Israel and the movement of things [Archive]

Papewaio

07-14-2006, 02:43

Very good for the militants whose powerbase gets stronger in a conflict.

If other governments see a cost benefit in assisting Israel rather then the other parties that is about the only way for a quick resolution.

I wonder what would have happened if the UK had in the 70s and 80s invaded in force into Ireland to stop the IRA? An escalation of bloodshed and if anything the loss of Northern Ireland along with international pariah status. Why? Because it was never proven that the IRA operates under the auspices of the Irish government. Now if like Palestine the IRA was put in charge and then continued terrorist activities that would change the dynamics of the situation.

Hezbollah however are not in control of Lebanon and if anything are in active opposition to the ones in power... more of an uneasy truce situation. So escalating the conflict with both Palestine and then Lebanon is not the solution path to minimising bloodshed. It might draw in Syria, who were only recently pushed out of Lebanon, so it again rewards the militants. Iran may increase funding to Hezbollah, but this maybe something they are hesitant to do knowing that the US can track money transactions and is looking for leverage to pounce on them.

Worst case scenario is another Arab vs Israel war plus Iranians plus Iraq Civil War plus a Kurdish uprising in southern Turkey. In other words war across the Middle East.

If Iran gets involved you may see an oil embargo and then $130 a barrel prices. (http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/27/news/international/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm)

Vladimir

07-14-2006, 02:47

With Iran still a regional power, things won't change for the better. Opressive governments need a scapegoat and Israel is right next door. As I remember, things were relatively calm until we started dealing with Arafat in the 90's. It seems road to peace is wide and straight.

Reference to the path to hell if you're not familiar.

Edit to Pape:

Don't assume Lebanon has a cohesive government. Hammas has a very strong presence in the Lebanonese government. The problem is that the government doesn't have the will and ability to purge Hammas from the government. This means that the government of Lebanon is technically "responsible" in that it's weakness prohibits it from being otherwise. The western style of politics doesn’t apply in every corner of the world. Self preservation is the key. Lebanese leaders will mostly survive an attack by Israel, but they won't survive if they challenge Hammas. The two may be in opposition but the former can’t stand up against the latter. In the end, it’s just politics.

Beirut

07-14-2006, 02:55

I see a great effort being made to kidnap Israelis in the future. It will be the new weapon of choice by the opposition, the successor to the suicide bomb.

Israel's reaction, right or wrong, has been so frantic the enemy will not be able to resist twisting Israel's tail again and again.

Don Corleone

07-14-2006, 03:03

Hezbollah, at the end of the day, is Iran's homegrown export division of the Islamic revolution. There one goal is to establish Sh'ite theocracies across the Middle East and eventually the world. Syria, with no oil of it's own, continues to fund itself by playing henchmen to Iran and allowing them to use their territory as a launching pad and safe haven for Hezbollah. I feel bad for the Lebanese. While there are some Lebanese in Hezbollah, it is much more an organization of Iranians and Syrians. Other then declaring they don't care who's responsible, they're going to end it, I cannot imagine what Israel's rationale is.... Lebanon only recently threw off Syrian shackles and gained some limited form of self-determination. If Israel wants Lebanon's quasi-secular ruling coalition to collapse and have an all out theocracy at the helm to their North, they're playing all the right cards.

Personally, I think the Palestinian incursion for kidnappings, followed so closely by Hezbollah repeating the action means only one thing.... more time for Iran to develop nuclear weapons while international attention is diverted. At the end of the day, Israel is proving to be one of Iran's greatest enablers. :no:

And you'd be hard pressed to find a more staunch defender of Israel in the Backroom then yours truly...

Divinus Arma

07-14-2006, 04:15

Here we go:

Some in the left media (Joe Klein specifically- on CNN about 30 minutes ago)are speculating that the Hizballah incursion was actually an act by Iranian elements, the Iranian para-military wing that supports Hizballah in Southern Lebanon (can't remember their name). The reason for this, as Joe Klein explained, was that it provides Iran with an opportunity to deflect all of the attention it was sure to get at the upcoming G8 summit. Others still (NPR) are supporting this concept by arguing that Iran may lose the support of Putin as the potential for accesion to the WTO is presented to Russia. NPR seems to confirm this an dis reporting that Israeli intelligence officials have leaked that the Israeli government has intel to show Iranian involvement.

It seems that Israel has not only taken Iran's bait, but has decided to call Iran's bluff and "go all in". Israel knows that although Iran will be able to play victim and win European support, they will ultimately lose their nuclear capability after U.S.-supported Israeli strikes obliterate their facilites. Iranian meddling in Israel will provide Israel and the United states with an opportunity to take out the Iranian nuclear capability before it is too late and without time-wasting diplomatic wrangling. The real issue here is not kidnapped soldiers or Hizballah or Hamas, it is Iran.

Pindar

07-14-2006, 04:16

While my post is concerned with the future, given a few of the posts I thought I would present this. It is from a lawyer Andrew Jacobson I read on a blog. His ideas:

"1. Iran is trying to build a bomb and moving fast in those efforts. Who knows how long it will take, but the Manhattan project took us less than 4 years, starting from scratch and without computers or prior technology. Difficult to believe that it will take Iran (which has already been working on this program for a number of years) 10 more years to complete. I just have no faith that the Iranians are that dumb.

2. Iran is a patron and has some level of control over Hamas.

3. Iran has a close patron relationship with Hezbollah.

4. Iran is a patron and supporter of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

5. Iran supports and/or controls some of the Shiite insurgents in Iraq.

6. North Korea is one of Iran's few friends and allies.

7. Hamas and Hezbollah know that Israel must militarily react to the recent kidnaps and attacks and that their actions will ignite, at a minimum, a low level military conflict/incursion by Israel into the Gaza and Lebanon.

8. Any military action by Israel will naturally to draw knee-jerk and harsh international criticism of Israel, regardless of the acts of the provoking parties.

9. In spite of its embarrassing missile fizzle, North Korea knows that its July 4th stunt is extremely provocative to the United States.

10. Higher gas prices (created in large part by the actions of Iran) have the American public and economy concerned.

11. Constant low level violence in Iraq, and the eager air play given such violence in the American MSM, have created an anti-war mood in the U.S.

11. Hezbollah's, Hamas's and North Korea's provocations have all occurred within a week of the date that the Iran situation is referred to the Security Council for what will likely be further endless hand wringing and inaction by that feckless organization.

13. Only two countries have the military will (maybe) and capability (probably) to possibly stop Iran from moving forward with its nuclear program — Israel and the U.S.

So here is my observation/theory — Iran has orchestrated much (if not all) of the current unrest and violence in order to: (i) distract attention from its nuclear weapons program, (ii) tie down Israel militarily in order to reduce the chances that Israel could unilaterally (or in combination with the U.S.) launch a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, (iii) scare the American public (and politicians) into rejecting any unilateral military option against Iran for fear of further inflaming the Mideast (e.g., "Geez, we've already got huge issues in North Korea, Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan, we can't possibly afford any further foreign entanglements" or "We better not do anything to Iran, we might further inflame the Mideast, threaten our oil supply and the U.S. economy" (Lord knows we don't want to pay $%/gallon for our SUV's)), and (iv) create world furor against Israel (and indirectly the U.S.), to further raise the stakes and international opposition to any unilateral military strikes."

Divinus Arma

07-14-2006, 04:21

Beat ya to it Pindar. :bow:

And I took my cues from the left. ~D

edit: Though you did add some excellent background to further prove my our points, Sir. :shakehands:

Papewaio

07-14-2006, 04:28

Actually I think the current situation is a lot more simple and is a classic rolling snowball scenario. Simply applying a couple of the more classic sins greed and the lust for power:

The Political side of Hamas gain power in Palestine and are now the new government. Then the military arm as a whole has lost some of its glory and power. So either the entire arm or a splinter group of hardcore members decide that they do not like to be further down on the power structure and go out and do business as normal. They kidnap a soldier so they can show that they still are as powerful as before. An internal power struggle between two competing arms of the same organisation.

Now Hezbollah go "Hmm, the Hamas guys are looking tougher then us so we had better do something quick to look after our own powerbase." They go out and kidnap two soldiers. "Hey look at us we are twice as hardarse as the Hamas guys."

Never attribute something to country scale machinations when individual malice and stupidity suffice.

Pindar

07-14-2006, 04:30

Beat ya to it Pindar. :bow:

And I took my cues from the left. ~D

edit: Though you did add some excellent background to further prove my points, Sir. :shakehands:

:shakehands:

Divinus Arma

07-14-2006, 04:38

Never attribute something to country scale machinations when individual malice and stupidity suffice.

I think the correct term is "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity". Simplicity even in this case, as you have explained, is sufficient. ~D

But WAIT! What about War for BIG OIL AND THE GREATER BUSH CONSPIRACY!?!?!?!?! It seems that you have renounced the evil Bush plan to dominate the world?!?!? :laugh4:

Sorry, I had to. Let's get back on track. This is a historically important thread and a topic that we may very well remember for the remainder of our lives. My apologies for the stupid joke and unnecessary distraction. Please continue. :bow:

Papewaio

07-14-2006, 04:50

No the standard quote would be insufficient. Iran could quite easily have tipped this over on the basis of malice. However it is an even easier scenario that this is like what happened when Sein Fein came to the peace table... a splinter group of the IRA did one of their worst terrorist attacks ever. Primarily motivated to hold on to their internal powerbase, individual stupidity and malice not some illumanti cabals machinations.

Kanamori

07-14-2006, 04:53

Quietus

07-14-2006, 05:06

So, can any one explain why the Israelis are attacking lebanese airports and military bases? If they're not sheltering the terrorists, Israel can take care of itself here, after it stirs the wasp's nest; count me out. The analysis is they did it to prevent movement of arms through the airport. They've also blockaded the ports.

Divinus Arma

07-14-2006, 05:47

So, can any one explain why the Israelis are attacking lebanese airports and military bases? If they're not sheltering the terrorists, Israel can take care of itself here, after it stirs the wasp's nest; count me out.

Most are speculating that these are acts targeted specifically to the Lebanese Government. After all, Hizballah is a political force in Lebanon and holds positions in the cabinet as well as in the Parliament.

A spokesman for the IDF on CNN stated that the goal of the ISraeli action is to secure the release of the two prisoners while simultaneously encouraging the Lebanese government to take positive steps towards securing the border between them from Hizballah action.

After the kidnapping, Israel made it very clear: Release them or we will turn back the clock 20 years in Lebanon. Some are also speculating that this is a show of forse against other regional players. Remember the syrian fly-by last week? Israel seemed to be itching for a fight.

All in all, this is a pretty stunning turn of events given the relative quiet in Southern Lebanon since 2000. I found last year's Lebanese protests against Syrian involvement following the assasination of a nationalist anti-Syrian political candidate a particularly moving show of solidarity in Lebanon.

It will be interesting to see how this develops within the region. Really quiet sad. I wish these Muslim nations could get there act together. (I do like Jordan, though. That King Abdullah II is a swell guy.)

whyidie

07-14-2006, 07:18

As for the movement of things my prediction is:

Nothing more than whats happened to date. I don't think we'll see an all out war in the region and I don't think Israel will further occupy any part of Lebanon for longer than a couple of weeks.

I think the exciting things happen in the Israel-Palestine territories and some type of bearable exit is found for Lebanon.

