossed over the stark differences in the Quran calling for the specific denigration of Jews, Christians, etc., or the fact that I pointed out that there was quite a difference. The "in one form or another" could have been a slip or it could have been a deliberate attempt to mislead... I opted for the diplomatic response and got slammed again. While telling me how sad it is, is fine... do you recognize that a vague usage of "enemies" from long-ago tribal warfare, is remarkably different from a specific spelling out of hatred for Jews, Christians, etc.???? That was my point, regardless of how sad it is. ;)

Regards,

Mike

Mark Freeman
01-25-2007, 11:33 AM
Not trying to add fuel to the flames, here, but I found this website that I find interesting and disturbing:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina40908.htm

Its homepage has a statement that this website is banned in all Muslim countries.

This is a quite extraordinary website, worth taking some time to look at. The founder has multiple fatwa's and death threats against him for daring to say the things he does, luckily the internet allows anonimity, so he can continue.

Regards

Mark

Mark Freeman
01-25-2007, 11:36 AM
Best,
Ron (now I'm really done...)

One day someone should compile a compendium of Ron's parting parethesies :D

regards,

Mark ( I'm an admirer ;) )

Mike Sigman
01-25-2007, 11:57 AM
This is a quite extraordinary website, worth taking some time to look at. It's worth noting that they have a good section on Amin Al-HUsseini, one of the real founders of the Arab problems of today and someone who many Arab leaders attempt to copy:

Amin Al-Husseini in Berlin meets [xxiii] with Adolf Hitler [xxiv] and is active in the decision to exterminate all Jews through the infamous Final Solution [xxv] .
Hitler was reportedly content with deporting the Jews out of Europe to Palestine. Husseini perceived this as a threat to his stronghold in Palestine and pushed successfully for the extermination of the European Jews.

Luc X Saroufim
01-25-2007, 12:03 PM
Mike, if you look at actual history and facts, instead of FOX news, the people you should be complaining about are Christians.

it's all over the New Testament: after all, the Jews killed Jesus, right? what traitors!

there's another interesting fact proving my point: all my life, i've basically known that the Lebanese word for "Jew" is "Yahoood".

what i didn't know until recently, is that in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, "Yahoood" was the name of the betraying disciple (Judas).

exact same pronunciation and spelling. i couldn't believe it; since the writing of all the New Testaments, the Jews have been framed as being the bad guys.

not to mention Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Tai Ping rebellion in China. i would say over the course of human history no religious belief has been more self-righteous and deadly than Christianity.

Even in the Lebanese Civil War, some Christians sided with Israel and killed countless women and children in Palestinian camps. this was only 30 years ago. Christians are MORE responsible for Lebanon's destruction than islamists. Christians were shooting each other and throwing bombs way before HA was created.

and that totalitarian regime in WWII? they were Islamic? hmm never knew that.

pointing the finger at Islam is latest trend in news ratings, and it works. i'm just trying to give you more credit than that, Mike, but you're making it very difficult for me ;)

FWIW

Neil Mick
01-25-2007, 12:10 PM
Well, I dunno about that. Certainly distinctions can be made about "race" that are true and yet which do not have the negative connotation of "racism", Amir. This is what I mean about shutting off debate, even worthwhile debate, at the whim of people shouting "racism!".

Incredible. The man practically has the equivalent of an online Intervention to tell him that his posts are racist...with step-by-step footnotes on where his posts went off the rails, and he still denies reality.

Woah. :eek:

And I mean that very seriously, for once.

Oh, OK, he's being serious, for once. He really believes that we're trying to shut off debate, by getting him to stop making racist epithets about Arabs.

I deride "liberals" and fanatical "conservatives" and "religious fanatics" as essentially being the same things.... people who want to impose their beliefs on someone else.

Another lie. The history of Israel is riddled with the pages of its own fanatics...funny, you never decry them. The murderer of Peres? A rightwing nutcase. But so far, your posts are nearly empty of insults toward ppl like this.

Secondly, there are very many "distinctions" about race and gender diferences which are used all the time.... so the application of "racist" or "sexist" becomes a subjective name-calling, with people whimsically applying the term in order to win an argument solely by trying to apply a label that trivializes the speaker.

Several years ago a lot of the medical community simply shifted gears on the "race" issue because it saves more lives to just acknowledge the fact that there are physiological differences between the races. Hence, many medicines now mention the effects of pharmocalogical drugs on Caucasians, Asians, and Blacks. Is that "racist"? Depends on how you use the term "racist", but certainly not in a negative sense.

Look, watch him do the "Prevarication Dance!" :rolleyes: Next he'll be arguing that black is white.

You get the point. Your use of the term "racist" is meaningless as anything other than an attempt to trivialize or denigrate... so let's drop it, shall we?

When you drop the racist remarks, sure!

Next thing you know, you'll be calling me an "anti-Semite". ;) Islam is bad.

Too funny! Did you even pause for breath before writing out this hypocrisy? You go on and on for several paragraphs about how you're not a "racist:" and then you plop out this little "gem:"

It has a proven track record that is *far* worse over time and deed than any other single "religion".

Another baldfaced lie. Got a source to prove this nonsense?

Ever heard of the Crusades? Hello?

It calls for the destruction and/or subjugation of Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc.


And so, Muslim scholar, Mike Sigman, tells us his "wise" interpretation of the Holy Quran. :rolleyes: Uh huh.

The big difference between your disagreements with the government and someone like Neil (who is part of a surprisingly large group of fat, dumb, and happy liberal theorists in the US)

I am...? Funny, but when I go to the meetings...there aren't that many fat, dumb anf happy Liberal theorists hanging about. Most of THEM went over to the other side...better refreshments served... :p

is that you at least will shut up and support your own troops once they are at risk, holding back your criticism so as not to endanger the Israeli troops. Neil and his fellow-believers actively hope for more US deaths so that "the war will end due to popular pressure", etc.

