[Politics] A picture is worth a thousand words..

[SUBMAN1]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/rrwacko/axisvsallieds.jpg

[TteFAboB]

Can anyone translate the caption?

[scandium]

Except that isn't a picture. Its a propaganda poster.

[Torplexed]

One guy crouching behind a skirt...the other guy out in front.

Caption probably sez..."Get it?" :lol:

[August]

Or "The difference"...

[August]

Except that isn't a picture. Its a propaganda poster.

It might be but that doesn't make it any less true.

[Spoon 11th]

"If you hurt my family, I'm going to shoot down your god."

[Ducimus]

Except that isn't a picture. Its a propaganda poster.

It might be but that doesn't make it any less true.

My thoughts exactly. They wear masks, and hide in the general populace.

[scandium]

Truth != Propaganda.

Way back when, in a 1st year university english class on "context, substance and style", which was a pure writing course, a lot of our assignments were 5% writing exercises where we'd be given a cartoon image, or a picture, or whatever, and construct some kind of essay around it (analytical, expository, whatever). For old time's sake I'll take a stab at writing a short analytical essay on this poster and the techniques used by the artist to convey his message to his audience.

Without having any background on this poster, or what the caption says, I'll have to confine the analysis to its imagery and presume that its based on the clash between Hezbollah and Israel. In that context, then, we are shown an armed Hezbollah militant male, a Muslim woman and her child on one side, and an Israeli male soldier, an Israeli woman and her child on the other. The number of participants presented are equal, as are the weapons, but this is where the symmetry ends.

The Hezbollah militant is depicted in an aggressive posture, crouching behind the Muslim woman and child, with his weapon taking direct aim at the Israelis who he appears to be about to gun down. The Muslim woman infront of him looks directly at the Israelis, in a confrontional posture of her own with a grim and determined expression on her face, with her child held in front of her like a shield.

The Israeli soldier, on the other hand, is drawn upright, looking directly at his assailants with his hand pressing the Israeli woman and child behind him and his weapon held at the ready, but pointed at nobody. The Israeli woman clutches her child to her, her stance is neutral and the expression on her face is that of a deer caught in the headlights - she is helpless, a spectator.

Thus taken at face value, as "truth", I would conclude from the artist's illustration that the Hezbollah militants attack the Israelis not man-to-man, but crouched, cowardly like vipers, behind their women. And their women, for their part, are defiant and even willing participants themselves as they hold their young before them as a shields posing the dilemna to non-agressive Israeli soldier with his own family behind him: 'do I allow them to kill me and my family or do shoot, and in the process perhaps kill both the woman and the child. But what choice do I have, what do I do?' His stance suggests that he is resolute, but not provactive; that he is in fact courageous, and valliant but faced with an impossible dilemna.

Is this then the truth? Can we extrapolate from this poster an accurate picture of the actual events in this conflict, the nature of the struggle itself, and the way it is being waged by both sides?

A picture is indeed worth a thousand words, and I suppose in a way even a propaganda poster is; but where a picture shows an unbiased, unfiltered reality taking place in real time a propaganda poster aims only to convey a perception of a reality, and that perception is what the propagandist wants you to see. Propaganda is the wrong place to look for truth.

[joea]

Excellent analysis Scandium. :up:

[Onkel Neal]

Thus taken at face value, as "truth", I would conclude from the artist's illustration that the Hezbollah militants attack the Israelis not man-to-man, but crouched, cowardly like vipers, behind their women.


It strikes me as accurate. I certainly wouldn't feel compelled to argue it is propaganda. We all know the "militants" and terrorists won't march as an army to do battle. They know and count on the Israelis and US to show retraint about killing innocents, and they use that.

[Skybird]

Propaganda intention or not, that picture very much illustrates a truth, and a very substantial difference between both sides. The current destruction in Lebanon also comes from the illustrated Hezbollah habit to hide in civilian infrastructure. You can't target them without accepting to destroy civilian structures and lifes as a sideeffect. Hezbollah acts intentionally that way, to combine any fighting back of Israel with a political price: a PR-loss.

There had been questionable events on the ground in recent years were Israeli soldiers on the ground commited questionable or criminal acts that led to investigations, however, acting that way remained to be exceptions. But acting that way is routine for Hezbollah, and by far no exception.

Sunday night there was a poltiical talokshow in first Germnan TV program ARD, and two women, one from Israel and one from Syria, were among the guests. The Israelis spoke first, describing the fear that comes from having to expect the worst day by day, since many years, and the terror of missiles falling from the sky, out of the blue, or bus bombs going off. she said that from that she cannot hate the people on the other side of the border, and can imagine what they are going thoruhg right now, and she expressed sadness for that. - The Syrian women said that life was so well for the Lebanese, and everything turned better recently, and then the Israeli reaction to the constant terror (that she mentuoned with no word) came that of course is disproportionate and totally unjustified, she said. not one word about the terror from Lebanese soil and with acceptance from Lebanese government against Israelis, not one word of sympathy expressed for the fears the Israeli women described, and indirectly indicating that Hezbollah is the only one who could defend Lebanon against the unjustified Israeli agression. The contrast between both could not have been any greater. The syrian women lives in Germany, btw.

Over the last years, my tolerance for this kind of selfish bias and one-sided arguing slowly but surely has fallen down to zero. It seems Israelis are expected to let bthemself killed in assaults silenbtly, without defending, without protesting, and without having the right for self-defense. and that is the point were my tolerance ends.

there were reports about Israel using phosphor ammunition. A "German" family, Lebanese by origin, but despite their now German-being not able to speak fluid German, was amongst the victims, and received medical treatement. The Syrian or French doctor examing them has ruled out that their wounds were resulted by Phosphor. The intervie was in German TV this evening. The whole phosphor story probably also is only one of these attempted PR-stunts.

[Onkel Neal]

Now, if you want to show a picture of an American or Israeli warplane dropping a bomb on a house and splattering non-combatants, that's fine. It happens. As long as it's noted that US and Israelis make a honest effort not to kill NCs. If the Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Queda would fight as an army and not guerrillas, this would be a moot point.

[Safe-Keeper]

To sum up the propaganda poster:
NONSENSE.
Don't even try to justify slaughtering civilians by saying that the Hezbollah are "hiding behind innocents". What the Israelis are doing is illegal and unacceptable. Period. The Hezbollah fighters are partisans. They don't "hide among civilians", they live with the civilians. Why's that Hezbollah fighter in that house? He lives there.

I assume you condemn the Polish, Norwegian, Danish, French, and Russian partisans of World War II, too? They also committed this heinous crime known as "living at home with their families in-between attacks". I suppose that means that the Nazis were justified in torching all these European cities. I assume you think that when the Gestapo came to arrest these two partisans in the night in this Norwegian village I live near and got shot, they were justified in burning the whole village the next day. I mean, the evil, evil freedom fighters were "hiding amongst the civilian populace".

It strikes me as accurate. I certainly wouldn't feel compelled to argue it is propaganda.Then it's time you learned what the word meant (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda):roll:.

The world's going to the dogs.

My thoughts exactly. They wear masks, and hide in the general populace.They wear masks?! Oh no! Dangerous, evil criminals!

Er.. Is it a war-crime to conceal your face? You've got a lot of arrests to make around the world if that's the case.

It seems Israelis are expected to let bthemself killed in assaults silenbtly, without defending, without protesting, and without having the right for self-defense. and that is the point were my tolerance ends.Thank you for confessing so wonderfully that you've been keeping your head in the sand all this time. I love honesty and open-ness.

When you're ready to open up, though, I've got this for you, in bold, coloured letters so it'll be easy for you to read: The problem is not that Israel retaliates. The problem is that Israel breaks every law there is to break, deliberately attacks civilian targets and innocents, and even fire upon the Red Crescent rescue teams trying to stay in the region and help the said innocents. Thank you for your attention.

Safe-Keeper
-Who's so disgusted with Israel and with how 1/3 of the victims of the Israeli "retaliation" are children that he's boycotting all Israeli goods and supporting the movement among the Norwegian parties to implement a nation-wide boycott of Israel.

[SUBMAN1]

Not to inflame anything, but isn't it the responsibility of the warfighter to protect the innocent? If that is the case, and you know that you are putting those innocent people into harms way by living amongst them, shouldn't that be concidered irresponsible? SO exactly, how is Hezbolah being justified in doing this? This is of course, regardless what the Russians did in WWII - which is also irresponsible.

US soldiers for example all have homes, but when its time to fight, they make sure they are together as a group, not living among the population which could potentially bring the innocence into harms way.

-S

[Skybird]

Someone, like Hezbollah people, who blows up civilian busses, stalks into civilian settlements at night with the declared intention to murder as many sleepers as possible before getting killed by the guards, and fires rockets unguided and without targetting into civilian settlements in the hope to kill civilians, is not a partisan - he is a terrorist and a murderous gangster only. He intentionally kills civilians, they are his preferred target. The Israelis accept to harm civilians,for due to their enemy hiding amongst them and using civilian infrastructure they cannot avoid to hit civilians as a massive sideeffect - but their primary target remains Hezbollah that is hiding within civilian infrastructure.

[SUBMAN1]

Someone, like Hezbollah people, who blows up civilian busses, stalks into civilian settlements at night with the declared intention to murder as many sleepers as possible before getting killed by the guards, and fires rockets unguided and without targetting into civilian settlements in the hope to kill civilians, is not a partisan - he is a terrorist and a murderous gangster only. He intentionally kills civilians, they are his preferred target. The Israelis accept to harm civilians,for due to their enemy hiding amongst them and using civilian infrastructure they cannot avoid to hit civilians as a massive sideeffect - but their primary target remains Hezbollah that is hiding within civilian infrastructure.
<- What he said! :cool: Good post Skybird!

[Skybird]

Not to inflame anything, but isn't it the responsibility of the warfighter to protect the innocent?
No. that is the responsebility of a police. The warfighter's responsebility is to kill as many of the other side's warfighters as possible, and destroy their supporting infrastructure. That's why you should not use police to fight wars, and should not use warfighters for police efforts.

[Ducimus]

Don't even try to justify slaughtering civilians by saying that the Hezbollah are "hiding behind innocents".

I don't think anyones been trying to justify the killing of civillians. Killing civillians, is never "ok". I think what is being argued, is why it sometimes happens. Seriously, boil the fat away: Do they wear masks and try to blend in / operate around civllians?
True or false? It's that simple.

The poster, is a simple illustration of the truth, albiet its presented in a biased way. Then again, how can something of that subject matter be presented in an unbiased way? I don't think it can be.

[SUBMAN1]

Not to inflame anything, but isn't it the responsibility of the warfighter to protect the innocent? No. that is the responsebility of a police. The warfighter's responsebility is to kill as many of the other side's warfighters as possible, and destroy their supporting infrastructure. That's why you should not use police to fight wars, and should not use warfighters for police efforts.
Not according to the Geneva Convention last time I checked. Fire bombing Germany, or blowing up Horoshima was not a nice thing to do, but you are right, they did it. As a human upon this Earth however, it is your responsibility to avoid innocent casualties in wartime in my book. THis is not entirely possible when attacking someone like Hezbolah, or the local Iraqi terrorist gangs, but you should at least try.

-S

PS. One more thought SKybird - The police have no legal duty to protect the public. DOn't ever think otherwise. If they see someone getting shot by an armed assailent, they can simply ignore it if they choose, stating that they feel its too dangerous to themselves to get involved. THey have no legal liability to help anyone.

[mapuc]

To sum up the propaganda poster:
NONSENSE.
Don't even try to justify slaughtering civilians by saying that the Hezbollah are "hiding behind innocents". What the Israelis are doing is illegal and unacceptable. Period. The Hezbollah fighters are partisans. They don't "hide among civilians", they live with the civilians. Why's that Hezbollah fighter in that house? He lives there.

I assume you condemn the Polish, Norwegian, Danish, French, and Russian partisans of World War II, too? They also committed this heinous crime known as "living at home with their families in-between attacks". I suppose that means that the Nazis were justified in torching all these European cities. I assume you think that when the Gestapo came to arrest these two partisans in the night in this Norwegian village I live near and got shot, they were justified in burning the whole village the next day. I mean, the evil, evil freedom fighters were "hiding amongst the civilian populace".

It strikes me as accurate. I certainly wouldn't feel compelled to argue it is propaganda.Then it's time you learned what the word meant (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda):roll:.

The world's going to the dogs.

My thoughts exactly. They wear masks, and hide in the general populace.They wear masks?! Oh no! Dangerous, evil criminals!

Er.. Is it a war-crime to conceal your face? You've got a lot of arrests to make around the world if that's the case.

It seems Israelis are expected to let bthemself killed in assaults silenbtly, without defending, without protesting, and without having the right for self-defense. and that is the point were my tolerance ends.Thank you for confessing so wonderfully that you've been keeping your head in the sand all this time. I love honesty and open-ness.

When you're ready to open up, though, I've got this for you, in bold, coloured letters so it'll be easy for you to read: The problem is not that Israel retaliates. The problem is that Israel breaks every law there is to break, deliberately attacks civilian targets and innocents, and even fire upon the Red Crescent rescue teams trying to stay in the region and help the said innocents. Thank you for your attention.

Safe-Keeper
-Who's so disgusted with Israel and with how 1/3 of the victims of the Israeli "retaliation" are children that he's boycotting all Israeli goods and supporting the movement among the Norwegian parties to implement a nation-wide boycott of Israel.

I just shake my head. Against [....] the goddess fight in vain

OH by the way, on todays local news, we could see Jan Egeland saying that the Hizbollah was a bunch of cowards hiding between the civilians.