Don Corleone

07-14-2006, 11:35

So, can any one explain why the Israelis are attacking lebanese airports and military bases? If they're not sheltering the terrorists, Israel can take care of itself here, after it stirs the wasp's nest; count me out.

Two reasons. One, as Quietus rightly points out, is to prevent the flow of weapons in from Syria and Iran.

The second is to prevent the kidnapped soldiers from being flown out of Lebanon to Iran.

Just out of curiousity, does anybody here dispute my contention that Hezbollah is not just nurtured by the Iranians, it is in fact an organization of irregulars within the Revolutionary guards? I've seen compelling evidence that Hezbollah in fact receives it's marching orders on all things, grand and small, directly from the Mullahs (please don't make me dig for them so early in the morning before my coffee kicks in). But... check for articles by Michael Ledeen, et. al.

Let's say we're correct and that this (and Hamas in Gaza) are employing diversionary tactics (sorry Pape... can't buy the one-ups-manship story... not at this widespread a level).... wouldn't the appropriate response be as limited a one as the Israeli public would tolerate? Thus, enabling the G8 agenda to remain focused on Iranian nuclear capability, not the border violence in Gaza, Israel & Lebanon?

L'Impresario

07-14-2006, 11:56

Don Corleone

07-14-2006, 12:01

I do.

Can you show me one time when Hizbollah (fully funded by the Iranian theocracy, btw) has acted in a manner not consistent with a position advocated the theocracy? Can you show me one source of arms, armaments for Hizbollah other than Iran or Syria (by way of Iran)?

Idaho

07-14-2006, 12:12

2. Iran is a patron and has some level of control over Hamas.

3. Iran has a close patron relationship with Hezbollah.

4. Iran is a patron and supporter of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

5. Iran supports and/or controls some of the Shiite insurgents in Iraq.

6. North Korea is one of Iran's few friends and allies.

2. Is completely wrong
3. Is true
4. Is completely wrong
5. Is true
6. Is completely wrong

Don Corleone

07-14-2006, 12:17

2. Is completely wrong
3. Is true
4. Is completely wrong
5. Is true
6. Is completely wrong

Other than the Almighty and Infallible Word of Idaho (TM), do you have anything to offer us as to why Pindar's article is wrong on points 2, 4 and 6?

ICantSpellDawg

07-14-2006, 12:38

2. Is completely wrong
3. Is true
4. Is completely wrong
5. Is true
6. Is completely wrong

I agree with Pindar's points on all but #4

I'm not sure how Iran would be a supporter of the Taliban Regime after all of the issues that they had with one another.

Idaho

07-14-2006, 12:52

Hamas are a sunni and arab centric group and would not find much natural affinity from Iran.

Likewise with the Taleban - they were militant sunnis who were supported by Pakistan and opposed by Iran who backed the Northern Alliance. Didn't some other country back them too? ~;)

Iran is friends with North Korea?!? I really wonder at you yanks sometimes. Just because two countries are hated by the US, doesn't make them friends.

http://www.jamesfaqs.com/Morans.jpg

Pannonian

07-14-2006, 13:13

Just out of curiousity, does anybody here dispute my contention that Hezbollah is not just nurtured by the Iranians, it is in fact an organization of irregulars within the Revolutionary guards? I've seen compelling evidence that Hezbollah in fact receives it's marching orders on all things, grand and small, directly from the Mullahs (please don't make me dig for them so early in the morning before my coffee kicks in). But... check for articles by Michael Ledeen, et. al.

You're citing Michael Ledeen as a source on which to base foreign policy? Even within the neocon camp he is considered an extremist and a warmonger.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen080602a.asp
August 6, 2002

However, nobody is perfect, and Scowcroft has managed to get one thing half right, even though he misdescribes it. He fears that if we attack Iraq "I think we could have an explosion in the Middle East. It could turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War on Terror."

One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today. If we wage the war effectively, we will bring down the terror regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and either bring down the Saudi monarchy or force it to abandon its global assembly line to indoctrinate young terrorists.

That's our mission in the war against terror.

He sees Iraq as the first step in a wider destabilisation of the region. He has been known to forge evidence to push public opinion towards that goal, being the source of the yellowcake story.

macsen rufus

07-14-2006, 14:27

I still get a very bitter taste in my mouth whenever Americans point the "sponsoring terrorists" finger. We in Britain haven't forgotten NORAID; where was the "government responsibility for actions of extremists", then? Would the UK have been justified in blowing up JFK Airport in response, or turning NY into molten glass?

Over the years my attitudes towards Israel have changed a lot. When I was still a gung-ho, testosterone laden teenager like the Cube dude, I had pretty much the same attitude - "Go Zion, anyone who can take out six nations simultaneously must really rock." Now I've seen and heard so much more from both sides, I just despair. Religious nuts on both sides to whom the word 'compromise' is anathema. A vicious cycle of tit-for-tat, and "we're gonna hurt you more than you hurt us". Remember "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind". There had been positive signs - the Road Map, partial withdrawals from occupied territories, Syria pulling out / being pushed out of Lebanon, a softer line in Damascus, and suddenly we've leapt back ten years or so. It's so much easier to destroy than to build.

But the question was, what's going to happen, wasn't it? Right now I think it will escalate. I'm sure Iran (or elements within Iran - it is far from a monolithic state) will become overtly involved, and if they do acquire nuclear weapons, no prizes at all for guessing where it will be aimed. I wouldn't be surprised if Iran had some territorial goals in respect of Iraq falling apart, and Iraq must be seen as part of the overall picture.

We shouldn't overlook the bitterness of the Sunni/Shia split, either, as provoking widespread animosity towards Israel will cover that split in a spurious sense of "Muslim unity". When Arab-Israeli tensions are lessened the islamic schism comes more to the fore again.

As to the question will there be another war - I believe it's started, but no-one's admitted it yet. Eventually the world's policeman will step in and control more of the Middle East (well, occupy, if not control). Because there is an elephant in the room -- OIL. It's the one thing people don't want to address. It's not a case of the impact Mid-east conflict has on oil prices, but what the impact of oil is on the politics. The one thing mainstream media is keeping pretty quiet about is peak oil - we have probably reached it already. The rest is a long slow decline in production, inevitably prices will go up, and there is a scrabble to control the remnants. The more wars, terror threats, "market jitters" etc there are to "explain" the ever rising prices, the less repsonsibility the big consumers have to take in the face of their oil-hungry voters, the longer the denial can continue. Stopping this regional conflagration will not prevent the $130 barrel, it would just remove one excuse for it.

For all the local animosities, it still looks like a fight of the glove-puppets with bigger players calling the shots.

So, in short: Israel will be at war with Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. Iraq will collapse, Iran will make a landgrab (they're suddenly interested in the old Persian empire again, wonder why???), Jordan and Saudi will sit on the fence, Egypt will face both ways but get very repressive internally. General Arab uprising. The West will intervene about the same time as Russia. Winner gets the oilfields, and everyone else will just have to live with it. Israel will probably survive.

Unless some serious diplomacy kicks in during the next few days :wall:

Meanwhile China will nab Taiwan, flatten North Korea and invade Japan.

(And if you're in denial yourself about the oil running low, do a search on "Hibbert's Peak" and recent Saudi production figures).

Devastatin Dave

07-14-2006, 14:31

A big ice cream and pizza party. [come on dave - edited out]. Everyone will be happy, holding hands, and praising the UN for brokering a deal that makes eveyone happy. :2thumbsup:

solypsist

07-14-2006, 15:20

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that John Bolton said that a resolution demanding that prisoners be freed and aggression stopped would highten tensions rather than ease them? There's something stupid in his logic.

Incongruous

07-14-2006, 15:22

The kidnapping of soldiers does not condone the bombing of civilian areas.
All soldiers should know that, and the condoning of it is nothing but cowardly.

Do you disagree?

lars573

07-14-2006, 16:04

Other than the Almighty and Infallible Word of Idaho (TM), do you have anything to offer us as to why Pindar's article is wrong on points 2, 4 and 6?
Because Iran funding Sunni groups like the Taliban or Hamas would be like fundamentalist protestant groups from the bible belt funding the IRA.

Aenlic

07-14-2006, 16:26

Indeed. Far too many people lump all Muslims together in one group. Some know just enough to realize that there is a difference between Sunni and Shi'a groups and the smaller sects like the Ibadi. A few might even know that there is also a difference between Islamist fundamentalists from various groups. Fewer still know that bin Laden is a Wahhabist (Salafi), which is one of the fundamentalist Sunni groups, and is not in any way associated with the fundamentalist Shi'a groups. It's like lumping all Christians together without taking the time to distinguish between Roman Catholics, various Orthodox groups, various Protestant groups and others like the Jesus Christ Church of Later Day Saints otherwise known as the Mormons.

Don Corleone

07-14-2006, 17:51

lars573

07-14-2006, 18:44

This is one thing I don't understand about this analysis of the Islamic front. You all proclaim until you're blue in the face that Sunnis and Shi'ites wouldn't work in conjunction, as though you're some sort of Middle East expert. But history is rife with examples of two factions with nothing in common except for a common enemy. Would anybody have ever picked Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, two avowed enemies, to sign a mutual non-agression pact? Is it so hard to believe that the Iranians would fund Sunni groups to work together towards their common goal of destroying Israel and forcing the US out of the region, and THEN attempting to dismantle Sunni influence?
(respoding to the bolds) Yes it is. When talking of muslim attitudes toward the different branches, you have to readjust for the religious aspect. For comporable attitudes look at how Catholics and protestants got along in the 1690's. At best Shittes and Sunni's consider each other muslims, but apostates who have turned away from the true path that Muhammed set out (and must be converted back). At worst, infidels to be destroyed. When you put Shittes and Sunni's together one group will dominate and oppress the other. It's always happened right down through history. Iraq is a more modern example of what happens when you put Sunnis and shittes togehter. Iran would never have helped the Taliban simply because both were fundamentalist Shitte and sunnis. They would have considered each other infidels to be destroyed. Hezbollah and Hamas have simlar goals about Isreal. But Hezbollah is Shitte and Hamas Sunni. There fore it would be clear who Iran will support and influence, Hezbollah.

solypsist

07-14-2006, 18:47

well if the sectarian activities in iraq are any example to go by, which i've seen, then the idea of working together to topple an enemy is a friggin' foreign concept to sunnis and shias.

a sunni teenage girl raped and decapitated with a dog's head sewn on. a shia boy's hands and feet tied and then drilled and bolted together before being killed. these sorts of things don't lead to mutual trust.

it would be like expecting american indians and the u.s. army banding together in the year 1876 to fight off space invaders - it ain't gonna happen no matter how mutually beneficial or logical it would seem to a few observers.

This is one thing I don't understand about this analysis of the Islamic front. You all proclaim until you're blue in the face that Sunnis and Shi'ites wouldn't work in conjunction, as though you're some sort of Middle East expert. But history is rife with examples of two factions with nothing in common except for a common enemy. Would anybody have ever picked Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, two avowed enemies, to sign a mutual non-agression pact? Is it so hard to believe that the Iranians would fund Sunni groups to work together towards their common goal of destroying Israel and forcing the US out of the region, and THEN attempting to dismantle Sunni influence?

spmetla

07-14-2006, 19:26

The sectarian violence in Iraq is a bad example. There you need to keep in mind that the minority Sunnis oppressed the Shittes for decades and now the Shittes want revenge and the Sunnis don't want to lose power causing a lot of the violence we see. Elsewhere in the middle east it isn't like that. Most muslims do get along with each other.