Another lie, of course. Do you have uncontrollable needs to lie frequently, as well as a need to slander an ethnicity and religion, that you poorly understand, too?

I suppose YOU call support for a nonplan that only promises more deaths a "supporting the troops."

I only feel pity for you, Mike. When you wake up one day and realize that all this was a lie--a lie you swallowed--you're going to have some mighty tough questions for that guy in the mirror, I imagine.

Until then, you just wave those pom-pom's and pretend that you're the "patriot," when actually, your posts are more un-American than anyone else's, here.



Yeah, you guys were sharp! YOU weren't fooled (about wmds, or copper tubes, or outing CIA operatives, or No Children Left Behind, or Jack Abramoff, or detaining/torturing innocent ppl, or...)

[quote]Protest and dissent are fine... up until the troops are at risk; then it should stop.

Thank God your name wasn't Lyndon B. Johnson...we'd still BE there!

P.S. Still awaiting that proof to your claim that my posts slander the Jews, Mike.

Mike Sigman
01-25-2007, 12:16 PM
Mike, if you look at actual history and facts, instead of FOX news, the people you should be complaining about are Christians.

it's all over the New Testament: after all, the Jews killed Jesus, right? what traitors! Hmmmm.... I thought the Romans killed him, Luc. But who cares? If you think you're playing to any religious beliefs I have, you're wrong. there's another interesting fact proving my point: all my life, i've basically known that the Lebanese word for "Jew" is "Yahoood".

what i didn't know until recently, is that in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, "Yahoood" was the name of the betraying disciple (Judas).

exact same pronunciation and spelling. i couldn't believe it; since the writing of all the New Testaments, the Jews have been framed as being the bad guys. That's interesting, Luc, that you should say that. Actually the term "Jew", "Yudah", does sound a lot like "Judas", doesn't it? However, bear in mind that what it means is that they're "Judean" from "Juda" aka "Yuda". A Jew is a Judean. Of course, the Arabs and the liberal press desperately call Judea and Samaria the "West Bank" in order to not highlight the fact that in fact the "Jews" do have a historical claim to the West Bank of Israel.... it's their homeland. not to mention Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Tai Ping rebellion in China. i would say over the course of human history no religious belief has been more self-righteous and deadly than Christianity.

Even in the Lebanese Civil War, some Christians sided with Israel and killed countless women and children in Palestinian camps. this was only 30 years ago. Christians are MORE responsible for Lebanon's destruction than islamists. Christians were shooting each other and throwing bombs way before HA was created.

and that totalitarian regime in WWII? they were Islamic? hmm never knew that.

pointing the finger at Islam is latest trend in news ratings, and it works. i'm just trying to give you more credit than that, Mike, but you're making it very difficult for me ;) Nothing the Christians (or any other religion) have done comes anywhere close to the sheer numbers of murders and thuggery done "on behalf of Allah". Nothing. The idea that there is some sort of equivalency does not play out if you look at the facts. Oh... and don't forget what they did to the Hindus. And don't forget what is going on in Africa, Indonesia, the Pacific Rim, Europe, and other places right now in history, Luc. The equivalency argument is a hollow one.

Regards,

Mike

Mike Sigman
01-25-2007, 12:24 PM
Incredible. The man practically has the equivalent of an online Intervention .....Neil, I don't want to be rude, but after reading your totally circular arguments for a while, I've decided you're not worth it. You're anti US. You only see facts that support your arguments and won't even address facts that don't. It's continuous and tiresome. I.e., your arguments are not rational.

I just laid out a logical position on "racism", which everyone but you understood and acknowledged and then went on to make further points in the discussion. There is never any "moving on" with you... you simply see, hear, and state only positions you agree with and ignore any others. Your idea that somehow you're able to think of "correct positions" is a charade you're playing on yourself.

Go argue with yourself.

Mike

Neil Mick
01-25-2007, 12:52 PM
Neil, I don't want to be rude,

A first, it's gotta be.

but after reading your totally circular arguments for a while, I've decided you're not worth it.

Excellent. You're right, I'm not worth it.

I just laid out a logical position on "racism", which everyone but you understood and acknowledged and then went on to make further points in the discussion.

That's too funny...I'm saying exactly the same thing as 4 other ppl, and you think that my posts are somehow different.

The lengths that some ppl will go toward continuing their self-delusion...

Go argue with yourself.

Mike

Excellent. Sounds like a plan...how about you go rant on your own misbegotten diatribes (without my comments); and you can leave off commenting on my posts. That way, you can continue on with your self-delusion, to your heart's content.

Deal?

Neil Mick
01-25-2007, 01:08 PM
(P.S. I suppose this means that the actual proof that I slander the Jews won't be forth-coming...to be expected. Nice dodge, Mike...but, never mind)

Mike Sigman
01-25-2007, 01:27 PM
That's too funny...I'm saying exactly the same thing as 4 other ppl, and you think that my posts are somehow different.Yes... exactly. Yet all someone has to do is look and voila', the acknowledgements about "racism" being somewhat of a trope are right there, yet you pretend that you're right. Amazing.

Cady Goldfield
01-25-2007, 03:14 PM
there's another interesting fact proving my point: all my life, i've basically known that the Lebanese word for "Jew" is "Yahoood".

what i didn't know until recently, is that in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, "Yahoood" was the name of the betraying disciple (Judas).

exact same pronunciation and spelling. i couldn't believe it; since the writing of all the New Testaments, the Jews have been framed as being the bad guys.


Luc,
The Jews call themselves "Yehudi (sing.)/Yehudim (plural)" and "Jew" is just the anglicized way to say that. The name comes from the kingdom of Judea (anglicized pronuciation), where Judaism as it's known today was cultivated under King Yehudah ("Judah"). Judas (also an anglicized variation of "Yehudah") is a totally different person and came much later, of course. Jews are "the People of Yehudah/Judah."

