Log in

View Full Version : Lebanese Aren't Worth Much



tecumseh
29th July 2006, 01:35
Today's lead story in The New York Times contains a moving quote from Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora:

"Is the value of human life less in Lebanon than that of citizens elsewhere? Are we children of a lesser god? Is an Israeli teardrop worth more than a drop of Lebanese blood?"

He knows the answer to that; it's yes. With Condi Rice diminishing the value of a temporary cease-fire--which would save the lives of some Lebanese civilians--Washington is clearly saying that there is no value in protecting these civilians killed in Israel's attacks on Hezbollah.

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/07/lebanese_blood.php

MKS
29th July 2006, 01:54
The same could be said of the Israeli civilians killed by Hezbollah attacks and other Arab terror organizations that the Lebanese government supports and harbors. Why hasn’t the Lebanese administration been more aggressive when dealing with Hezbollah, because they hold the value of Israeli civilians as less than that of Arab civilians? Prime Minister Siniora is playing the "tear jerker card" in order to distract the people from the real issue, his complacency with Hezbollah and perhaps the fact that he is a puppet for the Syrians and/or Iranians.

tecumseh
29th July 2006, 02:06
Hizballahs firing of rockets into Usrael is wrong, however the Lebanese populace has recieved far more casualties than the Israeli side. Israels invasion of Lebanon antedates Hizballahs rocket attacks thus making the government of Lebanon incapapable of stopping Hizballah.

Janus
29th July 2006, 07:44
Why hasn’t the Lebanese administration been more aggressive when dealing with Hezbollah
It would be very risky and may lead to civil war.


Prime Minister Siniora is playing the "tear jerker card" in order to distract the people from the real issue
The real issue here is how to end this conflict.

theraven
29th July 2006, 07:56
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 11:07 PM
Hizballahs firing of rockets into Usrael is wrong, however the Lebanese populace has recieved far more casualties than the Israeli side. Israels invasion of Lebanon antedates Hizballahs rocket attacks thus making the government of Lebanon incapapable of stopping Hizballah.
actually the rocket firing and kidnapping are whati nspired the invasion.

Intifada
1st August 2006, 13:42
actually the rocket firing and kidnapping are whati nspired the invasion.

The taking of the two Israeli soldiers was in response to Israel's continued reluctance to release Lebanese people being held "prisoner" in Israel and also Lebanese citizens of Palestinian origin that are being held in Israeli prisons.

Moreover, Israel illegally occupies the Sheba Farms and continues to refuse to hand over maps of the landmines they left in southern Lebanon.

Anyway, even if you think the Israeli war crimes in Lebanon are justified, they are only serving the purpose of creating new supporters of Hezbollah, including Lebanese Christians, Sunnis and Druze.

theraven
1st August 2006, 20:09
Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 10:43 AM

actually the rocket firing and kidnapping are whati nspired the invasion.

The taking of the two Israeli soldiers was in response to Israel's continued reluctance to release Lebanese people being held "prisoner" in Israel and also Lebanese citizens of Palestinian origin that are being held in Israeli prisons.

Moreover, Israel illegally occupies the Sheba Farms and continues to refuse to hand over maps of the landmines they left in southern Lebanon.

Anyway, even if you think the Israeli war crimes in Lebanon are justified, they are only serving the purpose of creating new supporters of Hezbollah, including Lebanese Christians, Sunnis and Druze.
1)israel won't release crimainals or terrorists. theers no reason for them to.

2)what are the sheba farms?whats the real name?

Janus
1st August 2006, 20:59
what are the sheba farms?whats the real name?
That is the real name.

There are portions of Lebanese territory that the Israelis never handed over after the 2000 "withdrawl" since they were deemed strategically important.

Intifada
1st August 2006, 21:06
1)israel won't release crimainals or terrorists. theers no reason for them to.

Well then the same shall go for the two Israeli terrorists taken prisoner by Hezbollah and the Israeli criminal taken prisoner in occupied Gaza.


2)what are the sheba farms?whats the real name?

The Sheba Farms (that is the real name) are land that Israel has continued to occupy illegally, even after the "withdrawal" in 2000.