And as for the Taliban. They were initially put into power with the help of Pakistan. The Northern Alliance was supported by the Iranians. Now that the Taliban have been mostly ousted the Iranians see it useful to support both sides and create instability so long as the US is in the region.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2001/3739.htm

The Iranians and Syrians do work together though. The Syrians need Iranian funding and the Iranians are more than happy to export their influence throughout the Greater Middle East. I can't find

http://www.meib.org/articles/0202_l1.htm

The Origins of Hezbollah

The origins of Hezbollah date back to June 1982, when Syria decided to permit the Shi'ite Islamist revolutionary government in Iran to dispatch around 1,000 Pasdaran (members of the Revolutionary Guards) to the Beqaa Valley of eastern Lebanon, an area occupied by Syrian forces. Syria had previously refused to permit the clerical regime in Tehran to directly involve itself in Lebanese affairs, but the Israeli invasion of Lebanon earlier that month and the cordial reception accorded to the Israelis by Shi'ites in the South convinced Syrian leaders that Iranian involvement could serve to block Israeli influence in the country. An added factor was Iran's supply of oil to the Syrians at greatly reduced prices.

The Iranian delegation, consisting of both military and religious instructors, recruited a number of young, militant Lebanese clerics affiliated with the Lebanese branch of Al-Da'wa, a radical Iraqi Shi'ite fundamentalist group, and Islamic Amal, a breakaway faction of the Amal movement, which had become more secularized under the leadership of Nabih Berri. Most of the radical clerics who formed the nucleus of Hezbollah's leadership had been educated in the Shi'ite seminaries of southern Iraq, particularly Najaf, where Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini and other ideologues in Iran spent many years in exile. As a result of these ties, they embraced Khomeini's concept of the just jurisconsult (al-wali al-faqih), the ideological basis for clerical rule, enshrined in Iran's 1979 constitution. In a 1985 manifesto, the leadership of Hezbollah pledged loyalty to Khomeini and to the goal of establishing an Islamic state in Lebanon.1

Iranian funds and training led to the rapid growth of Hezbollah's military wing, which devoted itself primarily to the expulsion of the American and European multi-national force (MNF) in Beirut and the defeat of occupying Israeli forces - objectives which corresponded with both Iranian and Syrian interests. After a series of deadly Hezbollah operations against MNF forces, most notably the October 1983 twin suicide bombings which killed around 300 American and French servicemen, MNF forces withdrew in 1984. Israel, facing pressure from Hezbollah and other groups in Lebanon, withdrew from central Lebanon in 1985.

This is only a short quote from the link I provided. I encourage you all to read it. I'll look around my house, I've got a few books on this subject and I'll try get some more sources for everyone to read.

L'Impresario

07-14-2006, 20:22

Can you show me one time when Hizbollah (fully funded by the Iranian theocracy, btw) has acted in a manner not consistent with a position advocated the theocracy? Can you show me one source of arms, armaments for Hizbollah other than Iran or Syria (by way of Iran)?

The questions here are irrelevant to the major premise presented in the post before. I don't know what is proved by saying that Iran and Syria provide Hezbollah with arms. Political goals as seen by many outsiders are all the same for all the actors anyway, terrorists who wish to wipe Israel off the map and kill as many civilians as possible in the process.

Just out of curiousity, does anybody here dispute my contention that Hezbollah is not just nurtured by the Iranians, it is in fact an organization of irregulars within the Revolutionary guards? I've seen compelling evidence that Hezbollah in fact receives it's marching orders on all things, grand and small, directly from the Mullahs (please don't make me dig for them so early in the morning before my coffee kicks in). But... check for articles by Michael Ledeen, et. al.

Not true, the actual situation is more complex. Syria has a greater logistical impact on Hezbollah operational plans and a more close relationship than with Iran during the last years. Hezbollah is not fully independant economic-wise, but they rely more on their own considerable sources of income.
One should be able to distinguish rhetoric which is directed towards internal factions and issues. Just because the ideological fountain of Hezbollah was initially Iran, it doesn't mean that changes haven't taken place throughout the years. It's not 1985 anymore, and even then political islamism in Lebanon and elsewhere wasn't in top shape, forcing a more earthly discourse upon the political parties that broke into the scene with the goal of an islamic state. They understood that the christians in Lebanon are a force to be reckoned with (especially after the Taif Agreement), and they also needed to maintain a balance between Syria and Iran. Elements ofcourse within the Hezbollah ranks show various preferences, but there is a tendance to show a united front, according to how recent events unfold, like in the case of the syrian forces' withdrawal and the subsequent protests.

EDIT: From the link provided above, regarding financial resources and dependancy.

Such interpretations are founded on the conventional wisdom that Hezbollah remains first and foremost an Iranian proxy. However, Iranian funding for Hezbollah was long ago surpassed both by contributions from expatriate Lebanese Shi'ites and by revenue from the movement's array of commercial businesses in Lebanon. Since Syria and its Lebanese satellite are capable of impeding these money transfers, Hezbollah's financial situation is ultimately more dependent on its relations with Damascus than with Tehran.

Tribesman

07-14-2006, 21:03

how do you think things will unfold?

The movement of things will be downhill all the way , apart from oil prices .

x-dANGEr

07-14-2006, 21:22

I think in all ways Israel is.. Damned!

ChewieTobbacca

07-14-2006, 21:25

I actually kind of wish they'd just have an all-out war. Will thousands, maybe millions get killed? Yeah, but with the way things have been going for 60 years, there doesn't seem to be any end in sight. Perhaps letting them just fight to the fullest we can settle the whole thing at once.

Pindar

07-14-2006, 22:10

2. Iran is a patron and has some level of control over Hamas.

4. Iran is a patron and supporter of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

6. North Korea is one of Iran's few friends and allies.

2. Is completely wrong

4. Is completely wrong

6. Is completely wrong

Hello,

I'm not the source of the article. You may be right, but there does seem to be some rationale for the claims. I'll note a few

Regarding 2) "The State Department's office of counter-terrorism in its report on international terrorism for the year 1993 clearly established that the Palestinian Islamic Jihad received funding from Iran. In April 1993, Fathi Shqaqi told a New York newspaper that his organization has received Iranian funds since 1987."

The above Department is the Israeli State Department Office of Counter-Terrorism.

"So far the Islamic Jihad-Iranian connection has been explained. The political affinity which was established between Iran and Hamas in late 1991 was followed by a series of practical steps. In October 1992 the Iranian Foreign Minister invited a Hamas delegation to Iran under the leadership of Dr. Musa Abu Marzuk, who held meetings with Khomeini and Foreign Minister Velayeti. Iran reportedly pledged to support Hamas with a subsidy of $30 million a year and also reportedly agreed to place 3,000 Hamas fighters in training camps in Iran, Lebanon and Sudan. It also promised to help Hamas set up a radio station. Hizbullah was said to have agreed to help Hamas to mount operations against Israel, including joint attacks. "

This is taken from an Abstract of a lecture delivered in a colloquium on "Iran: Foreign Policies & Domestic Constraints", held at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern & African Studies at Tel Aviv University on 3 April 1995. The piece seems to suggests the part of the rationale for Iran-Hamas contacts was a power play by Tehran to undermine PLO/Fatah control and make its rival beholden to Iran financially.

Regarding 4) This is the most controversial claim as the ideological hostility between the Taliban and Tehran seems clear. I'm not sure what the author based the claim on. Even so, Pakistan based journalists such as Hamid Mir have reported:

"Very few people know that Al Qaeda was actually in contact with the Iranians even before September 11. It was March 1997 that I first interviewed Osama bin Laden in eastern Afghanistan for Daily Pakistan. In that interview bin Laden proposed an alliance between the Taliban and Iran because of their anti-US stance.
That proposal was a surprise to me because the Taliban were against Iran at the time and that was the main reason for the US State Department's overt and Pakistan's covert support to them.

After the interview I talked to some other Al Qaeda operatives present in the hideout. One of them told me, "We want a broad-based alliance against the US and that's why we are in touch with the Iranians since many years."

These are two articles by Mir that discuss the interaction between Iran, Al Qaeda and the Taliban:http://in.rediff.com/cms/print.jsp?docpath=/news/2004/jul/16spec1.htm

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jul/19spec2.htm

Regarding 6) I'm surprised this would be challenged. This idea seems a fairly common refrain particularly given N. Korea's poor economy, its arms sales and Iran's interest. For example: an interview with Charles L. (Jack) Pritchard President, Korea Economic Institute

"New York, N.Y.: The Bush administration has been rather halfheartedly trying to draw North Korea-Iran and North Korea-al Qaeda links. What are the real relationships there?
Charles L. (Jack) Pritchard: "The North Korea - Iran connection exists with regard to missile sales and technology support."

Bild newspaper said, citing a report from the German secret services.

"Iran has bought 18 BM-25 missiles from North Korea which the Islamic Republic wants to transform to extend their range, the German press reported Dec. 16.
”Iran has bought 18 disassembled BM-25 missiles from North Korea with a range of 2,500 kilometers (1,553 miles),”

From an AP April 26, 06 report:

"Iran Gets First North Korean-Made Missiles
JERUSALEM - Iran has received its first batch of North Korean-made surface-to-surface missiles that put European countries within firing range, Israel's military intelligence chief said in an interview published Thursday.
The BM-25 missiles have a range of 1,550 miles and are capable of carrying nuclear warheads, the Haaretz daily reported."

The above may all be wrong, but a complete dismissal seems unwarranted.

Idaho

07-14-2006, 23:58

How much of this can we trust and how much is it just spin and lies propergated by the Project for a New American Century. We are dealing with one of the most deceitful, violent and manipulative US governments on record.

Alexander the Pretty Good

07-15-2006, 01:23

How deliciously bombastic, Idaho! :2thumbsup:

I don't know what's going to happen really, though I hope it isn't a repeat of Israel's occupation of South Lebanon in the 80's...

And I'd be really happy if I was in the IDF - look what Israel will do to defend you. They'll shred a whole country for you. Must be good for morale to know you have all that firepower right behind you.

nokhor

07-15-2006, 01:38

Regardless of being either a supporter or critic of the recent actions in the Middle East with Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah: how do you think things will unfold?

1. lebanon will ask for and recieve syrian protectorate status again to kick out isreal.

2. syria and iran will publicly declare an alliance.

3. reignition of lebanese civil war, with some factions blaming israel, and others blaming hezbollah.

as of yet i can see the conflict spreading into israel and into syria, but i don't see it spreading into iraq. in fact it could have a soothing effect on the iraqi occupation as military aid from state sponsors, and jihadists and terrorists get redirected into the israel-lebanon conflict, and away from the u.s.-iraq conflict.

the idea of this being an israeli plot into war with iran or an iranian diversion away from the nukes topic doesn't seem quite right with me, because states usually don't exert that kind of influence outside their borders as much as they would like to believe otherwise. what these political entities may have planned began encountering friction in the clauewitzian sense as soon as it hit the real world. everybody seems to be reacting, nobody is proactive. israel is doing contingency plan :general mid east war 1a, and hezbollah is doing contingency plan : israeli reoccupation of southern lebanon.

Strike For The South

07-15-2006, 01:58

I hope Isreal loses everything. I am saddened that we used are veto just bend over alittle more for Isreal. It is mindboggling that a state that displaces in millons in inhospitable places whines and bitches when **** happens to them. People see the Isrealis and exalt them and they see the arabs and treat them like dogs.