But anyway, Jews as a nation and people were not the en masse "killers of Jesus" despite what some would like to think; it was a discrete faction, (the ruling Pharisees), fearful of losing what little tenuous grasp of token power the Romans let them retain. They were "abetted" by the people living in and around Jerusalem, mostly "little people" with no power, living in fear under Roman oppression. There were Jews living all over the Middle East, and the "stage" where the drama of the death of Jesus in the New Testament is set, is in one city. THE Jews didn't all converge on Jerusalem to tell the Romans to kill Jesus. Jerusalem was a Jewish city, with lots of Jews living in it. Jesus was one of them. If Jesus had been born Irish, it would have been a group of Irish who killed him. If he'd been born Polish, Poles would have gotten him.

This was a person born during a controversial and desperate time, when a people was being subsumed and subjugated by a dominant (in this case, Roman) culture, and many were desperate for a messiah to rescue them. Before and after Jesus, there were many others who came along, claiming to be -- or being deemed to be -- the messiah, until shown to be otherwise.

The ruling Pharisees sect, grasping desperately to what little power they had under the Romans, didn't want anyone rocking the boat. Just like certain factions in America didn't want to see civil rights get a foothold -- they were happy with Jim Crow laws and the upperhand in all things economic, political and social -- and so Martin Luther King Jr. for daring to speak out otherwise and rocking the boat.

But would that mean that THE Euro(white)-Americans killed Martin Luther King, Jr.? Would we brand an entire group as MLK killers? Or was it specific and discrete faction, hanging on to what it believed was its tenuous grasp of power over a segrated society it wanted to keep segregated?

Just some ponderings.

Cady Goldfield
01-25-2007, 03:28 PM
No one else likes chocolate?

I like guns, too.

I like guns and chocolate. Not necessarily in that order of preference. And no Hershey's. They use more sugar to disguise the fact that they have reduced the amount of chocolate content, and keep raising the price and shrinking the size of the bar.

So I have to amend my statement to liking chocolate that is at least 50% cacao.

Oh crap, that makes me sound like a liberal... :D

statisticool
01-25-2007, 04:50 PM
, I've decided you're not worth it.
...
Go argue with yourself.


Translation:

'I'll continue to post to or about you.'

All too accurate. :)

statisticool
01-25-2007, 04:55 PM
, the "Arabs" aka Islamists (some of whom actually threaten to destroy Israel), I get cries of "racism",etc.,


Please tell us that you understand that not all Arabs follow Islam.

So your "aka" doesn't make sense at all.

statisticool
01-25-2007, 04:57 PM
If you believe that everyone and every culture is somehow "equal facets of the same basic humanity", you're naive... and you're naive, humorously,


Why? You've simply stated your belief, but have not given a logical reason why someone should believe your stance that it is naive to believe that all humans are equal.


They simply want to take us out of the breeding competition and they probably will.


This "they" sure sounds scary.

statisticool
01-25-2007, 05:05 PM
First of all, "racism" does not apply to religion, in the proper sense, so let's toss it out. We're talking about Islamists, in reality.


You said something like "Arabs, aka Islamists". You do understand, right, that not all Arabs follow Islam, don't you?


Hence, many medicines now mention the effects of pharmocalogical drugs on Caucasians, Asians, and Blacks. Is that "racist"? Depends on how you use the term "racist", but certainly not in a negative sense.


Is


It is the Arabs. They need to be annihilated, as was suggested in World War I. They never stop until they are stopped by massive force; diplomacy is just a joke to an Arab, as is "keeping their word".

a negative or positive sense?


The big difference between your disagreements with the government and someone like Neil (who is part of a surprisingly large group of fat, dumb, and happy liberal theorists in the US)


So much for the very hypocritical


...is meaningless as anything other than an attempt to trivialize or denigrate... so let's drop it, shall we?

I guess you really didn't mean the "let's" in there. What other words of yours can we safely discard?

Neil Mick
01-25-2007, 09:50 PM
What he said:

Yes... exactly. Yet all someone has to do is look and voila', the acknowledgements about "racism" being somewhat of a trope are right there, yet you pretend that you're right. Amazing.

What he meant:

Even tho at least 3 other people noted the racist comments in his remarks (see below)....

While I agree that the term "racist" is fundamentally flawed (there is *one* human race, the issues that you cite are valid, etc.) unless we intend to propose an alternate word, and take the implications involved seriously, I don't see how a meaningful conversation can move forward.
Best,
Ron

I must protest against this post. Mike, this is not the first time you have posted RACIST posts against the Arab nation.

hmmmm, so a 'non-racist' call for annihalation of a large number of humans, is somehow more acceptable than a racist one?

...the charge of racism is specious, because Neil made it as well.

What he REALLY means:

I can never, ever, admit that my posts are wrong, or that I make racist remarks, here.

I would rather continue to lie and misdirect, misconstrue arguments and turn the conversations into insipid "Arab vs Jew" harangues, than to admit a mistake...for admitting an error means that I have to admit to several other errors in my remarks, as well.

Neil Mick
01-25-2007, 09:54 PM
(P.S. I suppose this means that the actual proof that I slander the Jews won't be forth-coming...to be expected. Nice dodge, Mike...but, never mind)

What Mike's Response to my P.S. REALLY meant:

Translation:

'I'll continue to post to or about you.'

All too accurate. :)

or: "No, I, Mike Sigman, cannot find a single post to prove my frequent charges of anti-Semitism. Instead, I'll continue to post the same smears; and when you ask for proof, I'll declare that you're not worth the argument."

Mike Sigman
01-25-2007, 09:58 PM
Actually, Neil, I think the fact that Justin Smith is on your side should be a satisfactory and telling pointer for everyone. ;)

Regards,

Mike

Neil Mick
01-25-2007, 10:04 PM
Actually, Neil, I think the fact that Justin Smith is on your side should be a satisfactory and telling pointer for everyone. ;)

Regards,

Mike

How's that search for those anti-Semitic posts of mine going, Mike? Have you found one yet?

statisticool
01-26-2007, 03:53 PM
Actually, Neil, I think the fact that Justin Smith is on your side should be a satisfactory and telling pointer for everyone. ;)


What Walter apparently cannot get over is that it doesn't matter who is on whos side. It is about the evidence.