Markus

[scandium]

Meanwhile, in other developments: 4 UN observers killed by the IDF after being shelled, then bombed, and then the rescue team was shelled when they tried to clear the rubble. :nope:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5215366.stm

The UN in Lebanon says the Israeli air force destroyed the observer post, in which four military observers were sheltering.

It said the four, from Austria, Canada, China and Finland, had taken shelter in a bunker under the post after it was earlier shelled 14 times by Israeli artillery.

A rescue team was also shelled as it tried to clear the rubble.

[Skybird]

Unaware blue-on-blue, or better blue-on-white? where they mistaken with Hezbollah fighters? Have they given information to Lebanon, were their radio comms with traffic reports about Israeli operations maybe listened to by hezbollah? I can think of many reasons why they have been shelled by mistake, and I can think of several reasons why they may have targetted intentionally. That's war. It's not nice, but that's war. Expect such things to happen, and many more dirty things, too. Without Hezbollah and it's constant attcks of Israeli civilians and it's vows to destroy Israel and chasing the Jews into the sea, all this would not happen currently. I could even imagine that it is an attempt of Israel to make the UN get out of that place. Their presence had been completely useless so far, and now they maybe even stand in their way.

[scandium]

Unaware blue-on-blue, or better blue-on-white? where they mistaken with Hezbollah fighters? Have they given information to Lebanon, were their radio comms with traffic reports about Israeli operations maybe listened to by hezbollah? I can think of many reasons why they have been shelled by mistake, and I can think of several reasons why they may have targetted intentionally. That's war. It's not nice, but that's war. Expect such things to happen, and many more dirty things, too. Without Hezbollah and it's constant attcks of Israeli civilians and it's vows to destroy Israel and chasing the Jews into the sea, all this would not happen currently. I could even imagine that it is an attempt of Israel to make the UN get out of that place. Their presence had been completely useless so far, and now they maybe even stand in their way.
More details:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19916610-1702,00.html

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan today said he was "shocked" at Israel's "apparently deliberate targeting" of a UN post in Lebanon, in which up to four UN observers were killed.

Mr Annan described the strike as a "co-ordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked UN post."

He said it took place "despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that UN positions would be spared Israeli fire."

"Furthermore, General Alain Pelligrini, the UN Force Commander in south Lebanon, had been in repeated contact with Israeli officers throughout the day on Tuesday, stressing the need to protect that particular UN position from attack.

[Skybird]

If such guarantees were given, and they shot the UN intentionally, knowing it was the UN, they must have a reasons to get rid of that UN mission, or the station somehow has interfered with the Israeli operation. Else it probably was some kind of accident, miscommunication, coincidence of several bad events that led to a misled target identification.

So Annan is shocked, well - what else should he say? If you leave troops stationed in a hot battle zone, you have to expect that they face a risk to take fire. White colour doesn't make anyone invulnerable. I mean no sarkasm here, but as a matter of fact: such things happen in the chaos of war. That's why it is called war, and not a picnic by the sea.

So if it is an accident, then it'S one of the chaotic tragedies that come as a consequence of war. If it was an intentional targetting of the UN, I would like to hear about the reasons.

[Ducimus]

All the UN ever does is say its, "shocked" or issues "admonishments". If the UN had more bite in it's bark, if it wasn't mostly "show" and little "go" i'd probably express more concern over what is probably a friendly fire incident.

[Skybird]

From the Jerusalem Post





http://static.jpost.com/images/2003/site/hr/header.News.Israel.gif (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/IndexPhoto&cid=1123495333335)http://static.jpost.com/images/2002/site/pixel.gifhttp://static.jpost.com/images/2002/site/pixel.gifJPost.com (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/FrontPage&cid=1123495333303) » Israel (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/IndexPhoto&cid=1123495333335) » Articlehttp://static.jpost.com/images/2002/site/pixel.gifJul. 26, 2006 0:09 | Updated Jul. 26, 2006 2:25
Annan: IAF hit 'apparently deliberate'
By AP AND JPOST.COM STAFF (editors@jpost.com)
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153291996858&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter)http://static.jpost.com/images/2002/site/pixel.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:openSubsWindow())http://static.jpost.com/images/2002/site/pixel.gifhttp://static.jpost.com/images/2002/site/pixel.gif (http://info.jpost.com/C005/Products/Epaper/) (http://javascript<b></b>:MM_openBrWindow('/servlet/Satellite?article_headline=Annan%3A+IAF+hit+%5C%27 apparently+deliberate%5C%27&articleref=1153291996858&author_name=AP+AND++JPOST.COM+STAFF&pagename=JPost%2FJPTalkback%2FPostTalkback','talkb ack','width=510,height=470,toolbar=no,directories= no,location=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=yes ,resizable=no,left=20,top=20'))
http://static.jpost.com/images/2005/site/talkback/talkback.en.read.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:MM_openBrWindow('/servlet/Satellite?article_headline=Annan%3A+IAF+hit+%5C%27 apparently+deliberate%5C%27&articleref=1153291996858&author_name=AP+AND++JPOST.COM+STAFF&pagename=JPost%2FJPTalkback%2FPostTalkback','talkb ack','width=510,height=470,toolbar=no,directories= no,location=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=yes ,resizable=no,left=20,top=20'))http://static.jpost.com/images/2005/site/talkback/talkback.en.comment.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:MM_openBrWindow('/servlet/Satellite?article_headline=Annan%3A+IAF+hit+%5C%27 apparently+deliberate%5C%27&articleref=1153291996858&author_name=AP+AND++JPOST.COM+STAFF&pagename=JPost%2FJPTalkback%2FPostTalkback','talkb ack','width=510,height=470,toolbar=no,directories= no,location=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=yes ,resizable=no,left=20,top=20'))
Four UN peacekeepers and six Lebanese were killed Tuesday when an IAF bomb destroyed their post in southern Lebanon, a UN official said.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the Israeli hit on the observer post was "apparently deliberate" and demanded Israel investigate.
A bomb dropped by an IAF warplane scored a direct hit on the post in the town of Khiyam, near the eastern sector of the border, UN officials said. Observers from Canada, China, Austria and Finland were killed, UN and Lebanese officials said.
The IDF said in response that it deeply regretted the "tragic death" of the UN personnel and vowed to investigate the incident.
US Ambassador John Bolton said the Security Council was informed that four officers with the UN mission - known by its acronym UNIFIL - were killed, but he had no other information.
"We're obviously very sorry about that, we're attempting to get information where we can to confirm the nature of the incident," Bolton said.
A UN spokesman also said there were 14 other incidents of firing close to this position from the Israeli side Tuesday afternoon. "The firing continued even during the rescue operation," he said. Since Israel launched the massive military offensive against Lebanon and Hizbullah guerrillas July 12, an international civilian employee working with UNIFIL and his wife have been killed in the crossfire between Israeli forces and Hizbullah guerrillas in the southern port city of Tyre. Five UNIFIL soldiers and one military observer have also been wounded.

[scandium]

All the UN ever does is say its, "shocked" or issues "admonishments". If the UN had more bite in it's bark, if it wasn't mostly "show" and little "go" i'd probably express more concern over what is probably a friendly fire incident.

What do you expect the U.N. to do? Bomb Israel in retaliation?

[U-104]

Someone, like Hezbollah people, who blows up civilian busses, stalks into civilian settlements at night with the declared intention to murder as many sleepers as possible before getting killed by the guards, and fires rockets unguided and without targetting into civilian settlements in the hope to kill civilians, is not a partisan - he is a terrorist and a murderous gangster only. He intentionally kills civilians, they are his preferred target. The Israelis accept to harm civilians,for due to their enemy hiding amongst them and using civilian infrastructure they cannot avoid to hit civilians as a massive sideeffect - but their primary target remains Hezbollah that is hiding within civilian infrastructure.
<- What he said! :cool: Good post Skybird!YES!:rock::rock:

[Onkel Neal]

Someone, like Hezbollah people, who blows up civilian busses, stalks into civilian settlements at night with the declared intention to murder as many sleepers as possible before getting killed by the guards, and fires rockets unguided and without targetting into civilian settlements in the hope to kill civilians, is not a partisan - he is a terrorist and a murderous gangster only. He intentionally kills civilians, they are his preferred target. The Israelis accept to harm civilians,for due to their enemy hiding amongst them and using civilian infrastructure they cannot avoid to hit civilians as a massive sideeffect - but their primary target remains Hezbollah that is hiding within civilian infrastructure.

I second that. Israel would leave the Arabs alone if the Arabs would leave them alone. Israel pulled out of Gaza, Lebanon, and parts of the West Bank. What did the Arabs do?

[Sea Demon]

Someone, like Hezbollah people, who blows up civilian busses, stalks into civilian settlements at night with the declared intention to murder as many sleepers as possible before getting killed by the guards, and fires rockets unguided and without targetting into civilian settlements in the hope to kill civilians, is not a partisan - he is a terrorist and a murderous gangster only. He intentionally kills civilians, they are his preferred target. The Israelis accept to harm civilians,for due to their enemy hiding amongst them and using civilian infrastructure they cannot avoid to hit civilians as a massive sideeffect - but their primary target remains Hezbollah that is hiding within civilian infrastructure.
I second that. Israel would leave the Arabs alone if the Arabs would leave them alone. Israel pulled out of Gaza, Lebanon, and parts of the West Bank. What did the Arabs do?

I'll tell you what the Arabs did. They re-grouped, re-armed, and re-attacked. And I know you're right, Neal. If the Arabs would just leave Israel alone, Israel would leave them alone. Well said. :up:

[scandium]

To date, Hezbollah has killed about 20 civilians; Israel, 400.

And Hezbollah is trying to kill civilians while Israel is trying to avoid, at all costs, killing civilians.

Something about this just doesn't compute, sorry.

[Subnuts]

I think what this poster is saying is that terrorists have bad posture. :confused:

[August]

To date, Hezbollah has killed about 20 civilians; Israel, 400.

And Hezbollah is trying to kill civilians while Israel is trying to avoid, at all costs, killing civilians.

Something about this just doesn't compute, sorry.


I wonder how many of those civilians were Hez fighters with their weapons and hoods taken away before the body counters got there?

[Onkel Neal]

I'll tell you what the Arabs did. They re-grouped, re-armed, and re-attacked. And I know you're right, Neal. If the Arabs would just leave Israel alone, Israel would leave them alone. Well said. :up:

I think that's pretty much the gist of it. The Arabs, many of them, still want to wipe Isreal off the map. People can debate if Israel is a legitimate state, etc. I have a hard time sympathizing with the Arabs/Muslims. They have millions of square miles of land, why begrudge the Jews their little slice?

http://zioneocon.blogspot.com/isr-world.gif


Note: Israel is shown in RED. Also, much of France, parts of Europe, UK, Canada....:doh: have large Muslim populations.

I mean, come on! If the Muslims would leave the Jews alone, do you really think the Jews would get bored and start a war? Do you think the Jew kill for fun? Back off, Arabs, give peace a chance. :yep:

[SUBMAN1]

To date, Hezbollah has killed about 20 civilians; Israel, 400.

And Hezbollah is trying to kill civilians while Israel is trying to avoid, at all costs, killing civilians.

Something about this just doesn't compute, sorry.
This is minor compared to what they have done:

All Things Considered (http://www.subsim.com/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2), July 25, 2006 · After the State Department designated Hezbollah a foreign terror organization in 1996, the FBI began to conduct wide-ranging operations to shut down the group's fundraising activities in the United States.


"Before 9/11, they had killed more Americans than anybody else on the terrorist scene," says Ken Piernick, a former FBI special agent who ran the bureau's Hezbollah program.


In addition to other terrorist attacks, Hezbollah has been tied to the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut that left 241 U.S. personnel dead, and the 1996 Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia that left 19 U.S. servicemen dead.

One U.S. law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity, says there is considerable forensic evidence tying Hezbollah bomb experts to roadside explosions in Iraq.


Dennis Lormel, who founded the counterterrorist financing program at the FBI, says the United States has been a cash cow for Hezbollah.


"They raise funds through business fronts, through criminal activity, use of shell companies and through fundraising mechanisms," he says.


Before the Sept. 11 attacks, Hezbollah was the top priority for counterterrorism agents at the FBI, Lormel says.


In 1999, U.S. Attorney Ken Bell received a strange telephone call from Washington. The FBI urgently wanted to talk with him.


Bell had gathering evidence in a case against a cigarette-smuggling ring operating out of Charlotte, N.C.


"While the case was still under investigation," Bell says, "the FBI came to us in a classified setting and let us know that the targets of that investigation were members of a Hezbollah cell in Charlotte."


Bell successfully prosecuted six members of the cell, including the ringleader, Mohammed Hammoud, now serving a 155-year sentence in a federal prison.

The cigarette-smuggling operation generated $8 million in revenue.


"Hammoud would convert it to cashier's check and just hand it to the next guy going home on a plane who'd put it in his coat pocket and fly to Lebanon," Bell recalls.

A support cell in Canada served as the procurement office purchasing dual-use materiel such as night-vision goggles, communications equipment and drone technology. All of it eventually made its way to Hezbollah in Lebanon.


Most law enforcement officials interviewed agree that Hezbollah is one of the best-trained and most sophisticated terrorist organizations in the world. "The A-team of terrorism," as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage described the group.


Hezbollah has the capacity to carry out large-scale terrorist attacks worldwide. But there is some debate within law enforcement circles over whether the group would launch attacks in the United States.


"Because they have had the ability to raise funds the way they do," says Lormel, "[they'd be] less inclined to want to commit a violent act because it could alienate their fundraising base."