Strike For The South

07-15-2006, 02:06

As for Hubberts Peak. I find it shortsighted and not applicable as it fails to recgonize so many other varibles.

Divinus Arma

07-15-2006, 03:57

Holy crap, sfts did become a liberal.

Heh.

Tribesman

07-15-2006, 04:47

I hope Isreal loses everything.
Thats not very nice Strike .
Why not just hope that the Israeli government gets some sense instead .

Crazed Rabbit

07-15-2006, 04:50

I daresay they've got a good amount of sense.

If only the palestinians could get some (Hmm, we could've had the most land in 1948 before all the Arabs invaded, more land in '67, more land at Oslo, hey, I know, let's keep fighting!)

Crazed Rabbit

Tribesman

07-15-2006, 05:01

I daresay they've got a good amount of sense.

Well they certainly are not showing it, they are doing exactly what the kidnappers want them to do and are putting themselves in a situation that they cannot win and cannot afford financially or politically .

PanzerJaeger

07-15-2006, 06:42

Well they certainly are not showing it, they are doing exactly what the kidnappers want them to do and are putting themselves in a situation that they cannot win and cannot afford financially or politically

~:rolleyes:

They'll be fine.

Pindar

07-15-2006, 06:55

How much of this can we trust and how much is it just spin and lies propergated by the Project for a New American Century.

The beauty of the conspiracy is it allows one to preserve their preconceptions without ever having to apply an evidentiary standard.
:thinking2:

Lemur

07-15-2006, 07:07

Holy crap, sfts did become a liberal.
Since when did being pro- or anti-Israel become yet another conservative/liberal divide? Jesu Christe, is there any issue that isn't parsed for this partisan bull?

kataphraktoi

07-15-2006, 07:13

Pannonian

07-15-2006, 08:36

The beauty of the conspiracy is it allows one to preserve their preconceptions without ever having to apply an evidentiary standard.
:thinking2:
The neocons have already been known to concoct evidence to support an aggressive agenda. Michael Ledeen, he who sees Iraq as but the first step in a wider destabilisation of the region, supplied the yellowcake story (the one Joseph Wilson proved was a fake). And neocon supporters have already proved willing to swallow such false evidence, and some are evidently still willing.

More recently Amir Taheri, another from the Benador stable, supplied the Iran badges for Jews story, another story with no basis in fact.

Cry wolf enough times and eventually people stop believing you.

Quietus

07-15-2006, 10:30

Israel isn't try to target civilians per se....

In a disorganised society like Lebanon and Gaza, you can't expect black and white delineations of military and civilian infrastructures.

Don't get me wrong, I don't collateral damage in any sense to get militants. But its just not that easy.
But they're also blockading and choking everything: Air, land and sea. They're collectively hurting everyone so the populace will hate the militants.

Quiet dread blankets Beirut (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1152913812285&call_pageid=968332188492)

Quiet dread blankets Beirut
Tourists flee as restaurants and shops close
Israeli air raids target southern neighbourhoods
Jul. 15, 2006.
ANDREW MILLS
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

BEIRUT—Rapidly, Israel is cutting Lebanon off from the rest of the world.

Israeli warplanes yesterday bombarded the major crossroads, bridges and tunnels that link this tiny country together. Israeli warships blockaded Lebanon's ports. The airport remains closed indefinitely. A major strike on mountain bridges rendered the main route through the Lebanon range to Syria impassable.

At the centre of what is quickly becoming an island sits Beirut, a city that has been besieged so many times before.

Yesterday evening, shortly after seven, screams punctuated the tension of West Beirut as yet another loud rumble emanated from the southern suburbs followed by some smaller explosions and a tall plume of black smoke.

Another bridge. Gone.

In Beirut, the Israeli air strikes have focused entirely on the Dahiyah, the band of suburbs that form the city's southern boundary. There, the apartment buildings and slums are home to the majority of Beirut's Shiite supporters of the militant group Hezbollah.

It is in the Dahiyah, Arabic for suburb, where Hezbollah's offices and radio station came under Israeli fire yesterday.

The streets are strewn with chunks of concrete and broken glass. Its residents have sustained the brunt of this city's casualties in the last two days.

While thousands of families have started the flee Dahiyah for safer areas of the city, some are resolute in their support for Hezbollah.

"We will stay here until our last breath under the banner of Hezbollah against the barbarians and terrorists of Israel and the United States," Hashem Hashem, a 52-year-old employee of the state-run Lebanese University, told Reuters.

But a sense of dread for what might lie ahead has set in amongst the sectarian groups that call Beirut home.

The fear here is that the recent Israeli offensive may trigger another Lebanese civil war. Inter-communal relations have been growing steadily worse since last year's assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri. Things haven't been this tense since 1975.

Yesterday, most of the shops and restaurants in West Beirut had pulled down their shutters and were closed by early evening. As the sun set, people streamed into one of the few grocery stores that remained open in West Beirut, searching for bread. But, like much of the city, the shop had run out of bread hours earlier.

Down at the Mediterranean seafront, the Corniche was the domain of only a few hearty power walkers and the occasional fisherman. It is normally choked with residents and tourists at this time of year.

At one end of the Corniche, the swish Phoenicia Intercontinental Hotel suddenly had rooms available. Three days earlier, the hotel was filled to capacity with hundreds of tourists, mainly from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. They flood into Beirut every year at this time, seeking relief from the summer heat.

But in the last two days, the bombings reached a critical point and most of those tourists have been packing their cars and heading for the Syrian border, destroying the Lebanese tourist season.

"Last night, the bombing was too much. We couldn't handle it. We had to leave," said Leila Hamade, 46, who had been holidaying with her family from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

"I'm scared that it's a closed space. You feel that you're surrounded. From the sea. From the air. Everywhere. There is no escape," she said.

But yesterday what is usually a two-hour drive became hours longer as Israeli warplanes had taken out the bridges on the main Damascus highway earlier in the day, closing that route altogether.

And so the exodus of tourists fanned out into the Lebanese countryside, jamming the back roads that climb into the Lebanon mountain range with SUVs packed with suitcases, mountain bikes and children.

At the border, Lebanese traffic police struggled to organize thousands of cars into orderly lines, where they waited for hours to pass the checkpoint.

In addition to the fleeing tourists, there was also a handful of anxious Lebanese heading for safer ground in Syria.

"We're going to the suburbs of Damascus," a Lebanese woman said from the front seat of a Mercedes, packed with her three children.

"We're going to drop the children with friends and then go back (to Beirut). Last night, they couldn't sleep so they got really scared. They can't take it any more."

Some rode buses or in trucks, while others paid taxi drivers exorbitant prices for the trip to Damascus, only to find that their driver was only willing to take them as far as the Lebanese side of the border. They had to carry their luggage across the kilometre or so of no-man's-land that lies between the two borders.

"I'm still rattled. A bundle of nerves. I've never seen anything like this before," said Mohit Balani, 32, who was trying to get home to Dubai.

Back in Beirut, the power failed late last night and the city plunged into darkness.

In West Beirut, a group of men in their twenties quietly gathered around an old Mercedes, listening to Lebanon's beloved singer Fairouz playing on the tape deck.

Fairouz became a symbol of resilience and courage for many Beirutis during the country's 1975-1990 civil war, which pitched sectarian group against sectarian group in a series of clashes that killed more than 100,000 people. Beirut was the notorious venue for multiple massacres, a string of kidnappings and the first set of suicide bombers.

Fairouz never left the city amid the fighting and sang of hope that peace would one day return. This weekend, she was to have performed at a summer music festival. Tickets sold out weeks ago. It was to be a highlight of the summer.

But like just about everything here, the performance and the festival have been cancelled indefinitely.

Tribesman

07-15-2006, 10:55

They'll be fine.
Yes panzer , just like last time when after wasting their lives and wrecking their economy they have to withdraw again without achieving their aims .

Idaho

07-15-2006, 12:59

They'll be fine.
Yes panzer , just like last time when after wasting their lives and wrecking their economy they have to withdraw again without achieving their aims .
You are presupposing they have any aims. I think Israel just seems to act first, and let other people think later.

solypsist

07-15-2006, 14:32

"We make our move at dawn"
https://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f261/uncondomated/iranpres.jpg

"EXCERRENT"
https://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f261/uncondomated/kimjon.jpg

Blodrast

07-15-2006, 22:06

But they're also blockading and choking everything: Air, land and sea. They're collectively hurting everyone so the populace will hate the militants.

I'm afraid it's not that straightforward, my friend. They're collectively hurting everyone so the populace will hate the ones doing the hurting.
This is not doing Hesbollah a disfavor as far as the popular support is concerned, on the contrary...:no:

Divinus Arma

07-16-2006, 03:59

Since when did being pro- or anti-Israel become yet another conservative/liberal divide? Jesu Christe, is there any issue that isn't parsed for this partisan bull?

Everybody who diagrees with me is a liberal.

Byzantine Prince

07-16-2006, 08:31

CNN - Link (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/15/arab.league/index.html)

Well there we have it. Any progress made so far was for nothing. At least we get to restart the whole thing without all the angst.

What do the orgahsms think about this?
Is there going to be another conflict that will lead to a wider war in which the Arab states will give away their sovereignty?

PanzerJaeger

07-16-2006, 08:50

The Middle East peace process was nothing but an attempt to give concessions to the muslims in hopes of getting them to stop blowing people up.

Didnt work. Israel was still attacked constantly.

Now there is a new peace process . . . a roman styled peace. ~;)

Tribesman

07-16-2006, 09:19

Everybody who diagrees with me is a liberal.
Thats a very liberal application of the word liberal , doesn't your liberal usage of it mean that you are liberal Divinus ?

Dâriûsh

07-16-2006, 10:35

You are presupposing they have any aims. I think Israel just seems to act first, and let other people think later.

It sounds like the reasoning of most contemporary Islamist movements. Middle Eastern politics is all to often 'all balls, no brains'.

Same goes for that little show in Liberal… I mean Lebanon.

Keba

07-16-2006, 13:18

There never was peace there ... a temporary ceasefire at best. The issues of the day will not be decided by diplomacy, but by steel and blood ... that much is true for the Middle East today, and no peace talks, no ceasefires, no Western involvement will solve things.

Let them fight their war, and when they have lost enough, we will help them rebuild, and perhaps, we will be successful enough for peace there to last, but until all the sides involved decide that they have had enough ... it is pointless, and will accomplish nothing.

Don Corleone

07-16-2006, 13:44

Since when did being pro- or anti-Israel become yet another conservative/liberal divide? Jesu Christe, is there any issue that isn't parsed for this partisan bull?

Actually, Israeli support is a centrist position. Rejection of Israel and support for it is a position taken by extremes on both sides (the Workers Congress on the Left, the John Birch society on the Right).

solypsist

07-16-2006, 15:01

wow it's like we're re-living the 1980s all over again:

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1982/1101820816_400.jpg

Beirut

07-16-2006, 15:08

Poor Lebanon. :shame:

Eternal victims of other people's stupid ambitions.

:lebanon:

Don Corleone

07-16-2006, 15:15

I feel bad for Lebanon and I don't. Obviously, they're at the mercy of Syria, Iran, Israel and any other larger players that care to operate over there.