I follow where the logical, supported, argument is. It could be from Neil, Walter, or anybody. In this particular case, it is Neil IMO.

You see, in a debate, illogical rants like


, the "Arabs" aka Islamists

and


It is the Arabs. They need to be annihilated, as was suggested in World War I. They never stop until they are stopped by massive force; diplomacy is just a joke to an Arab, as is "keeping their word".


being passed as logical debate just doesn't cut it.

Hey, anyone notice what happened to


, I've decided you're not worth it.

Go argue with yourself.

just a few posts above? :rolleyes:

Amir Krause
01-28-2007, 09:14 AM
Luc,
The Jews call themselves "Yehudi (sing.)/Yehudim (plural)" and "Jew" is just the anglicized way to say that. The name comes from the kingdom of Judea (anglicized pronuciation), where Judaism as it's known today was cultivated under King Yehudah ("Judah"). Judas (also an anglicized variation of "Yehudah") is a totally different person and came much later, of course. Jews are "the People of Yehudah/Judah."


Cady,
Could you refresh my memory about "king Yehudah "?
Somehow, while I have studied the bible, I don't remeber any such king. The kings I would have thought about when discussing Judea would have been (Hebrew pronuciation): David, Shlomo, Yoshiyahu. There was a whole line of kings but those are the ones which stuck in my memory.




But anyway, Jews as a nation and people were not the en masse "killers of Jesus" despite what some would like to think; it was a discrete faction, (the ruling Pharisees), fearful of losing what little tenuous grasp of token power the Romans let them retain. They were "abetted" by the people living in and around Jerusalem, mostly "little people" with no power, living in fear under Roman oppression. There were Jews living all over the Middle East, and the "stage" where the drama of the death of Jesus in the New Testament is set, is in one city. THE Jews didn't all converge on Jerusalem to tell the Romans to kill Jesus. Jerusalem was a Jewish city, with lots of Jews living in it. Jesus was one of them. If Jesus had been born Irish, it would have been a group of Irish who killed him. If he'd been born Polish, Poles would have gotten him.

This was a person born during a controversial and desperate time, when a people was being subsumed and subjugated by a dominant (in this case, Roman) culture, and many were desperate for a messiah to rescue them. Before and after Jesus, there were many others who came along, claiming to be -- or being deemed to be -- the messiah, until shown to be otherwise.

The ruling Pharisees sect, grasping desperately to what little power they had under the Romans, didn't want anyone rocking the boat. Just like certain factions in America didn't want to see civil rights get a foothold -- they were happy with Jim Crow laws and the upperhand in all things economic, political and social -- and so Martin Luther King Jr. for daring to speak out otherwise and rocking the boat.

But would that mean that THE Euro(white)-Americans killed Martin Luther King, Jr.? Would we brand an entire group as MLK killers? Or was it specific and discrete faction, hanging on to what it believed was its tenuous grasp of power over a segrated society it wanted to keep segregated?

Just some ponderings.

The real facts about Jesus are much more obscure then that. non today knows exactly how he died, for the Romans, he was just another Jew cult leader. His death might have been supported by the Jewish leadership (lobbying the Romans for it), but why should they have bothered with him of all the cults which were common at the time?
For all we know, the Romans killed him for some other reason (disturbing the peaceful rest of some officer ...).

We do know for sure that Christians have blamed Jews for the death of " Jesus Christ" ( a past Jew) for a millennia and a half, and that Jews were actively persecuted by the catholic church and other churches (for example Orthodocs). Mike, should all Christians be killed today for that?





And back to the "Racisem Topic"

Islam is bad. It has a proven track record that is *far* worse over time and deed than any other single "religion". It calls for the destruction and/or subjugation of Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. I know you'd like to say "they don't really mean that", but it's in writing and history proves you wrong, no matter how much you hope today that by being nice they will change.



Oh, I dunno what's really sad, Ron. The fact that you glossed over the stark differences in the Quran calling for the specific denigration of Jews, Christians, etc., or the fact that I pointed out that there was quite a difference. The "in one form or another" could have been a slip or it could have been a deliberate attempt to mislead... I opted for the diplomatic response and got slammed again. While telling me how sad it is, is fine... do you recognize that a vague usage of "enemies" from long-ago tribal warfare, is remarkably different from a specific spelling out of hatred for Jews, Christians, etc.???? That was my point, regardless of how sad it is



Having learned the bible in high school, I still remember that already in the Torah, in book "Dvarim", there were quite a few laws for war, calling for total annihilation (genocide) of several specific nations. Further, multiple Jewish theological laws discriminate against non-Jews (slaves laws, interest laws, etc.). So perhaps, we should kill all the Jews?

If this is not clear, all the monotheistic religions have elements that are prejudiced towards all non-believers of that one "true religion". The question is do people the of that religion actually believe they should act on those elements, or do they consider those points as something God indicated for some other time (far in future or past) and not relevant to current day?
Most Jews, Christians and Islamists actually are on the same side in this regard. The only difference is in the numbers of the minority. There are more extreme Islamists then there are Christians or Jews. Those minorities would like to drag us all after them (As an example: the crazy Jewish group who wishes to blow up El-Aczta on Temple mount and thus bring the day of judgment forward. Or some of the Islamic groups who wish to escalate the war with Israel at any means, hoping this will force Arab Governments to intervene by entering a war with Israel).



In addition:


Well, I dunno about that. Certainly distinctions can be made about "race" that are true and yet which do not have the negative connotation of "racism", Amir. This is what I mean about shutting off debate, even worthwhile debate, at the whim of people shouting "racism!". It smacks of the same spurious motives that religious fanatics use when they cut off heads because someone is not a true believer. And I mean that very seriously, for once. I deride "liberals" and fanatical "conservatives" and "religious fanatics" as essentially being the same things.... people who want to impose their beliefs on someone else. When you start labelling someone "racist", you open that particular door, if you're not careful.

