Whats really happening in Lebanon

[eastlondonseagull]

Sums it up really.

Yet another superb front page from the Independent.

This whole debacle has made me incredibly sad. There is no excuse for what the Israeli government and military are doing in Lebanon, none whatsoever. Cunts.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Main headline on CEEFAX this morning: TROOPS GATHERING AT LEBANESE BORDER

Got a lot of respect for Israel generally, but that's not good news

 

[somerset]

. There was an achievable target and at the miniumum a confidence about the aftermath.

Was there ?, i distinctly remember even the normally bullish Max hastings saying it could turn into the next Viet Nam.

There was little support for the Iraq invasion.
I think most people would be able to spot the difference between the two scenarios. [/B]

Again,..... really?.....slaughter of opposing racial groups, ethnic clensing, no difference to me.............

 

[algie]

Yet another superb front page from the Independent.

This whole debacle has made me incredibly sad. There is no excuse for what the Israeli government and military are doing in Lebanon, none whatsoever. Cunts.

So it's ok for them to kill there soldiers and expect Israel just to sit back?The only language these people understand is militry action.Just remember who started it first.By the way,just in case you didn't know but Arabs also live in Israel

 

[London Irish]

Just remember who started it first.

We do actually, lots of Europeans that terrorised tens of thousands of Palestinians out of their homeland in the late 1940s and have been steadily expanding their territorial ambitions ever since into neighbouring Arab lands.

 

[London Irish]

The Iraq adventure WAS a disaster?

Do tell what year from the future you are posting from?


Sadly you and the rest of the emo ingrates do not have a clue how to measure longterm success so why should I bother explaining it.

Yep - a disaster. Don't take my word for it, here's a list of the most eminent US Conservative and Neo-Con intellectuals who demanded George Bush invade Iraq, now admitting the entire thing has been a f***-up from beginning to end.


William Buckley Jnr INFLUENTIAL CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST AND TV PUNDIT

'One can't doubt the objective in Iraq has failed ... Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an army of 130,000 Americans. Different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgement of defeat.'

Francis Fukuyama AUTHOR AND LONG-TERM ADVOCATE OF TOPPLING SADDAM

'By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at.'

Richard Perle ARCH-WARMONGER AND PIVOTAL REPUBLICAN HAWK

'The military campaign and its political aftermath were both passionately debated within the Bush administration. It got the war right and the aftermath wrong. We should have understood that we needed Iraqi partners.'

Andrew Sullivan PROMINENT COMMENTATOR AND INFLUENTIAL BLOGGER

'The world has learnt a tough lesson, and it has been a lot tougher for those tens of thousands of dead, innocent Iraqis ... than for a few humiliated pundits. The correct response is not more spin but a sense of shame and sorrow.'

George Will RIGHT-WING COLUMNIST ON 'THE WASHINGTON POST' AND TV PUNDIT

'Almost three years after the invasion, it is still not certain whether, or in what sense, Iraq is a nation. And after two elections and a referendum on the constitution, Iraq barely has a government.'

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

OWNED again looney - if you get owned by any more posters on here, we'll have to start offering you on a timeshare basis

 

[NMH]

Thanks, but it does make the old blood boil how many people 'cherry pick' their causes to suit the moment, or at least tailor their views depending on the audience of the day.

y
Like the west "cherry picks" the sides it takes.

Saddam may be seen as a nasty piece of work now, but we placed him there. When it suited the US.....or should I say "Saddam no longer did the beckoning of the US because his economy was in ruins and America had encouraged and fuelled a stalemate war with Iran just to sell f***ing 'weapons of mass destruction'", the US saw him as a rogue and painted a new picture of him as murderous swine. He was absolutely in control of factions that would (AND NOW DO) civil-war with each other to tear apart the country. His power led to a difficult peace in an otherwise impossibly sensitive socio-religious politic, and his reign required religious freedom or else.

He was strung out to bake by the US once he ran out of money, because THAT political situation gave them bargaining power.

 

[NMH]

What it WILL take to end the conflict in Iraq is a strong Arab-led council that is sympathetic to the poor victimised people of the country.

The US and GB will never win it - it's another Vietnam that the Bush dictatorship thought was nicely winnable and would earn the respect of 'all those camel jockeys'.

"and it's one two three what are we fightin' for, ain't no use to wonder why whoopee we're all gonna die"

Those who don't learn from history......

 

[NMH]

So it's ok for them to kill there soldiers and expect Israel just to sit back?The only language these people understand is militry action.Just remember who started it first.By the way,just in case you didn't know but Arabs also live in Israel

There aren't many people willing to ALWAYS lay the blame for their 'unnatural persecution' at the feet of anyone else without EVER thinking it might be just ever-so-slightly anything to do with Israel's unreasonable treatment of innocents, and their blatant disregard for human rights, and their measure of 100 Arabs for every 1 Israeli life.

"remember who started it first" ?? !!
Reason-able, toi?
NON!

Not in a million years mate.

Still, by killing families who would otherwise be partisan to the whole affair of Arab/Jew conflict, it really could NOT be a better recruitment drive for the Hesbolah and for furthering the hatred and conflict that Israel cries so loudly about.

I have Arabic and Muslim, and Israeli and Jewish friends, and person-to-person they get along fine. The conflict is maintained by extremists - but right now the bombing of Lebanon is extreme.......... and couldn't be more wrong.

 

[NMH]

Is there anyone here who would witness the butchery of their own wife and/or child, and NOT become warriors for the extreme against the people who are responsible for the murders?

This is the problem, the unreasonable continuation of conflict must be stopped, and neither side can see beyond the red mist.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Was there ?, i distinctly remember even the normally bullish Max hastings saying it could turn into the next Viet Nam.