Tom Diaz, author of [I]Lightning Out of Lebanon: Hezbollah Terrorists in the United States, spent six years researching the group's domestic network. He says the threat of a Hezbollah attack in the United States shouldn't be underestimated.

"I think we dismiss the potential of Hezbollah striking in the United States at our peril," he says in an interview with NPR. "If you go back to the months before 9/11 and look at some of the mainstream writing -- including, incidentally, some of the senior people in [NPR] -- about Osama bin Laden and was he really a threat and what did he amount to. Well, the growing opinion seemed to be that he was just a sort of weirdo, a guy who had a lot of money but not really a serious threat."



You can listen to the program here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5579252

[Yahoshua]

"PS. One more thought SKybird - The police have no legal duty to protect the public. DOn't ever think otherwise. If they see someone getting shot by an armed assailent, they can simply ignore it if they choose, stating that they feel its too dangerous to themselves to get involved. THey have no legal liability to help anyone."


In a 7-2 decision (http://www.hk94.com/img/redir.php?url=http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf), the Court ruled that local governments have no constitutional duty to protect from private violence an individual who is shielded by a court's restraining order. Such individuals do not gain an enforceable interest in that protection, the Court declared in an opinion by Justice Scalia. The case was Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (04-278).

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf

LEO = Law Enforcement Officer. Being a public bodyguard isn't in their mandate.


"I think what this poster is saying is that terrorists have bad posture. "

As bad as these guys?

http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/512/119cx.jpg

http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/7807/81yy.jpg

http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/7894/62sn.jpg

http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/5294/36st.jpg

http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/8512/21lm.jpg

:rotfl: (kinda)

News update:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel

[joea]

Those pics are not funny at all. :nope:

[scandium]

Indoctrinating kids into violence, as those pics of yours illustrate, is disgusting. And similarly so are these pics showing Israeli girls signing "with love from Israel" onto artillery shells, which you can see here:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060717/481/f9bc38f9a3a9401fb864a02b3a24f678

and here

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060717/481/c8723701e8f644f0b5befd7df750e8ea

and here

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,PB64-SUQ9MTUwOTkmbnI9MTQ_3,00.html

While the girls are innocent and know no better, I have a very low opinion of any parent who would do this. :down:

[Skybird]

To date, Hezbollah has killed about 20 civilians; Israel, 400.

And Hezbollah is trying to kill civilians while Israel is trying to avoid, at all costs, killing civilians.

Something about this just doesn't compute, sorry.
Yes, your number input. Death toll caused by Hezbollah over the last five years is around 1100.

[Skybird]

I mean, come on! If the Muslims would leave the Jews alone, do you really think the Jews would get bored and start a war? Do you think the Jew kill for fun? Back off, Arabs, give peace a chance. It all goes back to the 7th century, Neal, when Muhammad was laughed about by the Jewish pharisees when demanding them to accept him as a debator on questions of Jewish faith that is en par with them. He was not, and they let him know that in demonstration. His incompetence on Jewish faith pissed him so much, that he declared war and drove of two Jewish tribes, and later massacred all males and boy in the remaining last one, and send of all girls and females into slavery. that guy had an unbalanced ego. Tell him you don'T like him, and he will hate you until all unoiverse collapses and all hell as found you for horrific punishements. It'S all about hate, hate and hate again. "Captain, you should really learn to control your temper." (Mr. Spock)

[scandium]

To date, Hezbollah has killed about 20 civilians; Israel, 400.

And Hezbollah is trying to kill civilians while Israel is trying to avoid, at all costs, killing civilians.

Something about this just doesn't compute, sorry. Yes, your number input. Death toll caused by Hezbollah over the last five years is around 1100.
Yeah throw in a strawman Skybird. Your number is meaningless unless you include, as I did, the number of civilians killed by Israel - Palestinians and Lebanese both - over that time period. Meanwhile, here's a decent timeline of current events from Wiki (and the timeline is sourced to third party articles but feel free to make any sourced corrections if you dispute anything):

At 9:05 AM local time (06:05 CET), on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions, mainly on Shebaa Farms, which are occupied by Israel. Afterwards, a ground contingent of Hezbollah militants attacked two Israeli armored Humvees on a routine patrol along the Israel-Lebanon border near the Israeli village of Zar’it with anti-tank rockets, capturing two Israeli soldiers, and killing eight.[23] The IDF confirmed the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers and identified them as Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, both reservists who were on their last day of operational duty.[24] According to Lebanon, the Israeli soldiers had infiltrated the Lebanese town Ayta al-Sha`b.[25]
This, the match in the tinderbox that ignited this conflict, is not a terrorist attack targetting civilians with the "Jihadists" firing from under the skirts of their woman and children as depicted by that propaganda poster. Yes it was a guerilla attack, but the targets were military and prisoners were captured - not "kidnapped". Note that it is disputed as to whether they were captured on the Israeli or Lebanese side of the border.

Israeli response

For Hezbollah's [capture] of two Israeli soldiers (not civilians) for prisoner exchange negotiation, Israel retaliates, killing hundreds of civilians and leaving half a million Lebanese (both Christian and Muslim) homeless.

According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Israel responded within 2 hours: "A force of tanks and armored personnel carriers was immediately sent into Lebanon in hot pursuit. It was during this pursuit, at about 11:00 A.M. … a Merkava tank drove over a powerful bomb, containing an estimated 200 to 300 kilograms of explosives, about 70 meters north of the border fence. The tank was almost completely destroyed, and all four crew members were killed instantly. Over the next several hours, IDF soldiers waged a fierce fight against Hezbollah gunmen … During the course of this battle, at about 3:00 P.M., another soldier was killed and two were lightly wounded."[26]
Again, up until this point Hezbollah has been hitting legitimate military targets, remarkable considering their their "terrorist" nature and primitive weapons, while Israel has shown remarkable ability to kill impartial U.N. Observers and Lebanese and Canadian civilians with their far more sophisticated "precision weapons" and "restraint".

Hezbollah released a statement saying 'Implementing our promise to free Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, our strugglers have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon'.[27] Later on, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah declared that “No military operation will return them… The prisoners will not be returned except through one way: indirect negotiations and a trade of prisoners.”[28]
And "terrorist" Hezbollah offers to negotiate a prisoner trade, stating that it is the only way Israel will get them back. But because this conflaguration is, according to the Israeli government, all about these two captured prisoners and their desire to free them, they choose instead to go this route:

Israeli response

For Hezbollah's kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers (not civilians) for prisoner exchange negotiation, Israel retaliates, killing hundreds of civilians and leaving half a million Lebanese (both Christian and Muslim) homeless.

According to ABC:

The Israeli air strikes on Lebanon have flattened entire neighborhoods, killing more than 330 people and leaving another half a million homeless. ABC-Lebanon

According to CNN:

The Israeli Cabinet authorized "severe and harsh" retaliation on Lebanon . . . Israel's chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, told Israel's Channel 10, "If the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years."[29]

Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert declared the attack by Hezbollah’s military wing an “act of war”, and promised Lebanon a “very painful and far-reaching response.”[30] Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz also said that “the State of Israel sees itself free to use all measures that it finds it needs, and the Israeli Forces have been given orders in that direction.”[31]

Israel said it held the Beirut government responsible for the attack, but Prime Minister Fuad Siniora denied any knowledge of the raid and stated that he did not condone it.[32] An emergency meeting of the Lebanese government reaffirmed this position.[33]
That reads to me a lot like state sponsored terrorism - Israeli state sponsored terrorism, using the military power of the IDF - its artillery barrages, its bombings, against citizens of a defenceless country whose government had no knowledge of the raid and did not condone it.

Now the conflaguration begins in earnest, with Israel systematically destroying Lebanon and Hezbollah retaliating, but with little effect:

Early on 13 July 2006 Israel sent IDF jets to bomb Lebanon's international airport near Beirut, forcing its closure and diverting its arriving flights to Cyprus. Hezbollah then bombarded the Israeli towns of Nahariya and Safed, as well as villages nearby with rocket fire. The attacks killed two civilians and wounded 29 more.[34] Nahariya residents began leaving the city en masse in fear of further Katyusha attacks.[35] Israel is now imposing an air and sea blockade on Lebanon,[36][37] and has bombed the main Beirut–Damascus highway.[38]

Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev claims the Hezbollah unit that kidnapped the two soldiers is trying to transfer them to Iran.[39] Maj.-Gen. Udi Adam of the Northern Command, says Israel has not ruled out sending ground forces into Lebanon.[40]

On 14 July, Following Israeli bombing raids on Lebanon which result in killing 60 civilians[3] Nasrallah said, addressing Israel: "You wanted an open war, and we are heading for an open war. We are ready for it."[41] By that time, the Israel attacks had killed about 60 people in Lebanon.[42]

On Sunday evening Hezbollah militants attempted to infiltrate an Israel Defense Forces post on the Lebanese Border.[43]

Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz says that the ground operations would be limited though.[44]

Some politicians and analysts say that Israel's response is disproportionate. Lebanon's social affairs minister said: she sees "monstrous and disproportionate retaliation" of the Israeli military against her country.[45] Also EU warns Israel about disproportionate attacks against Lebanon.[46][47][48] In addition spokespersons from the United Nations, the European Union, the Organization of Islamic Conference and an assortment of human rights organizations have condemned Israel for its ‘disproportionate’ response to Hezbollah’s attacks, although uprovoked by Israel.[49]
And on it goes. :nope:

Israel is not making any friends anywhere in this. Their usual defenders will defend them of course, no matter what they do and those who hate them will likewise continue to hate them as well. But people, like me, who have no dog in this race and no animosity toward either Israel or the Palestinans or Lebanese, are and will continue to turn against Israel - even if, as in my case, its only by way of indifference to their supposed "plight" (as I said elsewhere when this started, I no longer consider them a friend or ally of mine).

And those who who are affected by Israel's actions, the Lebanese themselves, well this can only strengthen Hezbollah and other movements in the long run. Israel is just shooting itself in the face, while destroying a democratic country who had no beef with it in the process.

Link to Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis

[Skybird]

If Hezbollah wouldn't have struck at Israel again and again in recent years, what is happening now would not happen. Like it or not. Hezbollah has vowed to destroy Israel, it is founded on that promise, it is core of it's heart and essence. Disarm them, let them declare peace, and Hezbollah woudl seize to exist. They know that, and so they will always say No to both. That'S why Hezbollah will never accept a peace, and will always reject to stop fighting. Send UN troops there, and they will fight against them if they are ropbust and hinder them to reach Israel. Send Nato troops, and they will fight against NATO, 100% for sure, since Nato is seen as the armed arm of the satanic West. THERE WILL BE NO PEACEFUL NATO MISSION in Lebanon, that is absolutely impossible. As long as Hezbollah is not reduced to meaninglessness, by force, Hezbollah will strike at Israeli civilians and try to massacre as many of them as possible.That's why the war now is fought: 1100 deaths by terror strikes. Israel retreating, withdrawing, giving land, moving back, trying to limit military answers as much as possible, not letting huge military offensives take place, while the other side has, in words as well as in deeds, declared open war of annihilation against Israel. Israel hoped that the territories it left would not been used as launching positions. but when they moved out, the Gaza strip and the south of KLebanon soon were used as rocket basis. Deaths on the other side in Israeli retaliation during which responsible terror members were targetted, and civilians happened to stand close by (but were not intentionally targetted). And you complain in another thread that tens of thousands of supsects and supporters are arrested in Israelis prisons? I would say that is no wonder. One side aiming at civilians, the other side in retaliation targetting fighters, and cannot avopid of hitting civilians at times, since the enmy is abusing civilians to hide in their middle. No difference for you. But a difference for me. Make Hezbollah stop murdering civilians intentionally, and we can talk again. Until then, I judge your constant protests by the effect that would be caused if you would be allowed to have your way: so I rate it as Hezbollah-friendly support of a terrorist cause that knowgingly accepts the ongoing of the murdering of Israeli civilians and tells the world that a couple of hundred Jewish murder victims each year is an acceptable price to avoid military action against the murderer, and those that passively accept him, or actively support him.

[scandium]

@Skybird you pose a false dilemna: either one unconditionally supports Israeli actions in Lebanon anad Gaza or else they are on the side of Hezbollah and Hamas.

I support neither, but what I am doing is calling it as I see it and believing there had to have been a better way than this.

[Skybird]

Okay, then show us that better way. We have the ability to learn so we could adapt. You just need to convince us. Do not expect us to simply believe this... or that... and hope... and pray... and wish for the better... any maybe... or not?... who knows... The dilemms I pose is real: fight Hezbollah and limit it, do not fight it and accept beeing assaulted by it again and again. that is their declared, admitted, propagated pollicy - and they do not hide it, and say it at every opportunity, and have given a multitude of evidence that they mean it exactly as they say it. So why do you know better than they do themselves what they want and what they are about?

[Onkel Neal]

@Skybird you pose a false dilemna: either one unconditionally supports Israeli actions in Lebanon anad Gaza or else they are on the side of Hezbollah and Hamas.

I support neither, but what I am doing is calling it as I see it and believing there had to have been a better way than this.

the world would apply uniform pressure to end terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, this would probably quiet the Israelis.

[Skybird]

Unfortunately, that uniform pressure of the world will not happen, and even lesser chances that Iran will stop funding Hezbollah, which very much is it's own legion etranger.

[SUBMAN1]

Hezbollah is not going anywhere. Its Irans trump card to get Isreal to do what it is doing. They are trying to follow through with wiping Isreal off the map, and right now it is purely a strategic game of chess. Iran is waiting for a mistake so that it can unite the Arabs to crush Isreal. Hezbollah might as well just be a pawn in the game that has crossed the board to start the war.