But honestly, what have they really done to reign in Hezbollah? Have they made any arrests, closed down any headquarters, stopped any arms shipments coming in from Syria and Iran? While Hezbollah's number 1 goal is the destruction of Israel, continuing a pro-Syrian regime is a very close second. Did the Lebanese independists think that Hezbollah was just going to sit by and watch them toss all the Syrians out?

I think if Israel's only goal is protecting Israel from kidnappings and rocket attacks, they've swatted a fly with a sledgehammer and yes, they are well into excessive force territory. But I think this is deeper than that. I believe they are on a campaign to end Hezbollah's stranglehold of Lebanon, something that threatens the Lebanese almost as much as the Israelis. To that end, I almost wonder is Israel didn't receive some sort of behind-the-scenes approval.

The lack of an outcry, even from the Arab league, is very telling. Hell, even the Iranians seem more interested in containing the action to within Lebanon itself, and the only warnings they've issued were for Israel not to bring it to Syria. Does anybody else find this odd?

Reenk Roink

07-16-2006, 15:28

The lack of an outcry, even from the Arab league, is very telling. Hell, even the Iranians seem more interested in containing the action to within Lebanon itself, and the only warnings they've issued were for Israel not to bring it to Syria. Does anybody else find this odd?

No... The intention behind the statement is more likely to try and prevent a wider conflict. The lack of statements should not be seen as an implicit approval of removing Hezbollah...

Dâriûsh

07-16-2006, 15:56

I feel bad for Lebanon and I don't. Obviously, they're at the mercy of Syria, Iran, Israel and any other larger players that care to operate over there.

But honestly, what have they really done to reign in Hezbollah? Have they made any arrests, closed down any headquarters, stopped any arms shipments coming in from Syria and Iran? While Hezbollah's number 1 goal is the destruction of Israel, continuing a pro-Syrian regime is a very close second. Did the Lebanese independists think that Hezbollah was just going to sit by and watch them toss all the Syrians out?

How could they?

Since the civil war, the country has been occupied by Syria and Israel. Israel left in 2000 and Syria pulled out just last year.

How could the government even hope to get the Hizbullah to disarm? Intimidation? The Lebanese army is a joke and it would have been a very bad idea to reform the militias.

After a fifteen year long civil war, I think the Lebanese are quite anxious to avoid another.

Beirut

07-16-2006, 18:26

spmetla

07-16-2006, 18:48

Well Israel is definately being excessive in it's response but I hope that they have some sort of luck in hurting Hezbollah. While it's doubtful that any militia can completely destroyed I hope that they hurt Hezbollah enought that when the Israelis stop attacking Lebanon that Lebanon might be able to finally control their whole country. I hope that the US gives huge amounts of money to help rebuild Lebanon's infrastructure when this is done. Not doing so will only allow Lebanon to slip into an even less powerful country with possibly no control over itself.

As for Syria, I don't envision the Israelis actually attacking Syria. While there is reason for it in their effort to destroy Hezbollah no attacks have been made from Syria and there really isn't any pretext for it.

Blodrast

07-16-2006, 19:16

I don't see how any of this can lead to anything but a worsening of the situation in the region. A destroyed and pulverized Lebanon will NOT lead to stability in the area, ever.
After this is over (in whatever way), the Israelis will either remain in Lebanon (which will give some Arab countries and fundamentalist organizations excuses for violent action), or they will retreat, leaving it for pickings...and you know what happens to dead bodies in the desert, right ? The vultures come and feast on the remains... it's not like the Lebanese can defend themselves - they couldn't until now, and they sure as heck won't be able to after this destruction either...

It is more likely that Israel will retreat from Lebanon - and then, since all this demonstration of force didn't do anything to change Syria/Iran/whoever's minds (on the contrary, if anything, it inflamed them even more), we will be back at square 1, with the other players picking up the strings of Lebanon and using it as a puppet, yet again...

And Don Corleone, with all due respect, I believe your perspective is a little bit skewed: while the Lebanese gov't may have not been pure as a virgin girl's panties, I'm not sure they ever had much of a choice. They are so dependant on the other (much bigger) players around them... I can give you several other examples where this is the case, and small players have been pushed/coerced to acts they never really cared for, but that is the way of the world: the little are bullied by the powerful into whatever the latters desire.

As I said, they may have their own share of blame, but I believe things have been more or less imposed on them...

Sadly, all of this will have as the only significant result the destruction of a country, the death of a large number of civilians, and the prolonged suffering of generations to come. There will be no positive results from all this charade...:shame:

Divinus Arma

07-16-2006, 19:58

Blodrast

07-16-2006, 20:24

I support Lebanon- against Hizballah.

Very interesting how anti-Israeli the rest of the world is.

It seems we are Israel's sole ally. Good for us.

(yes yes Tribesman I know you can turn the words around in your sentence magic trick)

I don't know if you were referring to my post or not, but I did not state my position as to whether I am pro- or anti- Israel. In regard to this event, I disagree with their approach, as have other American posters (check out a couple of posts above), so your generalization is more than a little flaky...

Should I take it from your post that as far as you're concerned, they should raze the whole of Lebanon, preferably killing all civilians too, such that Hezbollah doesn't have any recruiting grounds ? (facetious question, I'm sure you don't want that).

But you have to distinguish that there are 3 sides here, not just 2: Israel, Lebanon, and Hezbollah. So far, Israel's actions have hurt Lebanon, and very, very little Hezbollah. That's why I disagree with their approach.

Pannonian

07-16-2006, 21:24

Actually, Israeli support is a centrist position. Rejection of Israel and support for it is a position taken by extremes on both sides (the Workers Congress on the Left, the John Birch society on the Right).
What kind of support does centrism imply? Or is it an all or nothing deal? If I support Israel's right to do something in response, but think they have wildly overreacted to make their action actually counterproductive, would I be a centrist? Or do I need to support Israel's right to do anything it wants to qualify for centrism? Are people who give Israel unconditional support centrists, even if Israel ends up killing many times more Palestinians and Lebanese than Israelis had been killed?

Pannonian

07-16-2006, 22:05

I support Lebanon- against Hizballah.

Very interesting how anti-Israeli the rest of the world is.

It seems we are Israel's sole ally. Good for us.

(yes yes Tribesman I know you can turn the words around in your sentence magic trick)
How did you get the impression that you are Israel's sole ally? Virtually the whole of Europe has supported Israel to do something in response to the attacks. Britain has reportedly vetoed a Lebanese call for a ceasefire. Most Europeans think Israel has hugely overreacted, as usual.

You can argue all you like about the rights and wrongs of the various sides, but this isn't about right and wrong. This is about what you want, and how best to achieve it. Do you want to stop Hamas and Hezbollah attacks on Israel before returning to a state of peace? Then what Olmert is doing runs counter to that.

Unless you are willing to cleanse your territory and borders of people who might disagree with you, you have to face the fact that you'll have to talk sooner or later. A short, highly directed show of force followed immediately by an offer to talk is highly effective in getting a better position in subsequent talks. A long, indeterminate fight with a refusal to talk gets you nowhere, as you will never run out of enemies to fight, and the longer you fight the harder it becomes to stop fighting and begin talking.

An alternative strategy which is historically proven to be effective is the Spartan method. Identify the part of your native population who are likely to cause trouble. Terrorise them into submission. Hold a hunting season every year when random members of that population are killed, to remind the others of the power their masters hold over them should they step out of line. If they revolt or otherwise cause trouble, crush the rebellion with extreme brutality. The only snag is that an outsider might step in and liberate the helots, but this shouldn't be a problem as long as Israel has a nuclear deterrent.

Is ethnic cleansing or statewide terrorism too much for you? Then you must face up to the necessity of sitting down to talk with these "terrorists", however distasteful you may find the prospect.

Tribesman

07-16-2006, 22:44

Very interesting how anti-Israeli the rest of the world is.

No nerd to turn the words around Divinus , as that statement is patently false , the rest of the world is condemning the actions of both sides ..... understand ?
When two groups are doing something wrong and you condemn both it has nothing to do with being pro or anti one side or the other .
However , when two groups are doing something wrong and you only condemn one side then it is very interesting to show up the bias .

So forget your anti-Israeli rubbish , address instead why someone is being biased in a pro Israeli direction .

Idaho

07-16-2006, 23:10

But honestly, what have they really done to reign in Hezbollah?
You know well enough the struggles Lebanon has gone through to end civil war and control it's own affairs and end Syrian intervention. They have had no choice but to tread carefully and have an uneasy truce with Hezbollah. What were they going to do after Syria left - start the civil war again and justify their immediate return? :help:

Husar

07-16-2006, 23:13

In what way would a civil war justify an intervention by Syria?:inquisitive:

Ronin

07-16-2006, 23:27

In what way would a civil war justify an intervention by Syria?:inquisitive:

well...they could have just turned around and said....

"SEE? They can´t handle things by themselfs!!!....Okay...since you´re twisting our harm we´ll go back!" MUAHAHAHHAHA

Crazed Rabbit

07-16-2006, 23:34

When two groups are doing something wrong and you condemn both it has nothing to do with being pro or anti one side or the other .

How is defending yourself from attackers wrong?

Crazed Rabbit

Beirut

07-17-2006, 00:14

Well, eight of ours got killed in Lebanon today.

Guess we're part of the club now...

:shame:

:canada::lebanon:

Tribesman

07-17-2006, 00:41

How is defending yourself from attackers wrong?

Who is defending who ?
So far both attackers have killed civilians in a completely reckless manner . So if both are wrong then which one is right ?
In case you don't get it , killing innocent people is wrong , killing innocent people and calling it defense isn't defense , it is just very very wrong .
Does that answer your question ?

In what way would a civil war justify an intervention by Syria?
Now that is a complicated one Husar , on many levels .
Previous interventions by Syria have been welcomed around the world ,something to do with stability , minority rights and defense of that very strange electoral system that Lebanon has .
It goes wrong when either they outstay their welcome , they decide to take sides or the people outside who wanted them in there in the first place decide to take sides themselves .(the middle-east don't yajust love it:dizzy2: ) .
Then you have the whole pile of bull about territorial claims , you know , greater Syria , like all of Lebanon Syria Palestine/Isreal Jordan and most of Iraq .
Crazy stuff , but thats the mid-east for ya , nuke the whole place , its easier .

Kralizec

07-17-2006, 00:41

But honestly, what have they really done to reign in Hezbollah? Have they made any arrests, closed down any headquarters, stopped any arms shipments coming in from Syria and Iran? While Hezbollah's number 1 goal is the destruction of Israel, continuing a pro-Syrian regime is a very close second. Did the Lebanese independists think that Hezbollah was just going to sit by and watch them toss all the Syrians out?

Trying to disband Hezbollah would have resulted in nothing less then another civil war. Do you think that's a reasonable thing to ask from the Lebanese?

For many Lebanese Hezbollah is foremost a liberator that drove away Israel that occupied and screwed over part of their country for almost 20 years. For us it's easy to make a global assesment of the situation, but if you and I were born and raised in Lebanon neither of us would be at the forefront of tearing down Hezbollah.

Israels approach of acting without any regard for the official Lebanese government is playing into Hezbollahs hands, it adds to the image that they're calling the shots in Lebanon and will probably gain them more real influence.

Husar

07-17-2006, 00:43

How is defending yourself from attackers wrong?

Crazed Rabbit
Defense doesn´t mean rolling into the next country with your tanks, I´d call that an attack.
Same goes for firing missiles over a border.

Redleg

07-17-2006, 02:34

Anyone care to guess who supplied Hezabollah with the missiles that hit Haifa today?