First of all, "racism" does not apply to religion, in the proper sense, so let's toss it out. We're talking about Islamists, in reality.

Secondly, there are very many "distinctions" about race and gender diferences which are used all the time.... so the application of "racist" or "sexist" becomes a subjective name-calling, with people whimsically applying the term in order to win an argument solely by trying to apply a label that trivializes the speaker.

Several years ago a lot of the medical community simply shifted gears on the "race" issue because it saves more lives to just acknowledge the fact that there are physiological differences between the races. Hence, many medicines now mention the effects of pharmocalogical drugs on Caucasians, Asians, and Blacks. Is that "racist"? Depends on how you use the term "racist", but certainly not in a negative sense.

"Minorities" as the term is used in the US, applies mainly to Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Indians (I live in an area that has many native Indians). Asians are seldom mentioned in "minority" statistics because they tend to do so well economically, in educational scores, etc. Is it "racist" to mention the statistics of "minority test scores" in the newspapers as part of the overall effort to statistically increase "minority" achievements?

You get the point. Your use of the term "racist" is meaningless as anything other than an attempt to trivialize or denigrate... so let's drop it, shall we? Next thing you know, you'll be calling me an "anti-Semite".

Actually, you are right in criticizing my post, I forgot a very important thing in the first paragraph, about the nature of the distinctions, scientific research has nothing to do with them:

It is Racism once you make moral distinctions about large groups of people based on their race, ethnicity or religion, and confuse those criteria with behavior, values and most importantly -- rights.

And if you are asking for my opinion about "minority test scores", then yes, those are based on a basic racist approach, making one think he should patronize and protect others, he perceives as inferiors, rather then abuse them. In my personal view, it is not better, and this was one of my reasons for disagreeing with quite a few Israeli leftist groups which were unaware of basing their own approach on such concepts. T

In this regards, when you (Mike) group all the Islamic believers into a US hate group, you forget lots (I don't know how many thousands) of loyal Muslims US citizens, some of which are in your very army fighting for your very country. I happen to know even the Israeli army has a few Arab Muslims among the warrior troops, even though they have to volunteer and go through very difficult screening and their community often does not favor their enlisting. Generalizations are a source for problems unless you are a mathematician, for people, most Generalizations are simply misleading.


The big difference between your disagreements with the government and someone like Neil (who is part of a surprisingly large group of fat, dumb, and happy liberal theorists in the US) is that you at least will shut up and support your own troops once they are at risk, holding back your criticism so as not to endanger the Israeli troops. Neil and his fellow-believers actively hope for more US deaths so that "the war will end due to popular pressure", etc

As for opposing your Govt during a fight. If one believes his country is sending the troops to die for nothing, he should protest against it, in a democracy it is his right (in my view actually - duty) to do so. One must still enlist himself if called for, and do his own military role on the best side, even if he objects to the political ideas of the war. Not following the last sentence is simply treason against the democracy, but while not protesting is legal, it is almost as bad for a democracy.
I once read an amazing statements: "The best protection against bad laws is to enforce them diligently", it was posted on the FBI building wall, and if you think of a democracy, you should understand the above rule only works if the public is aware and willing to protest, otherwise, it is democracy no longer.


Amir

Cady Goldfield
01-28-2007, 09:18 AM
Doh. You're right, Amir. My brain farted. :D It was the Kingdom of Judah, as in the -Tribe- of Yehudah. Judea was the part of present-day Israel where the Tribe of Yehudah settled and established itself as the dominant population.

Concerning: The real facts about Jesus are much more obscure then that. non today knows exactly how he died, for the Romans, he was just another Jew cult leader. His death might have been supported by the Jewish leadership (lobbying the Romans for it), but why should they have bothered with him of all the cults which were common at the time?
For all we know, the Romans killed him for some other reason (disturbing the peaceful rest of some officer ...).

The only period mention, in writing, that we have about Y'shua (Jesus) is that of the Romanized Jew, Josephus,who made referemce to a rabbi that was becoming popular in Jerusalem and environs. Later writings about the Y'shua, including his death, were attributed to Josephus, but it isn't known whether they were "embellished" by others over the centuries. So, take any stuff you see in books or on the 'net with a grain of salt.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/josephus.html

Cady Goldfield
01-28-2007, 09:36 AM
Edit time ran out. I intended my first sentence about Josephus to read:
The only period mention, in writing, that we have about Y'shua (Jesus) is that of the Romanized Jew, Josephus,who made reference to a rabbi, Y'shua, that had been popular in Jerusalem and environs, and had gained a large following, even after his death at the hands of Pilate. But he wrote his comments almost 100 years after the death of Jesus.

Mike Sigman
01-28-2007, 09:45 AM
We do know for sure that Christians have blamed Jews for the death of " Jesus Christ" ( a past Jew) for a millennia and a half, and that Jews were actively persecuted by the catholic church and other churches (for example Orthodocs). Mike, should all Christians be killed today for that? You're asking the wrong person to answer a tangential question, Amir. I have no interest in either of those matters. One is historical and one is rhetorical. If you're trying to make a rhetorical point, you need to try a different approach.Having learned the bible in high school, I still remember that already in the Torah, in book "Dvarim", there were quite a few laws for war, calling for total annihilation (genocide) of several specific nations. I'm aware of the history, Amir. I studied the Bible in college for a while. However, none of those tribes exists today in a viable form, so the argument is a specious comparison, in effect. The fact that ancient tribes were singled out in the days of the Old Testament is quite different from current attacks by Muslims against Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc., based on precise calls, using their current religions, etc., for extirpation. The post-modernistic relevancy simply doesn't work in this case, Amir. Muslims seek to destroy Jews, Christians, etc., ... existing peoples.... and it is in their Koran to do so. And they do it. Further, multiple Jewish theological laws discriminate against non-Jews (slaves laws, interest laws, etc.). So perhaps, we should kill all the Jews? I frankly don't care all that much, Amir. I think that beginning back in the seventies the course of Israel was determined by the liberal element of Jews in Israel. I think Israel is already doomed by its own hand. But you miss the point. The "religion", the "theology" of Judaism is not the basis for its civil laws to the extent that it calls for the killing and enslavement of other cultures. That is the difference of Islam. It is not just a religion... it is the basis for laws which call for the destruction of other people. Hence, the statement that Islam is bad has a very strong foundation in logic. If this is not clear, all the monotheistic religions have elements that are prejudiced towards all non-believers of that one "true religion". The question is do people the of that religion actually believe they should act on those elements, or do they consider those points as something God indicated for some other time (far in future or past) and not relevant to current day?Actually, you are right in criticizing my post, I forgot a very important thing in the first paragraph, about the nature of the distinctions, scientific research has nothing to do with them:

It is Racism once you make moral distinctions about large groups of people based on their race, ethnicity or religion, and confuse those criteria with behavior, values and most importantly -- rights.

More relativism, Amir. The technical definition of "racism" is:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
And if you are asking for my opinion about "minority test scores", then yes, those are based on a basic racist approach, making one think he should patronize and protect others, he perceives as inferiors, rather then abuse them. In my personal view, it is not better, and this was one of my reasons for disagreeing with quite a few Israeli leftist groups which were unaware of basing their own approach on such concepts.

If you want to begin to halt free speech by widening your definitions to encompass anything you find unpleasant, that is your prerogative.

The best thing I can say about this sudden assertion that "racism" now applies to "large groups of people" and "religions" is this: "what can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence". In this regards, when you (Mike) group all the Islamic believers into a US hate group, you forget lots (I don't know how many thousands) of loyal Muslims US citizens, some of which are in your very army fighting for your very country. I happen to know even the Israeli army has a few Arab Muslims among the warrior troops, even though they have to volunteer and go through very difficult screening and their community often does not favor their enlisting. Generalizations are a source for problems unless you are a mathematician, for people, most Generalizations are simply misleading. Give me an example of large groups of Muslims that are decrying the crimes of Islam against the Jews and the West, Amir. Following your logic, the West should not have attacked Germany, obliterated Dresden, etc., in World War II because there were a certain number of Germans that were nice people.

The real problem with why the US now gets stalled (as does the EU) in handling the Arab problem is because there is that idea of "let's not really harm them even though they are attacking us constantly, because a few of them actually like us". As a survival strategy, there is only one place it will lead ... and Israel will be the first to go, Amir.


As for opposing your Govt during a fight. If one believes his country is sending the troops to die for nothing, he should protest against it, in a democracy it is his right (in my view actually - duty) to do so. [/QUOTE] How liberal of you, Amir. The strategy that North Vietnam used (and bragged about after the war) was to play to the liberals who will undercut the national will to resolve a problem. That is what the Arabs do constantly. "Opposing the government" is fine... when someone openly does it regardless of the potential risk it adds to exposed troops, that is not just "dissent", that is the self-absorption of the fat, dumb, and happy.

Regards,

Mike

Neil Mick
01-28-2007, 04:36 PM
Having learned the bible in high school, I still remember that already in the Torah, in book "Dvarim", there were quite a few laws for war, calling for total annihilation (genocide) of several specific nations. Further, multiple Jewish theological laws discriminate against non-Jews (slaves laws, interest laws, etc.). So perhaps, we should kill all the Jews?

If this is not clear, all the monotheistic religions have elements that are prejudiced towards all non-believers of that one "true religion". The question is do people the of that religion actually believe they should act on those elements, or do they consider those points as something God indicated for some other time (far in future or past) and not relevant to current day?

Or, even that the "call to kill unbelievers" might be considered in different contexts. Back when it was written, tribes in the Arabic lands were largely pagan. The call to conquer and subjugate was largely directed at Arab tribesmen who did not follow the new religion of Islam.

There are more extreme Islamists then there are Christians or Jews.

Yes, there are. It is also important to note that there are more Islamists under military occupation, than there are Christians, or Jews.


In this regards, when you (Mike) group all the Islamic believers into a US hate group, you forget lots (I don't know how many thousands) of loyal Muslims US citizens, some of which are in your very army fighting for your very country.

He conveniently forgets to mention these ppl, doesn't he?

I happen to know even the Israeli army has a few Arab Muslims among the warrior troops, even though they have to volunteer and go through very difficult screening and their community often does not favor their enlisting.

I believe it was an Arab Muslim in the IDF who shot Paul(?) Herndon, a British citizen, also of the ISM.

As for opposing your Govt during a fight. If one believes his country is sending the troops to die for nothing, he should protest against it, in a democracy it is his right (in my view actually - duty) to do so. One must still enlist himself if called for, and do his own military role on the best side, even if he objects to the political ideas of the war.

Well, not here, of course. Here we have an all volunteer army...for now.

Not following the last sentence is simply treason against the democracy, but while not protesting is legal, it is almost as bad for a democracy.

I would argue that it IS as bad, for the democracy.

I once read an amazing statements: "The best protection against bad laws is to enforce them diligently",

With a little rewording, that could be Mike's sig..."The best protection against a bad war is to diligently enlist, and not criticize the leaders." :hypno:

it was posted on the FBI building wall, and if you think of a democracy, you should understand the above rule only works if the public is aware and willing to protest, otherwise, it is democracy no longer.

Amir

Too true, Amir. Good post.


OK, to be honest: I'm not looking for a response on this, as Mike will surely just cut and paste one of his old diatribes onto his answer. "Anti-American, anti-Jewish, blah blah..."

So, take this as notes, Amir, Cady, and whomever else might be reading.

I studied the Bible in college for a while. However, none of those tribes exists today in a viable form, so the argument is a specious comparison, in effect. The fact that ancient tribes were singled out in the days of the Old Testament is quite different from current attacks by Muslims against Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc., based on precise calls, using their current religions, etc., for extirpation. The post-modernistic relevancy simply doesn't work in this case, Amir.