-S

[Skybird]

Iran cannot unite Araba nations, for it is Persian, and shia (not sunni). Arab nations would be happy to get rid of Hezbollah, for it represents the influence of the shia rival, Iran.
Also, there is a UN resolution already that demands the disarmament of Hezbollah (interesting that none of those people accusing Israel of violating resolutions, do not complain about this one not being obeyed). So ironically we already have consenus of the UN, the Arab states and Israel that Hezbollah must be disarmed. The only one complaining that this now is being done by force is - not the Arabs, but the UN. If that is not a joke.

[August]

July 25, 2006 No.1211

Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah: I Told Lebanese Political Leaders We Would Abduct Israeli Soldiers

On July 24, 2006, Al-Jazeera TV aired an interview with Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah.

The following are excerpts from the interview: [1]

TO VIEW THIS CLIP, VISIT: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1200.




We Did Not Expect the Arab Regimes "To Participate in Spilling the Blood of the Victim, and to Provide Cover for the Crimes of the Hangman"

Hassan Nasrallah: "The international community has never been with us, for us to claim that 'today it is not with us, it is besieging us, abandoning us, and neglecting us.' It has never been with us. On the contrary, it has been against us in the things that matter. For example, we have been on the American terrorism list since... since they began the terrorism list. We were among the first to be included in the terrorism list. Some European countries also include us in their terrorism lists. The position of the international community is clear, and therefore, we are not surprised by the international community, and we have never pinned our hopes on it."

[...]

"As for some of the Arab positions - this is, of course, something new. True. In the past, some of the Arab regimes renounced the resistance and its men. Today, we would accept it if the Arab regimes - I am being very objective and realistic... We would accept it if they were neutral. That's it. In the past, too, we accepted this from them. If you examine the rhetoric of Hizbullah... Maybe the rhetoric of our Palestinian brothers is different, and this is their right, because their circumstances are much harsher than ours. They always attack, accuse, and denounce the regimes and the rulers. This is not part of our rhetoric or writings. Why? Because we have forgotten about them. There is no need for it. If you assume someone exists, you can attack him, but if you feel that he does not exist, by attacking him, you would be aggravating yourself for nothing.

"Once we used to ask the international community to denounce the hangman and to have mercy on the victim. Then we got to the point where we said we would accept it if they denounce the hangman and the victim alike. This has become what we could expect from them. If a resolution denounces both the hangman and the victim - fine. As for the Arab regimes - all we expect from them is to be neutral. And if they do not want to be neutral - brother, let them treat Israel and us equally. We would even accept it if they treat the hangman and the victim equally. But for them to participate in spilling the blood of the victim, and to provide cover for the crimes of the hangman - I tell you that we did not expect this. This was indeed a surprise."

[...]

"I say categorically that the Israeli response to the capturing operation could have been harsh, but limited, if not for the cover provided by the Arabs and international community. It is not that Israel got the green light from America, Ghassan. Israel received an American decision that said: 'Go on and finish that business in Lebanon.'"

[...]

"In addition, some of the Arabs provided a cover, and encouraged Israel to continue the battle. Israel was told that this is a golden and historic opportunity to annihilate the resistance in Lebanon. They don't want to annihilate only the resistance of Hizbullah in Lebanon. They want to annihilate any motivation to conduct resistance in Lebanon, whether by Hizbullah or anyone else. They want to bring the country to a situation in which the word 'resistance' is considered derogatory. Martyr, jihad, wounded, steadfastness, challenge, liberation, freedom, power, honor, nobility, dignity - all these words must be removed from the vocabulary of the Lebanese, from the press, the political writings, from the political thinking, from the popular conscience. This is what Israel is doing. America needs this if it wants to reorganize the region."

[...]


"I Say to the Arab Rulers... Remain Neutral"

Hassan Nasrallah: "I am convinced that even the sons, daughters, and wives of some Arab rulers are with us. But I say to the Arab rulers: I don't want your swords or even your hearts. All I want is for you to leave us alone, as we say in colloquial Lebanese. In other words, remain neutral. We are fine with that. You've said what you said - you can relax now, thank you very much. Today there is a war that was imposed on Lebanon. Its purpose is to eliminate anything to do with the resistance or its fighters in Lebanon, and to punish Lebanon for defeating Israel. The truth is that the goal of the war against Lebanon is to eliminate the Palestinian issue. Everybody knows that the widespread Intifada in Palestine broke out following the victory in Lebanon. What is happening in Palestine is a similar and improved version of the Lebanese model. If today we destroy the Lebanese model, the message to the Palestinians would be that they should despair."

[...]


"The [Lebanese] Government Statement Says That [the Armed Resistance] has the Right to Liberate the Land and the Prisoners"

Hassan Nasrallah: "This thing you asked me about - that I didn't inform or ask [the Lebanese government]...

"First of all, the government statement, on the basis of which we joined the government, says that the Lebanese government adopts the resistance, and its natural right to liberate the land and the prisoners. Okay, how is the resistance supposed to liberate the prisoners? It should go to George Bush? I cannot and will not go to George Bush. When you say 'the right of the resistance,' you are not talking about the foreign ministry. You are talking about the armed resistance, and the government statement says that it has the right to liberate the land and the prisoners. I am a resistance movement. I am armed. That's one thing. This is the government statement, on the basis of which the government won the parliament's vote of confidence.

"Second, during the [Lebanese national] dialogue... Some people are now saying that I did or didn't say certain things... There are recordings. Yes, I did tell them that we are keeping the border calm, because this was our policy. But there are two issues in which we cannot tolerate this calm. I raised four issues. Two issues can bear delays, procrastination, postponement, and reminders. No problem. The first is the continued occupation of the Shab'a Farms. Never mind, we can take our time on this. This is a small and limited piece of land. We will not start a war over the Shab'a Farms. I'm referring to the kind of war we have now. The second issue was the aerial and naval violations [of sovereignty], and even violations by ground forces. We can tolerate this. True, violations of our sovereignty are deplorable. But are we supposed to destroy the world because of it? No. Two issues cannot tolerate any delay. One is the issue of the prisoners, because of the human suffering. The second issue is any attack against civilians. I told them on more than one occasion that we are taking the issue of the prisoners seriously, and that abducting Israeli soldiers is the only way to resolve it. Of course, I said this in a low-key tone. I did not declare in the dialogue: 'In July I will abduct Israeli soldiers.' This is impossible."


"I Told Them [Lebanese Political Leaders] That We Must Resolve the Issue of the Prisoners, and That the Only Way to Resolve it is by Abducting Israeli Soldiers"

Interviewer: "Did you inform them that you were about to abduct Israeli soldiers?"

Hassan Nasrallah: "I told them that we must resolve the issue of the prisoners, and that the only way to resolve it is by abducting Israeli soldiers."

Interviewer: "Did you say this clearly?"

Hassan Nasrallah: "Yes, and nobody said to me: 'No, you are not allowed to abduct Israeli soldiers.' Even if they had told me not to... I'm not defending myself here. I said that we would abduct Israeli soldiers, in meetings with some of the main political leaders in the country. I don't want to mention names now, but when the time comes to settle accounts, I will. They asked: 'If this happens, will the issue of the prisoners be over and done with?' I said that it was logical that it would. And I'm telling you, our estimation was not mistaken. I'm not exaggerating. Anywhere in the world - show me a country, show me an army, show me a war, in which two soldiers, or even civilian hostages, were abducted, and a war was waged against a country - and all for two soldiers. This has never happened throughout history, and even Israel has never done such a thing."

[...]

"If 60-70 people know all the details of an abduction operation, can it possibly be successful? No, it cannot. All the more so if I inform a government, which has 24 ministers, the heads of the three government branches, political forces, and coalitions. When we held the national dialogue, we talked and discussed things, and an hour later, the protocols of the meetings reached the embassies. Do you want me to tell the entire world that I am about to carry out an abduction operation? It's not logical."

[...]

"It is true that I did not inform the Lebanese government, but I did not inform my closest allies either. Syria and Iran did not know. No Syrian or Iranian knew. They did not know, and I did not consult any of them."

[...]


How Can the War Affect the Iranian Nuclear Dossier?

Hassan Nasrallah: "On the Iranian issue... Now there is a war in Lebanon. In one, two, or three months it will end. How long can it possibly last? Once the war is over, in what way will it affect the Iranian nuclear dossier? What effect will it have on it? On the contrary, if this is in any way connected to the Iranian nuclear dossier, the war being waged against Lebanon does not serve its interest. The Americans and the Israelis have always taken into account that if a confrontation breaks out with Iran, Hizbullah might intervene in Iran's favor. So striking Hizbullah now would weaken, rather than strengthen, Iran on the nuclear issue."

[...]


"Hizbullah has Always Placed Lebanese National Interests Above any Other Interest"

Hassan Nasrallah: "Hizbullah has always placed Lebanese national interests above any other interest. During the national dialogue, I said to them: You have known us for 23-24 years. I am ready to tell each and every one of them which battles he has fought - some of them, not all of them... I am ready to tell some of them which battles they have fought for the sake of foreign, rather than Lebanese, interests. Tell me when we, Hizbullah, did anything to Lebanon, or led it into war, for the sake of foreign, rather than Lebanese, interests. They could not give me a single example."

[...]

"Victory in this case does not mean that I will enter and conquer the north of Palestine, and liberate Nahariya, Haifa, and Tiberias. This is not one of our slogans. This is a long process, which pertains to the Palestinians and to the nation. This is another issue. The victory that we are talking about - If the resistance survives, this will be a victory. If its determination is not broken, this will be a victory. If Lebanon is not humiliated, if its honor and dignity remain intact, if Lebanon continues to face all alone the strongest military force in the region, and if it perseveres and refuses to accept any humiliating terms in the settlement of this issue - this will be a victory. If we are not militarily defeated, this will be a victory. As long as a single missile is launched from Lebanon to target the Zionists, as long as a single fighter fires his gun, as long as someone plants an explosive device for the Israelis, this means that the resistance still exists."

[...]

"Today, we Shi'ites are fighting Israel. Our fighting and perseverance ultimately serve our brothers in Palestine, who are Sunni, not Shi'ite. In other words, we, Shi'ites and Sunnis, fight side by side against Israel, which is supported and strengthened by America. I'm telling you that if [Israeli Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert reaches a point at which he says to the Americans, 'I cannot complete this,' Bush will say to him, 'You go on, and if you encounter a problem, I will resolve it for you.' This is what I meant when I talked about 'a battle of the nation,' and I saw [on TV] that you commented on this. I am not fighting on behalf of the nation. But I say that the outcome of the battle that Hizbullah is fighting in Lebanon, for better or worse, is an outcome for the nation. Defeat in Lebanon is defeat for the nation, and victory in Lebanon is victory for the nation, just like in 2000."

[...]

"For 23 years, we have been talking to our people, motivating them, talking about martyrdom, the honor of martyrdom, and the place of the martyrs. Do the Zionists, or those who encourage them, believe that I, or anyone in the Hizbullah leadership, fears martyrdom? We love martyrdom. We take precautions in order to prevent Israel from making any gains. But on the personal level, and as a personal aspiration, each and every one of us hopes to be destined to martyrdom at the hands of those people, the killers of the prophets and the messengers, and most hostile to the believers, as it says in the Koran."

[don1reed]

...interesting perspectives.
However, looking at a bombed out building, as was mentioned earlier, how does anyone count or score the slain as either:
a) civilian, or
b) Hezbollah?

Thats always fascinated me how the MSM instantly know how many civilians were killed.

Do the guerrilla fighters have identifiable uniforms so that they're easily identified at the scene that separate them from the others?

What is their formula? Every 4th body is a guerrilla, the other three, his wife and two kids, or, mother, father, aunt, uncles, nieces and nephews.

I don't know, but if I was stupid enough to yank the Bull's tail, I shouldn't be surprised that he'd start kickin' my arse.
I guess we shouldn't be surprise either, when the tail pullin clown starts yelling for help when the Bull's got the advantage.

:hmm:

[waste gate]

Not according to the Geneva Convention last time I checked. Fire bombing Germany, or blowing up Horoshima was not a nice thing to do, but you are right, they did it. As a human upon this Earth however, it is your responsibility to avoid innocent casualties in wartime in my book. THis is not entirely possible when attacking someone like Hezbolah, or the local Iraqi terrorist gangs, but you should at least try.

I think western nations try to limit non-combatant casualaties. Because their militaries are controlled by the legitimate authority (read political). To do otherwise is to commit political suicide. Our problem is that groups like Hizbullah, Hamas, the PLO, IRA, SLA, Taliban, any group without legitmate political autority, have nothing to loose.

It is interesting that no other legitimate (read elected) Gov't in the region has pushed mightily for a cessation of hostilities. Probably because those Gov'ts do not exist. For the most part the Middle East is dominated by dictatorships.

Until the Middle East is made up of people who have self directed Gov'ts the slaughter of people will not end. It is not until people feel that they have a legitimate voice that they will be at peace both internally and with their neighbors.