"After the Zionist enemy exceeded all limits killing and destroying ... the Islamic Resistance announces that it bombarded the city of Haifa with dozens of Raad 2 and Raad 3 rockets at 9 a.m. local time," Hezbollah said in a statement, according to The Age.

What does this lead one to conclude?

And then there is this tidbit of information posted at globalsecurity.org

Hizballah seriously damaged a Saar 5-class missile ship named the "Spear" that was helping to enforce Israel's blockade of Lebanon on 14 July 2006. One Israeli sailor was killed and three were initially missing after the attack. Israel initially believed that an aerial drone armed with explosives hit the warship, but it became clear that Hizballah had used an Iranian-made C-802 cruise missile to strike the vessel. Another Hizballah radar-guided anti-ship missile hit and sank a nearby Cambodian merchant ship around the time the Spear was struck. Twelve Egyptian sailors were pulled from the water by passing ships.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hizballah-rockets.htm

THe disinformation that is being spread by all sides in the conflict is rather amazing. As global security correctly points out in its article the picture of the missile fired does not match the name. When one looks at the picture one see's a missile very similiar to one produced by a nation that is stating that it is not helping Hezabollah..

Beirut

07-17-2006, 03:02

Anyone care to guess who supplied Hezabollah with the missiles that hit Haifa today?

What does this lead one to conclude?

I don't know, the same thing as guessing who supplied Israel with the weapons that killed eight Canadians today who were visiting Lebanon, including several small children, all who lived fifty miles from me?

Everything?

Nothing?

Redleg

07-17-2006, 03:06

I don't know, the same thing as guessing who supplied Israel with the weapons that killed eight Canadians today who were visiting Lebanon, including several small children, all who lived fifty miles from me?

Everything?

Nothing?

That nation doesn't claim not to supply Israel with weapons now does it....... Now if the United States denied its supplying of weapons to Israel your comment would be warranted for the point - however since the United States does not deny its support to Israel - it seems your attempt here is misdirected once again.

Don't be blinded by the dis-information done by both sides. :no:

Reenk Roink

07-17-2006, 03:08

That nation doesn't claim not to supply Israel with weapons now does it.......

Well the consequences and scrutiny for this nation are much less than for Iran...

Beirut

07-17-2006, 03:09

That nation doesn't claim not to supply Israel with weapons now does it.......

Don't be blinded by the dis-information done by both sides. :no:

What dis-information? They're dead.

Papewaio

07-17-2006, 03:13

Redleg by your stance the weapons used by Israel that is used to shoot Lebanese or other countries children are the responsibility of USA.

Surely using helicopter gunships to vapourise vans full of tourists is a war crime. You don't want to go down the path of now saying the people who supplied the helicopter are responsible for the crimes that are done with it.

Redleg

07-17-2006, 03:14

What dis-information? They're dead.

I wasn't speaking of the Canadian citizens killed in the Israeli Strike - besides your attempt here.

Care to guess who is supplying Hezabollah with weapons - weapons that they used to strike and kill several Israeli citizens. Or is that perfectly acceptable to you to kill Israeli civilians?

Canadian citizens that died are no better then Lebanese citizens that are dead - which are no better then Israeli citizens that are dead. Civilians are dead because of the power struggles of several countries and two terrorist organizations.

Redleg

07-17-2006, 03:15

Redleg by your stance the weapons used by Israel that is used to shoot Lebanese or other countries children are the responsibility of USA.

Incorrect assumption about my stance - I am actually speaking of a nation which denies involvement when their trademark is all over the place. But assume away. It will only lead you a certain definition of assume - one that I am asured you have seen me use before.

Surely using helicopter gunships to vapourise vans full of tourists is a war crime. You don't want to go down the path of now saying the people who supplied the helicopter are responsible for the crimes that are done with it.

Making the wrong assumption again about my statement. But assume away once again.

Beirut

07-17-2006, 03:20

I wasn't speaking of the Canadian citizens killed in the Israeli Strike - besides your attempt here.

Attempt?

Or is that perfectly acceptable to you to kill Israeli civilians?

No.

Canadian citizens that died are no better then Lebanese citizens that are dead - which are no better then Israeli citizens that are dead. Civilians are dead because of the power struggles of several countries and two terrorist organizations.

Yes, I know.

Redleg

07-17-2006, 03:21

Well the consequences and scrutiny for this nation are much less than for Iran...

Now think about what Iran gains from a resumption of conflict between Israel and Hezabollah? What does Syria gain?

Take a look at what the papers in the Middle-East are saying. Its really all rather interesting and full of all kinds of propaganda.

not direct at you Reenk Roink just a rant in general

Has thinking become something that is lacking when it concerns the middle-east for most people? Is everyone so wrapped up in their emotional view points that they can not review information to see that something besides a conflict between Israel and Hezabollah is happening? Is the world burying its head in the sand once again about violence because it has become the expected consequence of anything to do with Israel and its neighbors?

Is Iran indeed attempting to deflect attention from its own agenda by refocusing the world's attention? Or as the propaganda papers are doing attempting to place blame squarely on the United States because of its support of Israel? Or like in the United States place blame squarely on Iran and Syria only? Given that other nations have not passed the recent call for a Ceasefire as posed by Lebanon to the Security Council - how can blame be passed onto any nation other then Israel and Hezabollah?

Redleg

07-17-2006, 03:23

Attempt?

Yes

No.

Good

Yes, I know.

And now you know why I said attempt.

Beirut

07-17-2006, 03:28

And now you know why I said attempt.

Actually, I don't. Then again I'm tired, I'm on my last cup of tea, and my brain is foggy. So it's probably just perceived semantics on our parts.

Redleg

07-17-2006, 03:34

Actually, I don't. Then again I'm tired, I'm on my last cup of tea, and my brain is foggy. So it's probably just perceived semantics on our parts.

Then you should redirect your emotion to something else besides a statement made to make people think.

Beirut

07-17-2006, 03:36

Then you should redirect your emotion to something else besides a statement made to make people think.

Interesting.

I'll try to make my statements more thoughtless in the future.

Redleg

07-17-2006, 03:38

Interesting.

I'll try to make my statements more thoughtless in the future.

I figured the first one was fairly thoughtless in the first place :no:

Divinus Arma

07-17-2006, 03:40

I don't know, the same thing as guessing who supplied Israel with the weapons that killed eight Canadians today who were visiting Lebanon, including several small children, all who lived fifty miles from me?

Everything?

Nothing?

Sorry there neighbor to the North, it is tragic, but does that make us at war? (Rhetorical of course) Your loss is equal to that of any civilian, from my nation as well. An Israeli rocket might well hit some of the 25,000 Americans in Lebanon. Would our loss be less than yours? Is the loss of any civilians less, regardless of nationality?

The government has a responsibility to disarm Lebanon in accordance with UN Resolutions. Hezbollah is a part of the government of Lebanon. Israel has made it quite clear that there intent now is to rid Lebanon of Hezbollah or see it disarmed by the Lebanese.

Is Israel going full monty on this? Yes. I hope we invade Canda or Mexcio if the Canadian or Mexican government support a terrorist organization that fires rockets onto our cities.

Papewaio

07-17-2006, 03:42

I thought I would get rid of the worse assumption first.

So what difference does it make who made the weapons?

I'm sure there are US made weapons being used by groups that the US did not sell to directly or indirectly (Iran Contra affair) but instead have been onsold by someone else. Is the US then responsible for those weapons? No. The end users are.

So why add the red herring of them being made by Iranians?

Also as the Israelis are blockadding the port they have caused the escalation. The Israelis also bombed the international airport.

So lets get this straight because 3 soldiers were captured by terrorist groups the Israeli government in a fit of pride that would make Freud proud has decided to over react. It has resulted in at least 15 dead civilians of their own, 100+ in Lebanon.

So if the Lebanonese or anyone else decides to defend themselves or anyone else with the borders 'spontaneously' defends themselves from blockades and airstrikes they are allowed to do so. What difference does it make who supplied the weapons in this scenario?

Beirut

07-17-2006, 03:52

I responded to a question with another question of equal intent and ethereality.

I agree completely that all lives, Jews, Muslims, Christian, have the same worth and that all civilian deaths are unjustifiable.

I posted that I felt bad that eight of my fellow Canadians are dead.

Why I'm in trouble please?

Redleg

07-17-2006, 04:03

.
So what difference does it make who made the weapons?

None other then that they are denying their supplying of weapons. Iran does not have much on an international trade supplying of weapons - now I am sure they have some black market trading that they wish to keep secert. Most soviet area equipment is still cheaper and useful for that type of trade however. Is this a possiblity of a black market selling of weapons to a terrorist group by a nation - or is it a direct supply instance.

I'm sure there are US made weapons being used by groups that the US did not sell to directly or indirectly (Iran Contra affair) but instead have been onsold by someone else. Is the US then responsible for those weapons? No. The end users are.

Good thing I didn't state Iran is responsible for their use now isn't....

So why add the red herring of them being made by Iranians?

Is it a red herring when Iran denies any involvement? Is it a red herring that the alledge drone is now looking more and more like a certain anti-ship missile made by a certain nation? Its one thing to say your not involved, but denying involement while supplying weapons to a terrorist group doesn't seem all that good either now does it?

Also as the Israelis are blockadding the port they have caused the escalation. The Israelis also bombed the international airport.

Good thing I hold Israel with as much contempt (well slightly less) then I hold Hezabollah.

So lets get this straight because 3 soldiers were captured by terrorist groups the Israeli government in a fit of pride that would make Freud proud has decided to over react. It has resulted in at least 15 dead civilians of their own, 100+ in Lebanon.

See above statement.

So if the Lebanonese or anyone else decides to defend themselves or anyone else with the borders 'spontaneously' defends themselves from blockades and airstrikes they are allowed to do so. What difference does it make who supplied the weapons in this scenario?

The question is why is Iran supplying weapons to Hezabollah? Are they selling them for profit? which while I would disagree with selling weapons to terrorists - but that is a reasonable expectation for any nation with surplus weapons desiring to make a profit from their removing from the inventory, which doesn't view the organization as a terrorist group. Or is Iran supplying weapons to Hezabollah of other reasons?

But I guess for some it is just easier to dismiss as a red herring, without delving into the subject to find out what possiblities exist for such weapons to all of a sudden come into Hezabollah's arsenal....

Redleg

07-17-2006, 04:07

Why I'm in trouble please?

Because I am in a testy mood because of the same reasons - people are dying because of power politics by several nations and/or certain groups.

Beirut

07-17-2006, 04:11

Well I do appreciate your honesty. I'm tired, your testy, and everyone over there is on the verge of being dead.

As good a time for bed as any.

Bonsoir.

Papewaio

07-17-2006, 04:12

Why would Iran support the very group they helped create?

Hmm, because even mad dictators need a little loving from another mad power hungry person.

I would say the weapons were given to Hezbollah the same reason that the US gave weapons to Israel. Simply a matter of having proxies to fight battles on ones behalf. Like Vietnam and Korea, sure there are reports of Chinese observors being on the field of battle, but they are downplayed or unconfirmed. Neither China nor the US wanted to escalate the situation into a direct confrontation.

Are the attacks on Lebanon an attempt to show Irans hand and escalate the situation beyond proxies? Great timing to do so IMDHO.

Redleg

07-17-2006, 04:19

Are the attacks on Lebanon an attempt to show Irans hand and escalate the situation beyond proxies? Great timing to do so IMDHO.