OK, so let's just assume that Mike is right...that the post-modernistic relevancy simply doesn't work. Then, we should apply the same rule to Muslims, as we would the Jews, of course. Whatever warlike references in the Quran that Mike often refers should also be held up to the fallacies of post-modernistic relevancy.

Muslims seek to destroy Jews, Christians, etc., ... existing peoples.... and it is in their Koran to do so.

Yet, here he contradicts himself, with the very next sentence.

The "religion", the "theology" of Judaism is not the basis for its civil laws to the extent that it calls for the killing and enslavement of other cultures. That is the difference of Islam. It is not just a religion... it is the basis for laws which call for the destruction of other people.

Source? Oh, never mind. I'm sure to get a badly translated epithet from some anti-Muslim website.

Hence, the statement that Islam is bad has a very strong foundation in logic.

A very strong foundation in Mike Sigman logic, perhaps. :p

If you want to begin to halt free speech by widening your definitions to encompass anything you find unpleasant, that is your prerogative.

Free speech does not = the freedom to make racist remarks.

Frankly Mike, I think your ideas are scary. I am so glad for the country that we are moving away from the idea of a "unitary Executive," that you seem so much in favor. Your odd tendency to use the mainstream media as a source on one hand, while deriding them for their bias and veracity is puzzling, and makes for often humorous episodes where you end up going on a tangent, throwing mud at your own source.

But I respect your right to post your political opinions here.

What I do not respect, is you confusing that right to post anti-Arab, and anti-Islamic remarks, with rights of free speech (which, I might add, is not existant here, as we are on an aikido website. with expected rules of conduct. We are NOT on Main St, USA, holding up a sign).

Some of your statements about Arabs and Islam betray such an ignorance and underlying fear about a people and religion, that I find myself embarassed for you. If I were an Arab, I would be angered.

But you know all of this...you must have seen these remarks many times, here or elsewhere. All the time, telling yourself that they were trying to silence your right to speak freely.

How sad, that you confuse the two. :sorry:

The best thing I can say about this sudden assertion that "racism" now applies to "large groups of people" and "religions" is this: "what can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence". Give me an example of large groups of Muslims that are decrying the crimes of Islam against the Jews and the West, Amir.

The Liberal Shia Cleric You Should Meet (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=011807D)

The vast majority of mainstream Islamic judicial opinion rejects suicide for any reason (1) (http://islam.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=islam&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fatwa-online.com%2Fworship%2Fjihaad%2Fjih004%2Findex.htm) (2) (http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?Option=FatwaId&lang=E&Id=699)

Mainstream Islamic groups such as the European Council for Fatwa and Research use the Quran'ic verse Al-Anam 6:151 (And take not life, which Allah has made sacred, except by way of justice and law) as further reason to prohibit suicide (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503549272&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaEAskTheScholar)

Support for Bin Laden, Violence Down Among Muslims, Poll Says (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030.html?nav=rss_nation)

Most important, the Afghan Ulama, or council of religious leaders, need to continue playing a major role in countering the extremist ideology of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The Afghan Ulama has issued fatwas, or religious decrees, that unambiguously oppose suicide bombing. But they must keep reiterating that suicide bombing does not lead to an eternal life in paradise, does not permit martyrs to see the face of Allah, and does not allow martyrs to have the company of 72 beautiful maidens in paradise. (http://www.rand.org/commentary/071806CSM.html)

And, speaking of circular logic...

"Opposing the government" is fine... when someone openly does it regardless of the potential risk it adds to exposed troops, that is not just "dissent", that is the self-absorption of the fat, dumb, and happy.

So, it's OK to send the troops directly into harm's way for no other stated reason, than fake evidence, hollow calls to "help the Iraqi's (notice, how they've dropped off, from the W corner?), and vague assertions that we're "fighting the war on terror," even tho most experts agree that the war in Iraq is actually advancing the war on terror.

No, that's all OK...it's NOT OK, when opposing this wrong and illegal war will eventually end this madness. No, in Mike's perception, that's what we call "self-absorbed, fat, dumb, and happy."

Ah, well...about 400,000 ppl in DC last Saturday might have disagreed with you. But I know that that won't change your mind one bit, Mike. After all, when you have a literal virtual intervention telling you that your posts are racist and you STILL go on and on with these prevaricating and weak defences ("Umm...it's not really racism;" "Err...charging racism is just another form of censorship"); now, how can I expect 400,000 people protesting, would change your mind?

No, no...you're right, and we're all wrong.

At least Bush has someone in this country who supports him. You, and about 6 others... :p

Mike Sigman
01-28-2007, 05:16 PM
Or, even that the "call to kill unbelievers" might be considered in different contexts. Back when it was written, tribes in the Arabic lands were largely pagan. The call to conquer and subjugate was largely directed at Arab tribesmen who did not follow the new religion of Islam. And of course the current call by Iran to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth" might be considered in different contexts, much as Hitler's threats were encouraged to be considered "just talk" by the liberal majority of England and France.OK, to be honest: I'm not looking for a response on this, as Mike will surely just cut and paste one of his old diatribes onto his answer. "Anti-American, anti-Jewish, blah blah..." Interesting, since all of your posts are archived for view, Neil. Do you seriously think that anyone with an IQ above the double digits thinks you are pro-US or pro-Israel? Seriously? :rolleyes: OK, so let's just assume that Mike is right...that the post-modernistic relevancy simply doesn't work. Then, we should apply the same rule to Muslims, as we would the Jews, of course. Whatever warlike references in the Quran that Mike often refers should also be held up to the fallacies of post-modernistic relevancy. Neil... why do you bother? Your position is still obviously "give the Arabs a pass for any attack and hound Israel for any response". You want the failure of Israel. You want the failure of the US. Do you really think anyone is fooled?Ah, well...about 400,000 ppl in DC last Saturday might have disagreed with you. See... that's what I mean by your Confirmation Bias... constantly. You'll lie about any statistic that supports the view you already have. A quick check shows that most of the police there put the number at 100,000. It's like your statistics about "Iraqis killed", Neil. Ah... but then you want to portray that you're on the "MORAL" side... so it's OK to lie, eh?