[scandium]

Okay, then show us that better way. We have the ability to learn so we could adapt. You just need to convince us. Do not expect us to simply believe this... or that... and hope... and pray... and wish for the better... any maybe... or not?... who knows... The dilemms I pose is real: fight Hezbollah and limit it, do not fight it and accept beeing assaulted by it again and again. that is their declared, admitted, propagated pollicy - and they do not hide it, and say it at every opportunity, and have given a multitude of evidence that they mean it exactly as they say it. So why do you know better than they do themselves what they want and what they are about?
Alright then, let's go back to when last year's new government was elected in Lebanon during the Cedar Revolution. The Lebanese had finally managed to kick the Syrians out of Lebanon - no small task - and the anti-Syrian bloc won a majority of seats in Parliment, which meant their pro-American leader would be PM. At the same time, Hezbollah still won 14 out of 128 seats in Parliment and there still lingered some remnants of support for Syria and likely some Syrian operatives within the country as well, having left very reluctantly and with their feet dragging the whole way.

The new government was fairly weak, after decades of civil war, assasination, terrorism, and occupation, and the Lebanese army terribly so. A weak central government can only do so much, to do more, like efffectively police its Southern border and reign in Hezbollah militants, it requires international help - but could the new, and still weak, PM ask for this help when he had no idea what was coming? Would any country at peace ask for foreign peacekeepers to patrol its border when it had just thrown the Syrian army out? No, but it was still possible for this to happen.

Unfortunately nobody, not Israel, not anyone suggested that the Lebanese needed help securing their border with Lebanon and offered assistance in doing so and in disarming Hezbollah. When the current crisis came, it was still possible, however.

Turning the clock back in Lebanon has not gotten Israel back its 2 captured soldiers, it has only killed several more and destabilized and brought massive destruction to a country that was on the right path but needed a hand to go the distance.

Thus, why could not Omert open dialogue either directly with the Lebanese PM or through proxies, dialogue that would get the soldiers back and a joint force of some kind, either joint Lebanese-Israeli or a more broadly international force, to begin disarming Hezbollah, patrolling the border, and ensuring that Hezbollah remained toothless. If necessary this could be backed up with coercion and threats, but the idea is to get a peacekeeping force in there while there is still a peace to keep.

3rd parties have no problem lending their troops to a just cause, like disarming a terrorist organization and maintaining peace, and it is much easier to do when there is already peace and a working infrastructure and government to coordinate with.

But Israel did not even try this approach. It saw one approach and one approach only, and not only has it not accomplished the stated goal of returning the captured soldiers, it has destabilized the country and made it prey once more to Syria and to radical militants. Moral issues aside, this is counter productive and totally self-defeating.

[waste gate]

3rd parties have no problem lending their troops to a just cause, like disarming a terrorist organization and maintaining peace

Name one.

[scandium]

3rd parties have no problem lending their troops to a just cause, like disarming a terrorist organization and maintaining peace
Name one.

I could name more than one. Canada has led the international peace keeping force in Afghanistan at various points, and despite retaining a 2,000 man force there still has the capacity to at least contribute forces to Lebanon. France also has had a long interest in Lebanon and is sympathetic to that country, which is two. The UK might be willing as well, having a strong and impartial interest in peace in the ME and in that region in particular.

That is only only 3 but I think many more would not have minded putting a few of their troops into a peaceful and stable Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah and undermine Syrian and Iranian influence in the region.

The US has the capacity but I don't think the domestic will, being commited already on two fronts as it is and having a bit of a dark history in Lebanon (the bombing of the marine barracks back in the 70s) that they might not wish to dredge memories up of again - but all they'd have to do is greenlight it.

[August]

Pallywood productions, or how to fake the news:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys&eurl=

People tend to take what they see on the news as truth, but is it? Watch this and learn.

[waste gate]

I could name more than one. Canada has led the international peace keeping force in Afghanistan at various points, and despite retaining a 2,000 man force there still has the capacity to at least contribute forces to Lebanon. France also has had a long interest in Lebanon and is sympathetic to that country, which is two. The UK might be willing as well, having a strong and impartial interest in peace in the ME and in that region in particular.

That is only only 3 but I think many more would not have minded putting a few of their troops into a peaceful and stable Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah and undermine Syrian and Iranian influence in the region.

The US has the capacity but I don't think the domestic will, being commited already on two fronts as it is and having a bit of a dark history in Lebanon (the bombing of the marine barracks back in the 70s) that they might not wish to dredge memories up of again - but all they'd have to do is greenlight it.


Then where were they? If they were able, then, why didn't those countries do the 'right' thing and put peace keeping forces along the border? I'm curious.

[aaken]

I'm guessing ... because nobody asked?

[scandium]

I could name more than one. Canada has led the international peace keeping force in Afghanistan at various points, and despite retaining a 2,000 man force there still has the capacity to at least contribute forces to Lebanon. France also has had a long interest in Lebanon and is sympathetic to that country, which is two. The UK might be willing as well, having a strong and impartial interest in peace in the ME and in that region in particular.

That is only only 3 but I think many more would not have minded putting a few of their troops into a peaceful and stable Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah and undermine Syrian and Iranian influence in the region.

The US has the capacity but I don't think the domestic will, being commited already on two fronts as it is and having a bit of a dark history in Lebanon (the bombing of the marine barracks back in the 70s) that they might not wish to dredge memories up of again - but all they'd have to do is greenlight it.

Then where were they? If they were able, then, why didn't those countries do the 'right' thing and put peace keeping forces along the border? I'm curious.
Because it requires either the request of the Lebanese government or a UNSC Mandate. Neither was forthcoming, and I've already speculated further upstream as to why.

[waste gate]

Because nobody asked? Are you kidding me? Being the people of such great concience and forsight, not to mention humanitarianism, why do you need to be asked?

[aaken]

well, you know, that's how foreign policy works. If a military force, multinational or not, starts occupying the south of Lebanon without lebanese government having asked for it, it's called invasion.

[waste gate]

well, you know, that's how foreign policy works. If a military force, multinational or not, starts occupying the south of Lebanon without lebanese government having asked for it, it's called invasion.

You mean like hezballa, which is part of the Lebonese government, crossed the Isreali border and killed and took Isreali hostages? Is that it?

[aaken]

You are a bright kid. You win a lollipop. :D
Well, since none of us can do anything about international policy and we're basically just shooting the breeze, why don't we wait for the war to finish or develop or escalate and see afterwards if Hezbollah is still there after the bombing campaign of Israel?
18 years of Israeli occupation did not wipe out Hezbollah (well, Hezbollah was actually created during the occupation), maybe this time it will be different?

[scandium]

well, you know, that's how foreign policy works. If a military force, multinational or not, starts occupying the south of Lebanon without lebanese government having asked for it, it's called invasion.
You mean like hezballa, which is part of the Lebonese government, crossed the Isreali border and killed and took Isreali hostages? Is that it?

It is Israel who is occupying Lebanon, not the other way around.

Your arguement seems to be that Canada and other nations should have pre-emptively invaded democratic, and peaceful, Lebanon to prevent a crisis we did not know was coming. And that since we didn't, Israel is therefore justified in immediately reducing Lebanon to rubble, destabilizing its government in the process, to force a further weakened government and military to do that which Israel itself could not accomplish in the 18 years of its occupation.

I'm not following your logic, or Israel's either for that matter, as I suspect their actions are motivated more by Israel's new government to show its strength - at any expense (which is being born by Lebanon by the way, and not Syrian backed Hezbollah) than by rational, realizable objectives.

[Skybird]

Alright then, let's go back to when last year's new government was elected in Lebanon during the Cedar Revolution. The Lebanese had finally managed to kick the Syrians out of Lebanon - no small task - and the anti-Syrian bloc won a majority of seats in Parliment, which meant their pro-American leader would be PM. At the same time, Hezbollah still won 14 out of 128 seats in Parliment and there still lingered some remnants of support for Syria and likely some Syrian operatives within the country as well, having left very reluctantly and with their feet dragging the whole way.
A strong Syrian intel presence, and political murders that even the UN tracked back to the Syrians, i would not call "getting rid of Syria". It was so far only a deleting of visible Syrian presence: troops. Since the Hezbollah is member not only of parliament, but of the government as well, and the regular army is too weak to keep Hezbollah in check, Hezbollah was able to seize the South of Lebanbon in violation with negotiation results with Israel - which withdraw from these territories only under the precondition that the army, not Hezbollah, seize these territoriers, and that Hezbollah must be disarmed (a demand anchcored in a UN resoultion as well). The whole house was built on quick sand from the very beginning. Result: due to Hezbollah'S dominance, it allowed the strnegthening of Iranian influence which was ignited when the Syrians still were present in visible size. An agreement with Israel was negotiated, that led to Israels withdrawel. A withdrawel that led to Hezbollah erecting new attack platforms in the territories the Israelis just had left (like Gaza strip was turned into a launching pad again once the Israelis had retreated from there, too). Lebanese inner politics is still strongly depending on Syrian control in the background.

The new government was fairly weak, after decades of civil war, assasination, terrorism, and occupation, and the Lebanese army terribly so. A weak central government can only do so much, to do more, like efffectively police its Southern border and reign in Hezbollah militants, it requires international help - but could the new, and still weak, PM ask for this help when he had no idea what was coming? Would any country at peace ask for foreign peacekeepers to patrol its border when it had just thrown the Syrian army out? No, but it was still possible for this to happen.

After nine days of bombing it finally came to his mind that Hezbollah is a problem and needs to be disarmed. He did never said something like that before that bombardement. He never asked for helpt to pöolice the southern border. He accepted that Hezbollah took control there, althougnit was in violation with the agreements with the Israelis. he did so, becasue Hezbollah is not only in the parliament, but sits in his own givernment, with two or three ministres. Since Hezbollah has been allowed by the people as well as by the government to sink deep into Lebanese society, it has become an element that adds to the social structure of it. That way, a terror organization has acchieved a major coup: it now is regarded as an inevitable element of stability for Lebanon. that is why Lebanon now pays a terrible price for the Israeli reaction to the ongoing terror - that took place with knowledge of Lebanese government, lebanese people, encouraged and wished for by Syria, initiated by Iran. I hold voters responsible for the votes they give. Maybe the Lebanese people in general should have fight as hard to get rid of Hezbollah as they fought to drive out Syrian troops. but they didn't, in fact a good part of Lebanese fully accepted and tolerated Hezbollah'S presence, and as long as Israelis died silently on Israeli streets they did not take much care about what happened in Israel, caused from the soil of Lebanon, accepted by Lebanese government.

Unfortunately nobody, not Israel, not anyone suggested that the Lebanese needed help securing their border with Lebanon and offered assistance in doing so and in disarming Hezbollah. When the current crisis came, it was still possible, however.

You need to say goodbye to the idea that hezbollah could be peacefully disarmed. It is absolutely unthinkable. The nature and essence and self-definition of Hezbollah is to fight and destroy Israel. They will never give up their weapons and power peacefully. Iran also will not allow that to take place without resistance.

Turning the clock back in Lebanon has not gotten Israel back its 2 captured soldiers, it has only killed several more and destabilized and brought massive destruction to a country that was on the right path but needed a hand to go the distance.

But each day of fighting reduces the weapons stockpiles and ammunition reserves of Hezbollah a bit more. each day destroys the infrastructure that helkps Hezbollah to resupply southern strongholds, move missile launchers, receive suppoort from Syria and Iran. Each day, more Hezbollah fighters get killed. Each day, Hezbollah becomes a bit weaker in it's current fighter pool. The porice is growing sympythy for them, but sympathozers that have no rocket launchers currently are the smaller evil only. And that is all what counts in this war - the material destruction of as much of Hezbollah'S capacities as possible. It will not wipe them out, but it will weaken them for a while, and current diplo9matic planse seem to head for a buffer zone great enough that the small-range Katyushas cannot reach Israel. this is a gain, since hezbollah slaos has longer-ranged weapons, but these only in more limioted quantities. That's all what it is about - material destruction of capacities. The disarmament of Hezbollah that UN resolution demands, is now partially enforced by the use of military force.

Thus, why could not Omert open dialogue either directly with the Lebanese PM or through proxies, dialogue that would get the soldiers back
First: their are contacts between Israel and Lebanbon, and always have been.
Second, israel seems to have changed it's policy, and is no longer willing to release hundreds or thousands of prisoners, of which quite a good ammount will grab a weapon and fight Israel again, for one of it's own. The ratios of the past were ridiculous, often. maybe latter, but it is no longer the preferred option. which militarily makes sense.
And third: as I have stressed severla time snow, the war is not about just two kidnapped indivuals. they bare just a cover-up, and excuse, a trigger. The war is aboiut the enforced reducing of Hezbollah's weapopn capacities and positions in the South.

and a joint force of some kind, either joint Lebanese-Israeli or a more broadly international force, to begin disarming Hezbollah, patrolling the border, and ensuring that Hezbollah remained toothless.

Again, you keep on dreaming when thinking Hezbollah will negotiate it's own disarmament. you do not understand what Hezbollah is, maybe you are too impressed that it also does social wellfare. Hezbollah ais such that it provokes the killing of innocents by the enemy so that it can point fingers and blame their vicxtim for fighting against Hezbollah'S terror. The fight against Israel is the cause that it exists. Stop thinking you are dealing with a diplomatic faction in western style. THEY ARE TERRORIST. Disarming of Hezbollah is only possible by the use of miulitary force. War fighting, that is.

If necessary this could be backed up with coercion and threats, but the idea is to get a peacekeeping force in there while there is still a peace to keep.

Threats? Like the "threats" we confront Iran with, currently? :lol:

There has been a peacekeeping force since thirty years. They had never made a difference. a new force you send there needs to expect war action, if you seriously want them to disarm Hezbollah. Take me by the word, the day NATO troops land in Lebanon is the day that marks the beginning of a time when NATO will find itself in a regional, but fullscale war. I am surprised that you are propagating to send a force into Lebanon that should wage war. Becasue waging war will be needed, you better believe it.