Intifada
1st August 2006, 21:13
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 10:55 PM
Why hasn’t the Lebanese administration been more aggressive when dealing with Hezbollah
Hezbollah holds democratically elected seats in the Lebanese parliament.


Prime Minister Siniora is playing the "tear jerker card" in order to distract the people from the real issue, his complacency with Hezbollah and perhaps the fact that he is a puppet for the Syrians and/or Iranians.

What are the Americans playing every time they mention "9/11"?

What are the British playing every time they mention "7/7"?

You talk shit.

I will also remind you that the US supported the "Cedar Revolution" from which the Siniora government emerged. The fact is that both anti-Syrian and pro-Syrian Lebanese politicians are in support of Hezbollah's resistance of Israeli aggression.

theraven
2nd August 2006, 01:23
Hezbollah holds democratically elected seats in the Lebanese parliament.

i think a better questiont hne is "why does lebanon allow a foriegn agent which posses a violent miltia to hold seats in its parliment



Well then the same shall go for the two Israeli terrorists taken prisoner by Hezbollah and the Israeli criminal taken prisoner in occupied Gaza.


except neither fit the definition msot o fisraels captives were captured int he process of commiting a crime and/or plannign to attack israel. the soliders were doing garud duty.



The Sheba Farms (that is the real name) are land that Israel has continued to occupy illegally, even after the "withdrawal" in 2000.

so israel is occusing about 9 mile long and 2 mile thick strip of land, clealry for defesneve purpoes (its a high ground over israeli villages)

Janus
2nd August 2006, 01:37
except neither fit the definition msot o fisraels captives were captured int he process of commiting a crime and/or plannign to attack israel.
Most of them were captured in raids. Israel doesn't catch a lot of people "in the act".

The occupation of the Sheba Farms in an occupation nevertheless.

theraven
2nd August 2006, 01:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 10:38 PM

except neither fit the definition msot o fisraels captives were captured int he process of commiting a crime and/or plannign to attack israel.
Most of them were captured in raids. Israel doesn't catch a lot of people "in the act".

The occupation of the Sheba Farms in an occupation nevertheless.
it catcheds them "in the act" of planning

the sheba farms was syrian property anyway.

Enragé
2nd August 2006, 03:39
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 10:55 PM
The same could be said of the Israeli civilians killed by Hezbollah attacks and other Arab terror organizations that the Lebanese government supports and harbors. Why hasn’t the Lebanese administration been more aggressive when dealing with Hezbollah, because they hold the value of Israeli civilians as less than that of Arab civilians? Prime Minister Siniora is playing the "tear jerker card" in order to distract the people from the real issue, his complacency with Hezbollah and perhaps the fact that he is a puppet for the Syrians and/or Iranians.
It's impossible for the lebanese government to coerce hezbollah into disarming

hezbollah is ten times stronger that the lebanese armed forces put together, and even if you would throw in the Syrian army, even then, hezbollah would probably come out on top.

Also, you have to ask yourself, why would they in any way aid their enemy? Israel still occupies part of Lebanon, still holds thousands of lebanese as well as palestinians hostage...now why would the Lebanese government FORCE hezbollah in doing anything and risk a new civil war under these circumstances? For what should they do this? A pat on the back?

deadlyseven
2nd August 2006, 03:57
exactly hellbolah are religious extremists but their the lesser of two evils and when your in such a tight corner you have very little choice poor bastards i diagree with most of hezzbolahs aims but id jump at the chance to pop some shots at those israli whoares

Janus
2nd August 2006, 08:31
it catcheds them "in the act" of planning
Right, so if someone caught you in your home getting dressed, that would be called catching you planning?


the sheba farms was syrian property anyway.
Syria claims it as well, so?

ebeneezer
2nd August 2006, 09:38
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 12:58 AM
exactly hellbolah are religious extremists but their the lesser of two evils and when your in such a tight corner you have very little choice poor bastards i diagree with most of hezzbolahs aims but id jump at the chance to pop some shots at those israli whoares
Actually, Israel are not the problem. The problem is religious fanaticism. The Hebrew religion is fundumentally good, merciful and absolutely not totalitarian, unlike Islamofascism.

Now why would you side with fascism?