And gee.... there was Jane Fonda and the rest of the "Hate the US" crowd. And look up the bona fides of the protest sponsors, Neil.... the world communist party. I'm absolutely sure that they are engaged in that protest because they want a better America, despite the fact that they have consistently conspired for the downfall of the US. But then, we knew what side you were on, Neil. :)

Regards,

Mike

statisticool
01-28-2007, 05:28 PM
Golly gee! What happened to


, I've decided you're not worth it.

Go argue with yourself.


I guess he decided you are worth it. That is encouragement to post more. :)


You want the failure of Israel. You want the failure of the US. Do you really think anyone is fooled?


You apparently are fooled into thinking your deliberate mischaracterization of Neil's views passes for a logical argument. No one is fooled into believing your pseudo-argument, however.


And gee.... there was Jane Fonda and the rest of the "Hate the US" crowd.


I never did get why they wore belts with leotards. Anybody know??

Cady Goldfield
01-28-2007, 05:54 PM
I never did get why they wore belts with leotards. Anybody know??

It may have been because they were leftover "space vixen" costumes from Barbarella. :p

Neil Mick
01-28-2007, 08:03 PM
Yep, cut n paste time for Mikey. The usual blah blah.

A quick check shows that most of the police there put the number at 100,000.

Is it some pathological need to lie, or do you secretly desire to be publicly ridiculed? Only his shrink really knows...

United for Peace and Justice, a coalition group sponsoring the protest, had hoped 100,000 would come. They claimed even more afterward, but police, who no longer give official estimates, said privately the crowd was smaller than 100,000.

"Police, not giving official estimates" does not = "most of the police"

Yah, Mike, ya caught me. The police, who no longer give official estimates (and so your claim is bogus, as usual), are now "privately" giving the number at 1/4 what the protesters were giving...or less. Ooh, big surprise...when they were giving official estimates, it was almost always 1/2 the claimed number of the organizers...almost across the board.

Now, ask yourself (someone, more objective than Mike)...what's the big deal? Just go up in a helicopter like a good reporter, take a picture, go home, and count the total biomass of protesters present??

I did it several times on tide flats for invertebrate zoology class...it's hardly rocket science.

Know why they don't? Because they don't WANT John Q. Public to know just exactly how many ppl are mad enough to come out and protest! Simple as that. They do it all the time at marches...routinely ignore or downplay the number of protestors.

And so, Mike, once again, your usual complaint is loaded with partisan motives, and biased and erroneous summations. There simply ARE no "official" police estimates, and I suspect you knew that.

(but PS Mike...400,000...100,000...10,000...doesn't really matter. A LOT of ppl...the majority in this country...do not hold to Bush's view of "stay the course."

I KNOW you know that, Mike...even if you only watch biased and slanted news: there was a protest march in Durango last year, called the "World Can't Wait" march). So, SOMEONE in Durango, CO must have given you a wake-up call...)

But then, we knew what side you were on, Neil. :)

Regards,

Mike

Yes we do. I'm on the side of free speech...even here. Which side are YOU on...?


Golly gee! What happened to

, I've decided you're not worth it.

Go argue with yourself.

Yah, I'm wondering that, too. Perhaps he's pathologically unable to withhold comment...

I guess he decided you are worth it. That is encouragement to post more. :)

Hmm...I dunno. That, actually, is an argument against, lol. :)


You apparently are fooled into thinking your deliberate mischaracterization of Neil's views passes for a logical argument. No one is fooled into believing your pseudo-argument, however.

Except, of course, for Mike...I suspect he's vigorously engaged in a game of self-deception, 24/7...

It may have been because they were leftover "space vixen" costumes from Barbarella. :p

:uch:

Mike Sigman
01-28-2007, 08:23 PM
(On why, as I stated previously, the police put the demonstration that Neil bald-facedly claimed was "more than 400,000 people)Is it some pathological need to lie, or do you secretly desire to be publicly ridiculed? (*I* lied???? Looks like Neil lied).[[snipsky]]Yah, Mike, ya caught me. (True. I did) The police, who no longer give official estimates (and so your claim is bogus, as usual), are now "privately" giving the number at 1/4 what the protesters were giving...or less. Ooh, big surprise...when they were giving official estimates, it was almost always 1/2 the claimed number of the organizers...almost across the board. [[snipsky]]Know why they don't? Because they don't WANT John Q. Public to know just exactly how many ppl are mad enough to come out and protest! Simple as that. They do it all the time at marches...routinely ignore or downplay the number of protestors. Ah.... it's the "pigs", isn't it, Neil? They lie.(but PS Mike...400,000...100,000...10,000...doesn't really matter. A LOT of ppl...the majority in this country...do not hold to Bush's view of "stay the course." Odd... the majority of people elected Bush president. Strange, eh, how you never mention that. The "majority" must be idiots. No, wait, if the the majority are "idiots" and they agree with you... ohhhhhh... my head hurts. ;) I KNOW you know that, Mike...even if you only watch biased and slanted news: there was a protest march in Durango last year, called the "World Can't Wait" march). So, SOMEONE in Durango, CO must have given you a wake-up call...) A few hundred people. Tsk. And this is basically a liberal, college town, too. What a shame. Not everyone here wants to crap on the troops the way they do in Santa Cruz. :straightf

In case you missed the point, Neil... it was about you and your "Confirmation Bias", which was just proved. You'd lie about the number of protesters, just as you exaggerate all numbers that confirm your fixed biases and you'll ignore or diminish anything that proves you wrong. "Confirmation Bias" is the modern term... it used to be called "intellectual dishonesty".

Regards,

Mike Sigman