3rd parties have no problem lending their troops to a just cause, like disarming a terrorist organization and maintaining peace,

You cant mean that serious.

and it is much easier to do when there is already peace and a working infrastructure and government to coordinate with.

But there is no peace. There is peace in Canada from where you look at these events, but not in Israel. Fighting and terror and dying almost every day. There is bitter hostility and the willingness of the one faction, Hezbollah, to wipe out the other, Israel, unconditonally, at all costs, no matter how ,long it takes. You cannot negotiate lasting peace with hezbollah. It's totally unlogical.

But Israel did not even try this approach. It saw one approach and one approach only, and not only has it not accomplished the stated goal of returning the captured soldiers, it has destabilized the country and made it prey once more to Syria and to radical militants. Moral issues aside, this is counter productive and totally self-defeating.

Again wrong, Israel has acted in recent years with almost ridiculous self-restraint, in the face of killings and terror strikes on a weekly, sometimes daily basis. It has retreated from Gaza, and Southern Lebanon, but the demands the treaties declared for the Palestinians and Lebanese were not followed by these. What has Israel gotten in return for it's withdrawings according to the plans? Nothing, only more violence, and getting shot at closer range than before. you stress the issue of the two soldiers since it supports the impression you try to give, that the operation is out of scale since it is only about two missing people. But they are only the trigger. The real goal of this is the violent reduction of Hezbollah's fighting capabilities, and this is what it has been about from the beginning. The soldiers are only a welcomed excuse.

You too willingly only read one side of the medal - the one side that fits your opinion. you say "peavefully disarming Hezbollah", but have no midea how that could be done peavcefully. you say "international troops", but seem to rerally believe that if the shall robustly defend the UIsraeli border against Hezbollah, they will find themselves in a fullscale war again. You say Kebabon was weak, but you ignorie that nevertheless the terror attacks against Israel are based and launched in Lebanon. according to you, the Israelis would be left with not a single tool of REALISTIC self-defense. All you can offer, in principle, is that you wish it would be all be better. Well, I wish all humans would be nice and kind to each other. But as a matter of fact, they aren't. As psychologist, and later as mediation teacher, I sometimes got asked if I do not believe in the good in all man, as I was expected, oin the asking man's view. I have said farewell to that idea. I usually answer that I only believe in some good and some reason - in some people.

Why is it that you never protest against the violation of UN resolutions by Hamas and Hezbollah? Why do you never protest as bitterly against the masskilling of Israeli civilians? the blowing up of shcool children - that are not mistaken with a military target close-by, but are killed for two reasons only: they are children, and they are Jewish? Why do you so willingly work into the arms and interests of Islamic terror groups, Iran, and Hezbollah? Your statement that you do not sympathize with them is worth nothing. the consequences by your deeds is what counts. And judging you by these consequences qualifies you as someone who helps to support the interests of Hezbollah. If you want that or not does not matter. You directly work into their hands - and that is what counts.

Even me gets tired of this endless repetitions for deaf ears. those who understand me, I must not convince. People like you will keep on chasing illusions, driven by good intentions maybe, but nevertheless always acchieveing more bad than good in the long run. I don't think you are an evil man, i think you wish to do good, but are too confused by the horror around so that you can no longer see the differenc ebetween casue and reaction, victim and aggressor, rifght and wrong, instead you level all this, and turn it aorund, an relativise things so long until no qualitative differences are left - then all and everything appears as to be 1equal", that sounds just and right, and thus you adore it. that is my impression of you. However, I will not debate all this AGAIN with you. You see the interests of aggressors of same value as that of victims. I see the interests of the attacked one as higher than that of the attacker. Okay, I am not you, I have no obligation whatever to follow you. So do your donation for Lebanon - and be aware that maybe a tenth, or a fifth or a quarter of the money will find it's way into the hands of Hezbollah, buying ammunition, explosives, rockets. You may save some lifes - and pay with the lifes of others. by that you help to keep the conflict alive. In Africe, this mechanism is existential basis for a multitude of regional warring tribes and militias and factions. they use this tactic to weaken a donator'S weak heart. And they get the dollars that they want and that khelp them to keep on fighting. We are heading back into the 16th century.

[waste gate]

You are a bright kid. You win a lollipop. :D
Well, since none of us can do anything about international policy and we're basically just shooting the breeze, why don't we wait for the war to finish or develop or escalate and see afterwards if Hezbollah is still there after the bombing campaign of Israel?
18 years of Israeli occupation did not wipe out Hezbollah, maybe this time it will be different?

Thank you for the complement. I am neither bright nor a kid. I just like to keep things simple. You may have noticed the long, elaborate relpies from some other folks. That is not my style. Most of the others are trying to cut the fine hairs even finer. Shades of grey always seem to be the way of these boards. Armchair diplomats and warriors.

If I have an opinion, I cut to the chase. The subtlties I leave to others.

Its been nice looking at this with you, from an non-nuanced point of view.

waste gate

[Ducimus]

Unfortunatly the world doesn't always work in terms of black and white, good or evil. The world is a grey place more often then not. Nobody goes to war thinking their the bad guy.

[waste gate]

Unfortunatly the world doesn't always work in terms of black and white, good or evil. The world is a grey place more often then not. Nobody goes to war thinking their the bad guy.

Based on that argument National Socialism was a good thing.

If not a good thing then an understandable reaction. And 'peace in our time' made it better.

[Ducimus]

If you say so. Your obviously one of those people that "calls it how i see's it", with a big set of horse blinders on, looking at the world with a narrow view.

Im still curiious from that other thread you started. All that red white and blue flag waving bull****... ever put on a uniform and back any of that talk up? Or are you one of those arm chair warriors you chastize?

[scandium]

Unfortunatly the world doesn't always work in terms of black and white, good or evil. The world is a grey place more often then not. Nobody goes to war thinking their the bad guy.
Based on that argument National Socialism was a good thing.

It was to many. Why do you think Hitler had so much support at home, and even abroad, for so long?

Though in fairness to Ducimus, he wasn't making that arguement and neither am I.

[waste gate]

Well blinders keep the horse on track. As far as my military service, I wont get into that with you. The way see it either way you will attack it.

[Ducimus]

Well blinders keep the horse on track. As far as my military service, I wont get into that with you. The way see it either way you will attack it.

Your right i would. Im on your case about this, because you talk alot of crap. I wonder if you've ever backed it up. Nothing i hate more then a flag waver who sits there saying, "We're gonna kick their ass! My reaction: What do you mean, "we" I dont see YOUR ASS over there doing anything?


Another big talker i hate, is a REMF. Sitting there wearing the uniform, running his mouth, and taking none of the risks or hardship. If you fall into either category, id say shut the hell up.


And i say again, the world is often grey. Its not my way or the highway, its not my way is the right way. Nobody who's ever gotten that call at O' dark 30, drag their bags to the moblity center, stand for hours in a Mo' Line, draw their primary duty weapon from the armory, wait around in a chaulk on a tarmac, and finely be sealed up in the dark belly of a c-141 leaving all you know and love behind...... nobody who's gone through all that and more, wants to go to war.

People are the same, yet their different. Cultures and ideals vary. They see things one way, we see things another way. Compromises have to be made or the ****s going to hit the fan. Get deployed enough, you may start to wonder to yourself, whos right? Who's wrong? Whos to make that determination? and by who's standards do we use?

Black and white? If only things were that easy and that simple. I wish they were.

[waste gate]

Your right i would. Im on your case about this, because you talk alot of crap.

Another big talker i hate, is a REMF. Sitting there wearing the uniform, running his mouth, and taking none of the risks or hardship. If you fall into either category, id say shut the hell up.


Why can't you accept the opinion of someone else?

Compromises have to be made or the ****s going to hit the fan. Get deployed enough, you may start to wonder to yourself, whos right? Who's wrong? Whos to make that determination?

You have seemed have made my opinion of me. Why are you so angry?
Were you unable to follow orders or do your duty?


People are the same, yet their different.

Yet, you attack me for my differences. Perhaps if you kept your thinking more simple, black and white, you would not be so angry.

[Onkel Neal]

We need a new thousand word picture ;)

[Onkel Neal]

History of the Middle East in 90 seconds
http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf (http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf)

But it's missing region names.

Who does a land belong to? Who had it first? (Egypt) Who had it longest? (Saladin) Who had it last? (Arabs) Who has it now? (Israelis)

[SkvyWvr]

Truth != Propaganda.

Way back when, in a 1st year university english class on "context, substance and style", which was a pure writing course, a lot of our assignments were 5% writing exercises where we'd be given a cartoon image, or a picture, or whatever, and construct some kind of essay around it (analytical, expository, whatever). For old time's sake I'll take a stab at writing a short analytical essay on this poster and the techniques used by the artist to convey his message to his audience.

Without having any background on this poster, or what the caption says, I'll have to confine the analysis to its imagery and presume that its based on the clash between Hezbollah and Israel. In that context, then, we are shown an armed Hezbollah militant male, a Muslim woman and her child on one side, and an Israeli male soldier, an Israeli woman and her child on the other. The number of participants presented are equal, as are the weapons, but this is where the symmetry ends.

The Hezbollah militant is depicted in an aggressive posture, crouching behind the Muslim woman and child, with his weapon taking direct aim at the Israelis who he appears to be about to gun down. The Muslim woman infront of him looks directly at the Israelis, in a confrontional posture of her own with a grim and determined expression on her face, with her child held in front of her like a shield.

The Israeli soldier, on the other hand, is drawn upright, looking directly at his assailants with his hand pressing the Israeli woman and child behind him and his weapon held at the ready, but pointed at nobody. The Israeli woman clutches her child to her, her stance is neutral and the expression on her face is that of a deer caught in the headlights - she is helpless, a spectator.

Thus taken at face value, as "truth", I would conclude from the artist's illustration that the Hezbollah militants attack the Israelis not man-to-man, but crouched, cowardly like vipers, behind their women. And their women, for their part, are defiant and even willing participants themselves as they hold their young before them as a shields posing the dilemna to non-agressive Israeli soldier with his own family behind him: 'do I allow them to kill me and my family or do shoot, and in the process perhaps kill both the woman and the child. But what choice do I have, what do I do?' His stance suggests that he is resolute, but not provactive; that he is in fact courageous, and valliant but faced with an impossible dilemna.

Is this then the truth? Can we extrapolate from this poster an accurate picture of the actual events in this conflict, the nature of the struggle itself, and the way it is being waged by both sides?

A picture is indeed worth a thousand words, and I suppose in a way even a propaganda poster is; but where a picture shows an unbiased, unfiltered reality taking place in real time a propaganda poster aims only to convey a perception of a reality, and that perception is what the propagandist wants you to see. Propaganda is the wrong place to look for truth.

Here we go yet again. It seems you would analyze a roll of toilet paper.

[Perilscope]

History of the Middle East in 90 seconds
http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf (http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf)

Nice find Neal:up:

One thing I have noticed is that Israel never wanted to go any further than they needed.
They are truly peaceful, no question about that.

On the other hand, those caliphate and Persian did more than they needed too. Same thing goes for my fellow ancestors the Romans expansionist.:oops:

[cobalt]

half of you people are complete morons when it comes to politics.

[August]

Here we go yet again. It seems you would analyze a roll of toilet paper.

Only if it could be considered in some way either pro American or Israeli...

[DanCanovas]

aaken could you change your signature? it makes me giggle in a pathetic youthful kind of way. :rotfl:

[zeropoint]

In any war, you have groups of people with conflicting agendas who are willing to kill one another to see that their agenda is upheld. It’s just funny how when one side can afford helicopters and cluster bombs, they are considered to be righteous and when a side can’t afford much more than Ak-47s, they are considered to be terrorists.

With countries like Israel, the word terrorist has lost all meaning.

[Danelov]

Interesant, interesant ; my only comment or sugestion ,We try to take "god" in all his context universalist ,"out" of this world of mens.

Many atrocieties and excess were done under the name of "god" , and this word was the magic element to excuss to most negative moves by the mens.

Some examples

-Gott mit uns for the SS and the Werhmacht
-Caudillo de España por la Gracia de Dios (for Franco)
-In God we trust (mixing the name of god with the money)
-etc

Whole civilisations were near extermined under the name of god , like the Indians in North,Central and South America and was also the near complet plunder of continent and nations.
The name god ,bad utilised and manipuled is also is a good one to justify the exclavage, the segregation racial,the anti-semitismus,the torture,etc.

Christians or Catolics are no the best example to give lesson model to the rest of world ,enough to see that in the horrible darkest time of the Inquisition or Crusades and in times much more modern.

Exactly, for that , better to respect him and put the old good god name out of this human world.To us to gain his aprovation and the expective of be considered his supreme creation in all sens.

[TteFAboB]

In any war, you have groups of people with conflicting agendas who are willing to kill one another to see that their agenda is upheld. It’s just funny how when one side can afford helicopters and cluster bombs, they are considered to be righteous and when a side can’t afford much more than Ak-47s, they are considered to be terrorists.

With countries like Israel, the word terrorist has lost all meaning.

No. It's not Israel's fault you fail to define the meaning of the word terrorist.

A terrorist is one who fights to enslave, against freedom. On the Israeli-Hizbullah war the Hizbullah has used anti-tank and ballistic rockets and missiles, and even an anti-ship drone, all of the latest technology and quite expensive. Also, it's the Hizbullah who consider themselves to be "righteous", the entire world justifies their existence and their terrorism and gives them carte blanche to do as they please. What they despise in America is not its richness but the fact that it's not Muslim.