Again,..... really?.....slaughter of opposing racial groups, ethnic clensing, no difference to me.............

In the words of the Doobie Brothers ........

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Edited: Didn't read the Looney's last paragraph!

Looney, if you would like to take into account the 1,000s of civilians that have been slaughtered and the mess left behind, then nothing about the campaign could be labelled as a success.

Even if the outcome, eventually, is one that they wanted it doesn't mean it has been an out and out success. That much is obvious.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

I can see you're all having a little difficulty understanding the concept of terrorism. Let me try to assist you.

The Zionist perspective:
The Irgun were NOT terrorists because they were fighting to liberate what we considered to be land rightfully ours from an oppressive, occupying regime. Whereas Hamas and Hezbollah ARE terrorists because they are fighting to liberate what they consider to be land rightfully theirs from an oppressive, occupying regime - but we know that it is really our land not theirs.

The US perspective:
Whilst the European Jewry was being slaughtered, we were happily war-profiteering. We feel a little ashamed about this, so we fully support the Zionist cause now - irrespective of what they do and how they do it. They are NOT terrorists because we say so.

The Arab perspective:
The Hamas and Hezbollah are NOT terrorists because they are fighting to liberate what they consider to be land rightfully theirs from an oppressive, occupying regime. Whereas the Zionists ARE terrorists because they are an oppressive, occupying regime fighting to dominate us and prevent us from returning to land we consider to be rightfully ours.

Rest of the world(ish):
The Irgun were terrorists because they were evil murdering scum. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorists because they are evil murdering scum.

 

[Commander]

I can see you're all having a little difficulty understanding the concept of terrorism. Let me try to assist you.

The Zionist perspective:
The Irgun were NOT terrorists because they were fighting to liberate what we considered to be land rightfully ours from an oppressive, occupying regime. Whereas Hamas and Hezbollah ARE terrorists because they are fighting to liberate what they consider to be land rightfully theirs from an oppressive, occupying regime - but we know that it is really our land not theirs.

The US perspective:
Whilst the European Jewry was being slaughtered, we were happily war-profiteering. We feel a little ashamed about this, so we fully support the Zionist cause now - irrespective of what they do and how they do it. They are NOT terrorists because we say so.

The Arab perspective:
The Hamas and Hezbollah are NOT terrorists because they are fighting to liberate what they consider to be land rightfully theirs from an oppressive, occupying regime. Whereas the Zionists ARE terrorists because they are an oppressive, occupying regime fighting to dominate us and prevent us from returning to land we consider to be rightfully ours.

Rest of the world(ish):
The Irgun were terrorists because they were evil murdering scum. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorists because they are evil murdering scum.

Good post.

 

[looney]

I suggest all those who think I claimed Iraq was a success or I am somehow owned should go back and read my post properly. Or get someone intelligent to do it for them.

As I said your to stupid for a detailed analysis when you cant even read a basic statement.

 

[NMH]

It reminds me of the Nazi's against the French underground. Those horrid French Resistance merged into the civilian populace, hid among the general public.

Nasty French bastards.

Some foolish Polish people tried to struggle against the nice Germans, who were only reclaiming a place that was (comparitively very recently) their land.
Those poor German victims were forced... FORCED to kill them, often regardless of Polish civilian losses.

A certain Israeli Premier (Begin) used to hang murdered British officers up on trees, subversive tactics against an army that had only recently liberated his people from genocidal maniacs. In London, politicians were killed, or having their families threatened and harmed, for political/religious beliefs. Terrorism, no other title gives a more accurate description, does it?

You see, one man's terrorist is often another man's freedom fighter.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

The Iraq adventure WAS a disaster?

Do tell what year from the future you are posting from?


Sadly you and the rest of the emo ingrates do not have a clue how to measure longterm success so why should I bother explaining it.

Oh and who would you like as a counterweight?
China?

I suggest all those who think I claimed Iraq was a success or I am somehow owned should go back and read my post properly. Or get someone intelligent to do it for them.

As I said your to stupid for a detailed analysis when you cant even read a basic statement.

Claimed Iraq was a success. I guess you didn't but you intimated that it would be a success. I am not sure how you are coming to that conclusion, Looney. I guess you have used the same logic applied in all your other posts.....

 

[NMH]

Americans refuse to believe that they really LOST the war in Vietnam, so perhaps it will be another great American 'success' on a par?

If "we killed more than you" is another litmus for 'success', then they will probably claim that too. Right now, it looks like they are stuck there until the end of time, coming to a theatre near you, or until they throw up their hands, and leave their indiginous allies to be slaughtered in the green green grass of their own home.

To quote some more Tom Jones, that's 'not unusual' for the US either.

 

[Dandyman]

It reminds me of the Nazi's against the French underground. Those horrid French Resistance merged into the civilian populace, hid among the general public.

Nasty French bastards.

Some foolish Polish people tried to struggle against the nice Germans, who were only reclaiming a place that was (comparitively very recently) their land.
Those poor German victims were forced... FORCED to kill them, often regardless of Polish civilian losses.

A certain Israeli Premier (Begin) used to hang murdered British officers up on trees, subversive tactics against an army that had only recently liberated his people from genocidal maniacs. In London, politicians were killed, or having their families threatened and harmed, for political/religious beliefs. Terrorism, no other title gives a more accurate description, does it?

You see, one man's terrorist is often another man's freedom fighter.

Although I sympathise with the main thrust of your post, Churchill refused to bomb the train lines to the death camps or the camps themselves. While there was a plot to murder Ernest Bevin no attacks were carried out in London to the best of my knowledge.

The "Orange Grove" killings were British Army sergeants murdered in retaliation for the execution of Jewish prisioners.