And now you come to the conclusion of why I posted the information. the question must be asked and addressed by the United Nations Security COuncil. But I wouldn't hold my breath on it being asked or anything being done about it any time soon.

But then I am still a little testy about the Security Councils failure to address a ceasefire resolution and force it down Israel's throat on Friday.

Tribesman

07-17-2006, 08:08

But then I am still a little testy about the Security Councils failure to address a ceasefire resolution and force it down Israel's throat on Friday.

Would that be in any way similar to the Qatari proposed resolution for Gaza ?
"I love you Johnny cakes"
"I love you Vito"
A little testy ?????:furious3:

Pannonian

07-17-2006, 10:00

But then I am still a little testy about the Security Councils failure to address a ceasefire resolution and force it down Israel's throat on Friday.
Was Eisenhower the last president to rein in Israel (and Britain and France), during the Suez crisis?

Redleg

07-17-2006, 15:28

Redleg

07-17-2006, 15:30

Was Eisenhower the last president to rein in Israel (and Britain and France), during the Suez crisis?

Do a little more research - and you will have your answer.

solypsist

07-17-2006, 16:27

Newt says it's time for the War on Terror to officially morph, like some kind of demented butterfly into the 3rd war to end all wars. What's your take? Is it time to get our world war on?

"This is World War III," Gingrich said. And once that's accepted, he said calls for restraint would fall away.
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/archives/2006/07/gingrich_says_its_world_war_iii.html

He wants the gloves to come off, but to fight whom? We have no nation we're directly at odds with. We're dealing with factions of people inside of countries that in no way reflect the majority opinion or even the government position of that nation. I don't think WW3 has started yet but what Newt says bothers me. The whole creating a total war as it will give the common American no choice but to stay with the Republicans. Most people would be swayed by the argument that you don't radically change your government during a war and so they would support the current administration by voting Republican.

The question becomes are the Republicans so desperate and determined to retain the power they have that they would plunge the country, and the world along with it, into the conflagration that said war would naturally be?

Sadly the more I think about it I believe the answer is yes.

Aenlic

07-17-2006, 16:39

It's just more mindless drivel designed to provide sound bites without any real foundation behind it. Typical Newt Gingrich. The man is a liar, a cheat, a fraud, a demagogue, a hypocrite and many more things which I can't say, even in this forum. He's just another pseudo-conservative, chicken hawk war-monger who never served a day in the military. Stick his sorry butt in a uniform and put his whining face under fire on the front lines somewhere and see how long his enthusiasm for getting other people killed lasts.I'm not a big fan of easy to obtain abortion on demand; but someone should have demanded that his mother have an abortion before she spawned this scum-sucking toad. Not that I feel strongly about Newt Gingrich one way or another. :wink:

Tribesman

07-17-2006, 19:02

Return to the peanut gallery where you normally hangout....
oooooooooooh is that personal Red :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Hey bubba , there is no point putting a resolution to the security council since even if it contains all the appropriate condemnations that uncle Vito insists on under the negroponte protocols , it still gets vetoed .
Now if you want to do something about it rather that getting a "little testy" then write to your government .
As unlike when johnny cakes and Vito are getting it on , when Bush and Olmert have their members in each others orifices it is the Palestinian and Lebanese civilians who are getting buggered .

Redleg

07-17-2006, 19:25

Return to the peanut gallery where you normally hangout....
oooooooooooh is that personal Red :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Return to the peanut gallery - if I wanted to make it personal I would of.

Hey bubba

LOL using the term demonstrates that you have no clue - bubba. Maybe you should stop while your only slightly behind.

, there is no point putting a resolution to the security council since even if it contains all the appropriate condemnations that uncle Vito insists on under the negroponte protocols , it still gets vetoed .
[/quote]

Any resolution concerning Gaza will be vetoed that is most likely. However Lebanon one will have to wait and see. The United States supported the initial ceasefire conditions imposed on Israel, I don't see an automatic veto happening in this instance. Especially when its the Lebanese getting hurt more then Israel or Hezabollah.

Now if you want to do something about it rather that getting a "little testy" then write to your government .

Maybe you should write yours....

As unlike when johnny cakes and Vito are getting it on , when Bush and Olmert have their members in each others orifices it is the Palestinian and Lebanese civilians who are getting buggered .

When you can demonstrate a coherient and civil response come back, until then .....

Tribesman

07-17-2006, 19:42

Maybe you should write yours....

Errrrrrr.....why , they don't have a veto , in fact at the moment they are not on the security council , but if you want you can look up what they did when they were last there , funnily enough it has a lot to do with little irrrelevant things , like protection of civilians and human rights in conflict , prosecution of war criminals , you know little things completely unrelated to the current war crimes and attacks on civilians by all sides in this little conflict .

Perhaps you are right , I should write to Corr and say well done for your efforts , but can you try harder next time to get the idiots to actually listen and do something about it .:idea2:
BTW what does coherient mean ? If I knew then perhaps I could respond in that manner .:laugh4:

solypsist

07-17-2006, 20:02

picking on typos is a last act of desperation :no:

[B]BTW what does coherient mean ? If I knew then perhaps I could respond in that manner .:laugh4:

Redleg

07-17-2006, 20:14

picking on typos is a last act of desperation :no:

It also shows why I won't bother with responding.

Tribesman

07-17-2006, 22:15

picking on typos is a last act of desperation
No , picking on that typo was a light hearted finish to a post that had already dealt in detail with Redlegs point . Since of all words to get wrong in that context that one has to be the funniest possible

So since Redleg cannot be bothered to respond , can anyone else suggest what else I could write to my government concerning their actions between '00-'02 at the security council (or during their previous 2 year stint 20 years before) , apart from well done , nice try , try again next time ?

Papewaio

07-18-2006, 00:17

Tribe you are making an assumption methinks that Redleg agrees with the current situation.

I do not believe he does. I think he is frustrated with the attacks on Lebanon and the escalations occuring. I needled with assumptions and red herrings and he certainly didn't take the bait and defend the scenario that is occuring. From his reactions it seems clear that he is both annoyed with the UN security council and the all the permanent members stance including the US. He also seems annoyed with Iran fueling the fire.

=][=

For the consipiracy theorists:

I think Newt is being used to float an idea balloon with the public. If it sinks like lead then others might back down. If the public takes the bait...

Anyhow to me it seems interesting that the use of proxies is being downplayed and the puppetmasters are being emphasised. Almost like Israel was given tacit approval to escalate the situation as long as they could draw in Irans proxy and hence get Iran to be flagged in as a supporter of terrorism.

Tribesman

07-18-2006, 00:44

No assumption pape , I understand Reds position , though I thought " a little testy" is a bit mild . hence the :furious3: which I think is more appropriate .
Red in the past has written to protest to his government when he thought their actions were wrong , I suggested he did the same again .
His government has the power to take action at the organisation which he is talking about .
He assumed I was extracting the urine about his position and came back with some rubbish about me writing to my govrernment , my government does not have the position his has , besides which when it has been appointed a position on that council it does have a good record , so what would there be to protest about concerning its actions in council ?
Ireland does not have a veto does it , though it does have an interest , while the Irish deployment has been scaled back it is demonstrated very well by the fact that of the 6 people I was working with today 4 have served in Lebanon .

Papewaio

07-18-2006, 01:07

Well your delivery technique has a lot to be worked on. Its kind of like Israels current negotiation skills, bomb away and then wonder why you get a curt response.

If you want to effect change rather then hurling peanuts then I suggest being a little more polite to each other.

Redleg

07-18-2006, 01:30

He assumed I was extracting the urine about his position and came back with some rubbish about me writing to my govrernment , my government does not have the position his has , besides which when it has been appointed a position on that council it does have a good record , so what would there be to protest about concerning its actions in council ?

Someone is assuming something that they should not have. I will give you a clue little tribese the use of extra punction at the end of a sentence could be an indication of something other then sincere prose....

You should of just stuck with Bubba while you were only slightly behind. Clue in Bubba in the background strumming his banjo attempting to play "Twisting in the Wind"

I am rather amused....

Quietus

07-18-2006, 01:38

Middle East Cup 2006

Israel: 200 points scored (181 civilians).
Hezbollah: 24 points scored (16 civilians).
Lebanon: 0 point

:skull:

I'm afraid it's not that straightforward, my friend. They're collectively hurting everyone so the populace will hate the ones doing the hurting.
This is not doing Hesbollah a disfavor as far as the popular support is concerned, on the contrary...:no: I was just reiterating Israel's position. Of course, I agree with you. They will both hate the militia and Israel.

stalin

07-18-2006, 01:44

how did I end up here?

Tribesman

07-18-2006, 03:06

Redleg

07-18-2006, 03:39

I am rather amused....
Well thats OK then . perhaps you won't jump to assumptions then Red , as there is no twisting in the wind no matter how much you try and play that tune , I have made my position clear throughout all the topics on this recent escalation in the mid-east .

And so have I.

Again you are missing something in this little exchange, but that is not to surprising since you often like to play the tune, but can stand to have it played back at you..... Bubba is really enjoying tuning his banjo, it seems Tribese wants to play also. Pass little ole tribese a spare banjo, Bubba begins playing his banjo. IN the background is his father/brother thinking about making a pig squeal...

Next time instead of attempting to be all bluster, bombastic, and clever, try a different method as Papewaio suggested.

direct at Tribesman
Well your delivery technique has a lot to be worked on. Its kind of like Israels current negotiation skills, bomb away and then wonder why you get a curt response.

If you want to effect change rather then hurling peanuts then I suggest being a little more polite to each other.

Oh the message seems lost in the bluster and twisting in the wind....

[I] will give you a clue little tribese the use of extra punction at the end of a sentence could be an indication of something other then sincere prose....

Would that be an assumption then ?

Not at all, but what the hell your attempt here is again not so surprising coming from you. But nice try at attempting to twist once again. Maybe you would be more comfortable with Chuck Berry's "Twist," Bubba seems to be staring at you thinking the same thoughts as his brother/father......

Bubba tunes his banjo and begins to strum "Twisting in the Wind"

Twistin' in the Wind (Tornado Temple BMI)
Joe Ely

My heavy heart pounds hard tonight
Down this highway in the wind
The windshield wipers clean away
The tears I cry within
The Love I've thrown away, I know,
I'll never feel again...
And I, I'm just Twistin' in the Wind

Some one cut me down from here
I can't prove what don't exist
Did you feel the same as I?
Or was there something I might have missed?
I turned my back on everyone
Who wanted me to win
I needed you so bad, I guess
That's the way I was back then
Now I, I'm just Twistin' in the Wind

I believe I'll go down to the bridge
And watch the trains roll by
See the sparks fly from their wheels
Where the rocks and the cinders lie
The weight I feel inside tonight
Could put a freight train in a spin
And I, I'm just Twistin' in the Wind

Repeat Chorus

Love made a fool of me
At the gates of the guillotine
I can't believe I heard the Truth
Comin' from your answering machine
How did I become this broken man?
Was I too blind to bend?
Now I, I'm just Twistin' in the Wind
I, yi yi yi, I'm just Twistin' in the Wind

Some one cut me down from here
I been Hangin' here too long
Release me from the Binds of Love
I can't tell Right from Wrong

Bubba looks up with a silly Bubba grin on his face.....Everyone knows what Bubba has on his mind.....

So I repeat ,Now if you want to do something about it rather that getting a "little testy" then write to your government .