If they wanted money to afford a standing army then they would surrender terrorism and stop rejecting everything that could improve their condition: democracy, secularism, intellectual freedom, equality among men and women, plurality of criticism and opening to other cultures.

Of course, you are free to believe it is righteous to enslave women if you wish so in a free society where you can express your views and not be punished, imprisioned or killed for doing so. :up:

[zeropoint]

Dude, the word 'freedom' is the only word more misused than the word 'terrorist'. We are speaking differant languages.

Just for fun though, let's consult the dictionary:

ter‧ror‧ism  /ˈtɛrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəˌrɪzhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəm/ Pronunciation Key (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/) - Show Spelled Pronunciation (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/)[ter-uh-riz-uhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngm] Pronunciation Key (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/) - Show IPA Pronunciation (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/)
–noun 1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


Nope, sorry. Your definition is wrong. If you further examine the first example, I think you will find that both Israel and the United States are guilty of myriad terrorist acts.

[TteFAboB]

Agreed. But then we should strive to find proper definitions.

What examples do you have in mind when you mention the USA and Israel? The assassination of PLO's members? The bombing of Dresden in WW2?

The word terrorism will always be misused if the only use for it is to label violence somebody doesn't like. But very well, since you reject my definition let's ignore this and assume whoever calls terrorist is correct, then it becomes a matter of adding up the numbers.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg

[zeropoint]

Like I said: The world is full of agendas and people willing to kill to uphold them. The means are pointless. Perhaps it's the only human constant. Murder is our heritage.

It hardly matters what god you pray to or whos propaganda you are subjected to.

[Yahoshua]

terrorist
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

I believe this settles the issue.

And I would have to say that your definition of terrorism is somewhat skewed when used this way, since you are defining the act and not the person. The neighbors daughter can terrorize you, the evil-looking chihuahua can terrorize you, Stephen King can terrorize you. It's a very broad definition that you have posted there.

Israel, does NOT engage in terrorism in order to subjugate people or expand her borders. Nor does she wilfully slaughter civilians. Hamas and Hizbullah do this without reserve.

[Immacolata]

A picture is indeed worth a thousand words, and I suppose in a way even a propaganda poster is; but where a picture shows an unbiased, unfiltered reality taking place in real time a propaganda poster aims only to convey a perception of a reality, and that perception is what the propagandist wants you to see. Propaganda is the wrong place to look for truth.

Ah but the photo has been proven just as gullible to the narrators desire to narrate. There is no such thing as an unbiased, unfiltered reality once you relay it. The very act of representing is filtering and biasing, even if you claim an alibi by using the seemingly apolitical principle of light physics and how it reacts with photochemicals on film. When you see a picture in the newspaper, you must immediately think. Why this picture? What did they choose not to show us?

Now, I wonder how the hezbollah poster interpretation of this conflict would look like. I am sure they have similar demonizing imagery to depict the IDF as heavy fisted oppressors of the free people etc.

Yahohshua, that is about the poorest word definition I've seen for years. It is like defining the word
transmogrifist
adj. characteristic of someone who employs transmogrifism especially as a world altering weapon); "transmogrifist activity"; "transmogrifist state" n : a radical who employs trasnmogrifier as a weapon; usually organizes with other transmofgrifists in small cells; often uses cartoons as a cover for transmofgrifist activities.

It repeats the very word its trying to define 10 times.

Im with bob here, the word terrorist in it self is grossly devalued lately. Ive seen Green peace activists being sentenced under anti terrorism laws because they blockaded a ship from unloading toxic substances. Is that a fair use of the word? No. It is best reserved for guys like Ozzie Sinbin and his likes

[zeropoint]

terrorist
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

I believe this settles the issue.

And I would have to say that your definition of terrorism is somewhat skewed when used this way, since you are defining the act and not the person. The neighbors daughter can terrorize you, the evil-looking chihuahua can terrorize you, Stephen King can terrorize you. It's a very broad definition that you have posted there.

Israel, does NOT engage in terrorism in order to subjugate people or expand her borders. Nor does she wilfully slaughter civilians. Hamas and Hizbullah do this without reserve.

First of all, I like the definition from dictionary.com better. Secondly, what is the person, but someone who commits the act? My definition is complete. If you look up terrorist, it says ‘a person who commits acts of terrorism. I would like to offer the following mini-rant:

Yes, I am sure that the Lebanese (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Lebanese&spell=1) citizens don’t live in terror of Israeli bombs. Just as I am sure that Palestinian civilians are not terrorized by having their homes bulldozed with people still inside. Israel sure doesn’t like terrorizing people. Sharon sure didn’t like sending death squads into Palestinian settlements either. He’s just, you know, a war criminal.

Don’t be ridiculous.

[Perilscope]

...I would like to offer the following mini-rant:
Yes, I am sure that the Lebanese citizens don’t live in terror of Israeli bombs. Just as I am sure that Palestinian civilians are not terrorized by having their homes bulldozed with people still inside. Israel sure doesn’t like terrorizing people. Sharon sure didn’t like sending death squads into Palestinian settlements either. He’s just, you know, a war criminal.
Don’t be ridiculous.
Hey! Zeropoint, first of all, with only seven post here at Subsim, I must say that we haven't met yet, so hello fellow Montrealer. I am from the Rivière-Des-Prairies district.:D

Now let's get down to business shall we, so following your last post which in part I quoted above, it seems like you are one sided, nothing wrong with that, its your affair. But I would like to know your opinion on both side, because after your last post, again I repeat, you seem blind for one side and extremely defensive of the other? It takes two to dance you know. Maybe I am making a presumption who knows, but that only you can clarify.:hmm:

[zeropoint]

Hello fellow Montrealer! I reside in the McGill Ghetto (not actually a ghetto for anyone who is not lucky enough to live in Montreal!)

I think that my earlier posts might clarify my position:

“Like I said: The world is full of agendas and people willing to kill to uphold them. The means are pointless. Perhaps it's the only human constant. Murder is our heritage.

It hardly matters what god you pray to or who's propaganda you are subjected to.”


I am not the sort of person to see things as black and white. The world is, in reality, a spectrum of grays. This is why I took offense to position that Israel can do no wrong or that Islam as a religion is responsible for terrorism.

[Perilscope]

I am not the sort of person to see things as black and white. The world is, in reality, a spectrum of grays. This is why I took offense to position that Israel can do no wrong or that Islam as a religion is responsible for terrorism.
Okay, I understood your point of view. :yep:

[Yahoshua]

Immacolate, come up with an argument and not a denigrating rant please. Whether or not you like the definition is YOUR opinion, but it certainly doesn't take the place of fact.

And to Zeropoint: I didn't dispute the definition you posted, but I disputed the way it was used. The act or state of being terrorized is far too broad to be used, whereas the one doing so is far more specific: Wanton murder of civlians.

Attacks against soldiers of an occupying force is legitimate, it an act of war. But since the Arabs don't fight like soldiers, they hide among the population, hoping to draw media attention to the alleged "slaughter" of civilians by Israeli airstrikes. And you forget that the Lebanese SUPPORT Hizbullah, whom is a terrorist organization.

Yes, I am sure that the Lebanese (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Lebanese&spell=1) citizens don’t live in terror of Israeli bombs.

Now you're being ridiculous. And you're twisting the truth to fit your definition. I never said Israel could do no wrong, to think so is preposterous. But Israel does NOT wilfully slaughter civilians. Terrorists do. And what of the victims of the Kassam rockets, the suicide bombings, and the kidnapping and murder of Israeli civilians?

Is that what you would define as a legal means of resistance?

Just as I am sure that Palestinian civilians are not terrorized by having their homes bulldozed with people still inside.

Show me where Israel has bull-dozed homes while forcing the civilians to stay inside the building.

Sharon sure didn’t like sending death squads into Palestinian settlements either. He’s just, you know, a war criminal.

Again, SHOW me where Sharon has done this.

[zeropoint]

The act or state of being terrorized is far too broad to be used, whereas the one doing so is far more specific: Wanton murder of civlians.

Attacks against soldiers of an occupying force is legitimate, it an act of war. But since the Arabs don't fight like soldiers, they hide among the population, hoping to draw media attention to the alleged "slaughter" of civilians by Israeli airstrikes. And you forget that the Lebanese SUPPORT Hizbullah, whom is a terrorist organization.

Considering that I am writing these correspondences between homework and classes, I am not about to run around the internet to satisfy you. If you are curious, there is plenty of information at your fingertips.

As a previous poster pointed out to you, the Lebanese fighters do not ‘hide’ among the population, they LIVE within it.

Look, judging by your signature, it’s plain to see that I am not going to convince you of anything. And I assure you that it is impossible to convince me that Israel is not guilty of crimes against humanity. I suggest we stop trying.

As for the ‘alleged’ attacks against civilians, how do you explain the 7 dead people from my home town who were killed by IDF air strikes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aitaroun

And, just for fun, because it’s so easy to find:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20033&Cr=human&Cr1=rights

http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted-as.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/sab-f22.shtml

http://www.mediamonitors.net/drbenalofs1.html

http://www.isreview.org/issues/17/Ariel_Sharon.shtml

http://wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/isra-m02.shtml

[Yahoshua]

What? No reputable news sources. Not that it would help much since the reuters' incident.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1154525816599&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Or how about the inflated casualty lists produced by the Lebanese government and Hizbullah? How do you explain that, aside from the media bias that so obviously exists against Israel. And for what?

As for the ‘alleged’ attacks against civilians, how do you explain the 7 dead people from my home town who were killed by IDF air strikes?

My, it couldn't possibly be because Hizbullah has been using civilian shields could it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn9Wf2XaQBg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ey3-LyxMts&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfCwC-RMrjU&mode=related&search=

Explain that to me.

And I'm tired of running around finding information for ppl, so instead of ticketing me to find it, why don't you back it up with FACT instead of meaningless rhetoric.

Look, judging by your signature, it’s plain to see that I am not going to convince you of anything. And I assure you that it is impossible to convince me that Israel is not guilty of crimes against humanity. I suggest we stop trying.

Ok, fine, I won't try to convince you, but I will do my best to stop you from spreading outright lies about both sides. If Israel even were guilty of crimes against humanity, Hizbullah would be guilty of war-crimes 10 times over (Hizbullah already is, that's an open-shut case). And that does NOT mean I approve of or brush off the deaths of Lebanese civilians.

While you're at it, please remember that Hizbullah was indeed forcing civilians to stay in their homes as they set-up Katyusha launchers on the roofs of their homes, only to blame Israel for allegedly "murdering" civilians at will.

Who is the real villain here? Try reading this thread to get a better idea.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=96149&highlight=israel

[zeropoint]

You still don’t get it. I am not saying ANYTHING about Hezbollah, or Hizbullah or whatever way you want to spell it. My argument is based upon the fact that Israel is no better than the so called terrorists.

Let me give you a scenario:

Israel bombs civilians. Oops! How to escape the bad press? Let’s paint a picture of terrorists using civilians for human shields. It certainly sounds better than purposefully bombing civilians, doesn’t it? Plus, it makes our enemies seem like cowards!

It’s just sad that it works so well. Israel’s unofficial policy is that Lebanese lives are not worth preserving anyway.

As for the credibility of my links: These are just the first things you find when you google Sharon + war criminal. There are hundreds more. I believe that the NY times was in there by the way. Although some people believe them to be a discredited news source.

This also raises another problem with this whole argument: The perception of the media. Israel, having ‘nation’ status, has a great deal more so-called-credible news sources at work for them. Does this mean that we can ignore smaller sources reporting on the atrocities of Israel? Not at all. But it sure makes for a convenient way to dismiss the arguments of the other side, doesn’t it?

I’ll tell what I know, second hand: Many of my friends have visited Israel on the exchange program that many Jewish organizations in Canada have set up. They were shocked and appalled at the conditions that the Palestinians were forced to live under. It stinks of the Jewish ghettos of the second world war.

To think that any side is free of atrocious crimes is simple ignorant.
Finally, I would like to point out that the impetus for this entire thread was the propaganda (see: emotionally inspirational lies) of the Israeli government.

[The Avon Lady]

His name isn't Zeropoint for nothing.

No time today. Maybe I'll respond to his trash tomorrow. But I'm surprised nobody else can until now.

Enjoy him.

[SubSerpent]

You still don’t get it. I am not saying ANYTHING about Hezbollah, or Hizbullah or whatever way you want to spell it. My argument is based upon the fact that Israel is no better than the so called terrorists.

Let me give you a scenario:

Israel bombs civilians. Oops! How to escape the bad press? Let’s paint a picture of terrorists using civilians for human shields. It certainly sounds better than purposefully bombing civilians, doesn’t it? Plus, it makes our enemies seem like cowards!

It’s just sad that it works so well. Israel’s unofficial policy is that Lebanese lives are not worth preserving anyway.

As for the credibility of my links: These are just the first things you find when you google Sharon + war criminal. There are hundreds more. I believe that the NY times was in there by the way. Although some people believe them to be a discredited news source.

This also raises another problem with this whole argument: The perception of the media. Israel, having ‘nation’ status, has a great deal more so-called-credible news sources at work for them. Does this mean that we can ignore smaller sources reporting on the atrocities of Israel? Not at all. But it sure makes for a convenient way to dismiss the arguments of the other side, doesn’t it?

I’ll tell what I know, second hand: Many of my friends have visited Israel on the exchange program that many Jewish organizations in Canada have set up. They were shocked and appalled at the conditions that the Palestinians were forced to live under. It stinks of the Jewish ghettos of the second world war.

To think that any side is free of atrocious crimes is simple ignorant.
Finally, I would like to point out that the impetus for this entire thread was the propaganda (see: emotionally inspirational lies) of the Israeli government.

Well said Zeropoint!

There is a lot of propaganda in the media nowadays. Funny how here in the US the jews pretty much own and run hollywood so of course it's no surprise to see movies that portray them as the victims in almost every situation. It took Mel Gibson (a non-Jew) to finally make a movie that portrays Jews as the "bad" guys and ignorant people about God and Satan. Of course jewish critics and jewish people in the media hated the movie and gave it bad review in a lot of cases.

Yet, we are forced to watch all these movies such as "The Devils Arithmetic" and "Schindler's List" about how Jews were treated so horrible during the second world war by the Germans, and movies like "School Ties" that portrays Jews as being treated unfairly in the US after WWII. All of these were good movies, but then again they were just propaganda flicks and meant to make us sympathize with the Jewish characters since they are always shown to be "good" and the rest of us to be "bad".

There are a million movies about blacks being treated unfairly by whites etc. that fall under this category as well.

Most of these types of movies are created by Jews and show their one sided ideas and ideals and are force fed to us whether we like it or not!

I value your views just as well. Maybe you should find Mel Gibson and make a movie about it. You will have my eyes and ears! :up:

[SubSerpent]

His name isn't Zeropoint for nothing.

No time today. Maybe I'll respond to his trash tomorrow. But I'm surprised nobody else can until now.

Enjoy him.


Well Avon, opinions are like a-holes, everyone's got one!

[3Jane]

Thus taken at face value, as "truth", I would conclude from the artist's illustration that the Hezbollah militants attack the Israelis not man-to-man, but crouched, cowardly like vipers, behind their women.

It strikes me as accurate. I certainly wouldn't feel compelled to argue it is propaganda. We all know the "militants" and terrorists won't march as an army to do battle. They know and count on the Israelis and US to show retraint about killing innocents, and they use that.

ROFL Your serious ?

[SubSerpent]

Thus taken at face value, as "truth", I would conclude from the artist's illustration that the Hezbollah militants attack the Israelis not man-to-man, but crouched, cowardly like vipers, behind their women.

It strikes me as accurate. I certainly wouldn't feel compelled to argue it is propaganda. We all know the "militants" and terrorists won't march as an army to do battle. They know and count on the Israelis and US to show retraint about killing innocents, and they use that.

ROFL Your serious ?

Apparently he is! He wrote it after all! Of course he wouldn't see it as anything but pure truth! He claims that the "terrorist militants don't march or dress like an Army!"
Maybe that's because they aren't an Army and they don't give a crap about innocent lives. I'd say they are smart to hide behind women and childern as a shield. It's a lot smarter than running around and saying, "Hi, I'm a stupid US soldier in uniform here to kill you" without any shield in front of him!

Hence, I mentioned before a long time ago that US tatics have turned into the old British tatics of the Revolutionary war where British troops marched around in bright red coats and only fought "properly" on the field of battle as US patriots "cowardly" shot at them from the forest and from farm houses!

[ASWnut101]

....I believe that the NY times was in there by the way. Although some people believe them to be a discredited news source.

Ah, yes the "WORLDS MOST 'RELIABLE' NEWS SOURCE"

so reliable, that infact they betrayed their own country numerous times with what could but will not (thanks to libs) cases of TREASON. In lots of countries, that means death for treasonist. But who cares, right? the U.S. deserved it for its "terrorism" of the middle east........


Commies:nope:

[SubSerpent]

....I believe that the NY times was in there by the way. Although some people believe them to be a discredited news source.

Ah, yes the "WORLDS MOST 'RELIABLE' NEWS SOURCE"

so reliable, that infact they betrayed their own country numerous times with what could but will not (thanks to libs) cases of TREASON. In lots of countries, that means death for treasonist. But who cares, right? the U.S. deserved it for its "terrorism" of the middle east........


Commies:nope:

Hey, that's uncalled for! Your last statement there is a bit offensive to some people! :x

[ASWnut101]

your comments were offensive to other people too....

FREEDOM OF SPEECH, RIGHT!?

RIGHT? what you pointed out to me in another topic....

[SubSerpent]

your comments were offensive to other people too....

FREEDOM OF SPEECH, RIGHT!?

RIGHT? what you pointed out to me in another topic....


What was offensive to other people that I wrote? Please, enlighten me! Oh, of course any republican on here is going to find anything I say to be offensive. After all, I am a repbulicans worst nightmare! I'm a military man who's awakend from his brainwashed experience of the US government!

[The Noob]

so reliable, that infact they betrayed their own country numerous times with what could but will not (thanks to libs) cases of TREASON.
Betrayed "thier country"? MUHAHAHAHA! If you would be German you would sound like a Nazi! :rotfl:


In lots of countries, that means death for treasonist.
Wich SUCKS. But hey, the kind of stuff republicans stand for, right?


But who cares, right? the U.S. deserved it for its "terrorism" of the middle east........
It ineed does deserve to be bashed as hell for the sh** the U.S. Does.


Commies:nope:
Did you call me? I heard Commie. Yes i am. So what? :smug:

Republicans:nope:

I can't communicate with hardcore republican Americans without producing a flame war...it's horrable...:shifty:

At least there are still 1 or 2 people i can sometimes agree with...

[Yahoshua]

My argument is based upon the fact that Israel is no better than the so called terrorists.

You mean This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMrug3DJZGQ&mode=related&search=palestinian%20children%20hate

As opposed to This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6dNW7QPXac&mode=related&search=palestinian%20children%20hate

Oh yes, Israeli children are indoctrinated to HATE (sarcasm). Oops, wrong ppl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r5iLhreGEg&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AiYIhdZcOg&search=palestinian%20children%20hate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzA1NQ3vm9M&mode=related&search= Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrMpRMLxm0U&mode=related&search= Part 2

Israel bombs civilians.

Oh but those civilians wouldn't happen to be hostages used by Hizbullah now would they?



It certainly sounds better than purposefully bombing civilians, doesn’t it?

Like the infamous staging of the Qana bombing which has been proven to be FALSE.

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

Plus, it makes our enemies seem like cowards!

Sick cowards at that. Hizbullah doesn't have the balls to fight like an army so they resort to blackmail, terror, kidnapping, and MURDER to achieve their goal: The destruction of the State of Israel.

It’s just sad that it works so well. Israel’s unofficial policy is that Lebanese lives are not worth preserving anyway.

Israel could've made much better progress with carpet-bombing and napalm, so why didn't the IAF use either of them? Oh, wait, the core of the beliefs of the IDF state that preservation of life is a high priority! But you don't really want to acknowledge the fact that Israel went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. Just as the United States does.

As for the credibility of my links...

They aren't credible, end of story.

Israel, having ‘nation’ status, has a great deal more so-called-credible news sources at work for them.

Really? So Fox news isn't the only one that supports Israel? The BBC, CNN, ABC, and others don't jump at the chance to demonize Israel for her mistakes? Wow, what was I smoking when the scenes of carnage flew across my screen of bombed-out buses and destroyed hotels?

So what is this "Israeli Propaganda" here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryhwSpgBSfY&mode=related&search=palestinian%20children%20hate

Doesn't seem real favorable to Israel.

Does this mean that we can ignore smaller sources reporting on the atrocities of Israel? Not at all.

Granted, but I sincerely doubt the credibility of many sources claiming to be unbiased. But that claim goes out the door with the trash you posted. And the asserted "propaganda" thnat you accuse Israel of disseminating.

But it sure makes for a convenient way to dismiss the arguments of the other side, doesn’t it?

Like I said, no credibility, end of story.

I’ll tell what I know, second hand: Many of my friends have visited Israel on the exchange program that many Jewish organizations in Canada have set up. They were shocked and appalled at the conditions that the Palestinians were forced to live under. It stinks of the Jewish ghettos of the second world war.

So you can explain to me why many of the Arab governments DON'T take these "refugees"? It's been a long, long time since 1948, so shouldn't these "refugees" have settled elsewhere if it was so horrible for them? Oops, I did it again. The Arab gov'ts want to use these people as a pawn against Israel, these people are being used as a political and armed weapon against Israel. It's always such a sensational sight to see a tank confronting a boy throwing rocks isn't it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTmLHPE58PI&mode=related&search=palestinian%20children%20hate

To think that any side is free of atrocious crimes is simple ignorant.

Agreed, the only difference being that Israel is consistently called to prove themselves on the issue when the question is non-existent for the other groups such as Hizbullah, Hamas, Abbas etc.

Finally, I would like to point out that the impetus for this entire thread was the propaganda (see: emotionally inspirational lies) of the Israeli government.

Yeah....sure. So what about the PA propaganda?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H-idt5vpVc&mode=related&search=palestinian%20children%20hate

*Yawn* Are you finished yet? Show me your proof now. Using reliable sources.

[Sea Demon]

After all, I am a repbulicans worst nightmare! I'm a military man who's awakend from his brainwashed experience of the US government!

Give me a break. You are the Republican Party's wet dream. You are hysterically driven by conspiracy theories, and espouse your views irrationally and hatefully. You're the type of guy that helps Republicans convince voters not to hand the country to the Democrats. :up:

[August]

Hence, I mentioned before a long time ago that US tatics have turned into the old British tatics of the Revolutionary war where British troops marched around in bright red coats and only fought "properly" on the field of battle as US patriots "cowardly" shot at them from the forest and from farm houses!

Actually SubSerpent all of Washingtons efforts in organizing, training and leading the Continental army, and all of the major battles between them and the British were fought "properly" by soldiers standing in a military formation flying their nations colors. Ditto with the Navy who would at least run of a flag before opening fire.

US Soldiers of that war rarely fought in civilian clothes by choice. They would, and did, wear uniforms whenever supplies (always short in the fledgling nation) were available, and even when they weren't, their leaders usually were in uniform, and the common soldier still wore whatever badges or accoutrements he could obtain in order to distinguish himself as a soldier.

[SkvyWvr]

your comments were offensive to other people too....

FREEDOM OF SPEECH, RIGHT!?

RIGHT? what you pointed out to me in another topic....


What was offensive to other people that I wrote? Please, enlighten me! Oh, of course any republican on here is going to find anything I say to be offensive. After all, I am a repbulicans worst nightmare! I'm a military man who's awakend from his brainwashed experience of the US government!

Yeah, so was Kerry.

[SkvyWvr]

At least there are still 1 or 2 people i can sometimes agree with...

That number should tell you something.:rotfl: :rotfl:

[ASWnut101]

Yeah, so was Kerry.

Nice........:lol:

[SubSerpent]

Yeah, so was Kerry.

Nice........:lol:

Agreed. It is nice that Kerry was considered the republicans worst nightmare. Hopefully he runs again in '08 and gets the job. He's more of an American and more of a hero than Herr Bush and his "I'm too good to attend military drill" ways. Bush was a Vietnam coward BIG time. Clinton was too! Kerry was there and truly earned his place in this country.

[SkvyWvr]

Yeah, so was Kerry.

Nice........:lol:

Agreed. It is nice that Kerry was considered the republicans worst nightmare. Hopefully he runs again in '08 and gets the job. He's more of an American and more of a hero than Herr Bush and his "I'm too good to attend military drill" ways. Bush was a Vietnam coward BIG time. Clinton was too! Kerry was there and truly earned his place in this country.

I'd rather have McCain.

[SubSerpent]

Yeah, so was Kerry.

Nice........:lol:

Agreed. It is nice that Kerry was considered the republicans worst nightmare. Hopefully he runs again in '08 and gets the job. He's more of an American and more of a hero than Herr Bush and his "I'm too good to attend military drill" ways. Bush was a Vietnam coward BIG time. Clinton was too! Kerry was there and truly earned his place in this country.

I'd rather have McCain.

He is also a good American. I have lots of respect for him and his sacrifices.

[SkvyWvr]

Yeah, so was Kerry.

Nice........:lol:

Agreed. It is nice that Kerry was considered the republicans worst nightmare. Hopefully he runs again in '08 and gets the job. He's more of an American and more of a hero than Herr Bush and his "I'm too good to attend military drill" ways. Bush was a Vietnam coward BIG time. Clinton was too! Kerry was there and truly earned his place in this country.

I'd rather have McCain.

He is also a good American. I have lots of respect for him and his sacrifices.
See, we can find some middle ground.

[SubSerpent]

Yeah, so was Kerry.

Nice........:lol:

Agreed. It is nice that Kerry was considered the republicans worst nightmare. Hopefully he runs again in '08 and gets the job. He's more of an American and more of a hero than Herr Bush and his "I'm too good to attend military drill" ways. Bush was a Vietnam coward BIG time. Clinton was too! Kerry was there and truly earned his place in this country.

I'd rather have McCain.

He is also a good American. I have lots of respect for him and his sacrifices.
See, we can find some middle ground.

Yes we can when it comes to McCain. I don't always view things his way, but then again, he was like Uber shipmate from the day! I have no choice but to give him mad props. :rock:

[SkvyWvr]

Yeah, so was Kerry.

Nice........:lol:

Agreed. It is nice that Kerry was considered the republicans worst nightmare. Hopefully he runs again in '08 and gets the job. He's more of an American and more of a hero than Herr Bush and his "I'm too good to attend military drill" ways. Bush was a Vietnam coward BIG time. Clinton was too! Kerry was there and truly earned his place in this country.

I'd rather have McCain.

He is also a good American. I have lots of respect for him and his sacrifices.
See, we can find some middle ground.

Yes we can when it comes to McCain. I don't always view things his way, but then again, he was like Uber shipmate from the day! I have no choice but to give him mad props. :rock:

:up: Shipmate for me too.