So I repeat my comment, "Maybe you should write yours...." This time try to figure out reason for the comment versus the track that you have attempted so far.

And I remain amused by this little exchange - in fact I am getting even more amused as the day goes along, Edit: So amused that I wonder if you have figured out why Bubba is smiling....

Seamus Fermanagh

07-18-2006, 04:17

"Tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow
Creeps in its petty pace from day to day
to the last syllable of recorded time.
And all our yesterdays serve but to light
fools the way to dusty death
out, out brief candle.
Life is a walking shadow, a poor player
whos struts and frets his hour upon the stage
and then is heard no more. It is a tale,
told by an idiot full of sound and fury --
signifying nothing."

Idaho

07-18-2006, 09:16

Middle East Cup 2006

Israel: 200 points scored (181 civilians).
Hezbollah: 24 points scored (16 civilians).
Lebanon: 0 point

This is typical of the situation as a whole. Israel has done far more of the murders, bombings, kidnappings, etc:

Basic Pal-Israel stats (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/)

Husar

07-18-2006, 09:43

Tribesman

07-18-2006, 10:27

Again you are missing something in this little exchange
Nope , missing nothing Red , you make assumptions , again .

Idaho

07-18-2006, 10:54

Well, Israel also has far more soldiers, weapons, etc.
When you fire a single rocket, less dead are to be expected than when you fire a whole artillery battery, given the target areas are similarly crowded.
I wonder how those statistics would look if you gave the Palestinians a lot of toys to kill people with. Maybe they´d simply kill all Israelis...
What a bizzare justification. So if one side has the ability to kill 10 times as many as the other side, then it is reasonable and fair that they should.

You have an illustrious career in law ahead of you :laugh4:

Fragony

07-18-2006, 11:01

What a bizzare justification. So if one side has the ability to kill 10 times as many as the other side, then it is reasonable and fair that they should.

You have an illustrious career in law ahead of you :laugh4:

And just because one side is more advanced doesn't mean the tactrics used by the other are legitimate. This is all way too excessive though, it appears hezbollah has/had a pretty impressive amount of rockets, it could be argued that Hezbollah has showed remarkable restraint in blowing up Israeli's, all this time they apparently could have done a whole lot worse. Israel has gone completily bonkers, it's a shame the other side is nuts as well.

Tribesman

07-18-2006, 12:11

Wow , I find myself in almost total agreement with Fragony !!!!!:jawdrop:

rotorgun

07-18-2006, 13:00

To all and sundry who think that Isreal is using excessive force I say GAH!
How many nights have we watched the news reports to see of the suicide bombings in Isreal? I have no exact figures, but they are almost countless. Isreal has shown considerable constraint IMO. Where were all the complaints then? If someone were to come into my nieghborhood and pull some of the **** these Hamas and Hezbollah clowns have, I would have wanted to level the places where they originated from. When one is fighting a war, than one should fight it-all the way, in all of its ugly, nasty ways. There is no other way to fight, but to win. If they didn't want the consequences, than they never should have kidnapped anyone. The raid on Entebbe in the past should have taught the world of Isreal's resolve.

If you want to blame anyone, than blame Abraham. If only he had treated Hagar and Ishmeal a little better, than maybe there wouldn't be so much hatred between these people. They have been killing one another for thousands of years. Here we come, the "Johnny come lately's", trying to intervene in something that we have no business in. I swear, sometimes I wish that there weren't a drop of Oil in the middle east! Then perhaps we could let these folks sort things out in their own way.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-18-2006, 13:09

Tribe' , Idaho:

Is there more to your perspective on this aside from:

'Innocents are dying, which is wrong, and both sides should just say no to violence'

which is pretty obvious on a humanitarian level.

It's also gloriously impractical.

Both sides are polarized and not only view concession as wrong but significant numbers on both "teams" truly believe that the application of enough force will generate victory. Therefore, violence will have to be tried to its fullest -- and both sides bled white -- before some form of lasting resolution can be generated.

There are historical instances where intransigent questions were resolved through measured discussion, I am sure, but the far more popular choice is to ventilate the opposition.

Until enough killing leaves both parties stunned, exhausted, unable to continue, and forced to talk; there will never be a "resolution" that lasts.

Idaho

07-18-2006, 13:13

The problem with it is that there can be no solution. For their to be a solution all the various sides must see it as a problem. Currently they see it as a war. And in wars you have winners and losers, not solutions.

My irritation comes from the fact that the people who are suffering most are not the people who see it as a war, but those who would rather just get on with a peaceful life.

rotorgun - your understanding of the situation is about on a par with your spelling and grammar.

Fragony

07-18-2006, 13:13

To all and sundry who think that Isreal is using excessive force I say GAH!
How many nights have we watched the news reports to see of the suicide bombings in Isreal? I have no exact figures, but they are almost countless. Isreal has shown considerable constraint IMO. Where were all the complaints then? If someone were to come into my nieghborhood and pull some of the **** these Hamas and Hezbollah clowns have, I would have wanted to level the places where they originated from. When one is fighting a war, than one should fight it-all the way, in all of its ugly, nasty ways. There is no other way to fight, but to win. If they didn't want the consequences, than they never should have kidnapped anyone. The raid on Entebbe in the past should have taught the world of Isreal's resolve.

Israel isn't the innocent victim they like to consider themselves to be, but yeah, they have to deal with a lot, and a lot of their lovely neightbours like their jews well done and spread out over 5 meters. Lovely place the middle-east, glad I don't have to have an opinion about it. But those that think this has anything to do with two soldiers being kidnapped need to scratch their head, it wasn't the socalled last drop, it was an oppertunity to go all out and show the other nutcases who's their daddy.

Redleg

07-18-2006, 13:15

Again you are missing something in this little exchange
Nope , missing nothing Red , you make assumptions , again .

It seems Tribese has a problem dealing with Bubba, that is what happens when one assumes things that they shouldn't. To bad Tribese you really do seem to not get the picture very well. So shall we move along - or do you want to continue to play. Bubba is really enjoying playing his banjo playing "Twisting in the Wind" just for you.......

Ser Clegane

07-18-2006, 13:32

If they didn't want the consequences, than they never should have kidnapped anyone.

What a lot of people have a problem with is that "they" who currently face the consequences are not necessarily "they" who kidnapped Israeli soldiers.

Redleg

07-18-2006, 13:34

What a lot of people have a problem with is that "they" who currently face the consequences are not necessarily "they" who kidnapped Israeli soldiers.

And Ser Clegane sums it up with one simple statement. Very nicely done.:book:

Tribesman

07-18-2006, 14:41

It seems Tribese has a problem dealing with Bubba,
Another assumption Red, you are not doing very well are you .
To bad Tribese you really do seem to not get the picture very well.
More assumptions Red , perhaps you should try harder

The raid on Entebbe in the past should have taught the world of Isreal's resolve.

Possibly Rotor , but the follow up to the Olympics shows that they can also get it very wrong , and their their retreat from the Leb last time shows that their resolve does wane in the face of an unwinnable situation , excessive expense for little return and a tired population .
Unfortunately the nuts on the other side know this and don't give a damn about the innocents getting hurt , and the more of them that get hurt the more they resent Israel and support the nuts .
The main reason for the intensity of the current response is Olmerts weak position at home .

Until enough killing leaves both parties stunned, exhausted, unable to continue, and forced to talk; there will never be a "resolution" that lasts.
The problem there Seamus is that some of the parties involved are just sitting back and laughing , they will fight Israel till the last Lebanese/Palestinians are standing , it doesn't hurt them at all .

Is there more to your perspective on this aside from:
........
Nope , I only do shallow simplistic perspective without any consideration of the wider situation , the context , the prescedents and possible outcomes .~;)
So here is something to mull over Seamus, what is your opinion on the Isrealis handing over maps showing the layout of minefields it had laid to Hezb'allah in part exchange for hostages ? Forget for a moment the hostages for prisoners exchange (though the 3 1/2 thousand "administrative" prisoners held without charge is something that should be addressed in a wider context but hezB'allahs main issue seems to be the 3 individuals they thought they were getting last time that they didn't get) .
So considering the peace deal , the hand over and demilitarisation , why the hell were the mines locations handed over to terrorists when they should have already been handed over to either the Lebanese government of the UN mission ?
Wouldn't it be really ironic if the 4 IDF soldiers killled in the Merkeva MBT turned out to have been killed by an Israeli mine that the Israeli government gave to the terrorists .
Or for some real irony , what if Iran ships some missiles to the Leb to target Israel that were originally sent to Iran by Israel for the Americans(after the little problem of the US shipments to Iran became public) in exchange for US hostages .

Redleg

07-18-2006, 19:08

It seems Tribese has a problem dealing with Bubba,
Another assumption Red, you are not doing very well are you .
To bad Tribese you really do seem to not get the picture very well.
More assumptions Red , perhaps you should try harder

Bubba has decided to focus on other things, since Tribese can not play the banjo, sings off-key, and can't remember his lines. Wanders off into the woods wondering if his sister/mother who is expecting a child, is going to give birth to a brother/son or just a brother.....

Seamus Fermanagh

07-18-2006, 19:16

Until enough killing leaves both parties stunned, exhausted, unable to continue, and forced to talk; there will never be a "resolution" that lasts.
The problem there Seamus is that some of the parties involved are just sitting back and laughing , they will fight Israel till the last Lebanese/Palestinians are standing , it doesn't hurt them at all.

Quite true. I regret that it is my belief that a general war involving, at a minimum, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan Israel, Iran, Hamas, Hizbollah, Al Quaeda (and probably Yemen and possibly Egypt) will have to precede any meaningful peace.

Is there more to your perspective on this aside from:
........
Nope , I only do shallow simplistic perspective without any consideration of the wider situation , the context , the prescedents and possible outcomes .~;)

:laugh4: :laugh4:

So here is something to mull over Seamus, what is your opinion on the Isrealis handing over maps showing the layout of minefields it had laid to Hezb'allah in part exchange for hostages ? Forget for a moment the hostages for prisoners exchange (though the 3 1/2 thousand "administrative" prisoners held without charge is something that should be addressed in a wider context but hezB'allahs main issue seems to be the 3 individuals they thought they were getting last time that they didn't get) .
So considering the peace deal , the hand over and demilitarisation , why the hell were the mines locations handed over to terrorists when they should have already been handed over to either the Lebanese government of the UN mission ?
Wouldn't it be really ironic if the 4 IDF soldiers killled in the Merkeva MBT turned out to have been killed by an Israeli mine that the Israeli government gave to the terrorists .
Or for some real irony , what if Iran ships some missiles to the Leb to target Israel that were originally sent to Iran by Israel for the Americans(after the little problem of the US shipments to Iran became public) in exchange for US hostages .

I'm not worried about the arms for hostages missiles -- primarily because of their age. Your general point about ironic turns in conflict is, of course, valid.

I wish they'd simply detonated the mines. Old-style mines that can be dug up and "turned around" are not a good idea, and making it easier by giving them the locations is not appealing to me. I'm even more annoyed at the slim possibility that they were dug up, shipped to Anbar province, and are now serving as IED's.

Ultimately, I find war abhorent; but I find wars that are waged half-arsed to be both STUPID and abhorent. If you come to the conclusion that you must rid yourself of a disease by amputating your hand, using a butterknife to minimize the damage of the individual cuts is counter productive. If you must wage war -- and it is a horrid choice, then cry havoc and be done with it.