Janus
2nd August 2006, 09:42
The Hebrew religion is fundumentally good, merciful and absolutely not totalitarian, unlike Islamofascism.
:blink: Islam and Judaism are similar religions and both have ultraconservative sects.

ebeneezer
2nd August 2006, 11:30
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:43 AM

The Hebrew religion is fundumentally good, merciful and absolutely not totalitarian, unlike Islamofascism.
:blink: Islam and Judaism are similar religions and both have ultraconservative sects.
Yeah, but the Jew conservatves are fun and cool unlike the mean Islamic ones who will kill you if you fly a kite or eat a pig.

Recently in Afghanistan, someone had to plead insanity to escape death for converting to christainaity or something. Top that.

Enragé
2nd August 2006, 11:39
Originally posted by ebeneezer+Aug 2 2006, 08:31 AM--> (ebeneezer @ Aug 2 2006, 08:31 AM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 06:43 AM

The Hebrew religion is fundumentally good, merciful and absolutely not totalitarian, unlike Islamofascism.
:blink: Islam and Judaism are similar religions and both have ultraconservative sects.
Yeah, but the Jew conservatves are fun and cool unlike the mean Islamic ones who will kill you if you fly a kite or eat a pig.

Recently in Afghanistan, someone had to plead insanity to escape death for converting to christainaity or something. Top that. [/b]
wrong

Jew maniacs want to kill arabs, ethnically cleanse threm from their holy land
Muslim maniacs want to kill Israelis

ofcourse, the US doesnt care about dead arabs...

in fact in regard to women's rights orthodox Islam is actually a shitload more proggressive than orthodox Judaism
go figure :lol:
perhaps thats because ALL RELIGIONS SUCK <_<


ah yes afghanistan
another great project of liberation isnt it?

Janus
2nd August 2006, 18:48
Yeah, but the Jew conservatves are fun and cool unlike the mean Islamic ones who will kill you if you fly a kite or eat a pig.
Sorry, none of them put the fun in fundamentalism. :(


Recently in Afghanistan, someone had to plead insanity to escape death for converting to christainaity or something.
What about the Israeli guy who killed many innoncent people at a mosque in order to "get back" at the Palestinians?

theraven
2nd August 2006, 20:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 05:32 AM

it catcheds them "in the act" of planning
Right, so if someone caught you in your home getting dressed, that would be called catching you planning?


the sheba farms was syrian property anyway.
Syria claims it as well, so?
1) no catching thme in the act is coming into a house, seeing a map of israel with poitns indciting where to go, with a sucidie vest being bult int he basemnt

2) syria controled it pre-67. and the UN certifed israel was out of lebanon.



wrong

Jew maniacs want to kill arabs, ethnically cleanse threm from their holy land
Muslim maniacs want to kill Israelis

yes the manaics, who we niether allow in israels govenrment nor do most jews allo wthme to do it. the same cannot be said about muslims.


ofcourse, the US doesnt care about dead arabs...


then expalin the US debate about ceasefire. if we didnt care about dead arabs we would jsut tel israel to keep bombing.


in fact in regard to women&#39;s rights orthodox Islam is actually a shitload more proggressive than orthodox Judaism
go figure laugh.gif

on what do you base that?

theraven
2nd August 2006, 20:41
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 03:49 PM

Yeah, but the Jew conservatves are fun and cool unlike the mean Islamic ones who will kill you if you fly a kite or eat a pig.
Sorry, none of them put the fun in fundamentalism. :(


Recently in Afghanistan, someone had to plead insanity to escape death for converting to christainaity or something.
What about the Israeli guy who killed many innoncent people at a mosque in order to "get back" at the Palestinians?
1) jewish consertvies are moderates. (conservism is a sect of judaims). orthodox are the ultra fundamslist. and neither are bad. jews orthodox rules apply only to jews they don&#39;t attempt to impose them on non-jews. its generaly pretty non-violen too

2) when one kahnist (a far far right israeli sect) shot up a mosque at the tomb of the patriarchs (one of the holiest places in judiasm) the result was

a) the outlawing of the kahnist movment

b) declaring the nut as a terorist

c) not prosecuting the poepel who beat him to a pulp.

d) when suporters built a shrine next t his grave the govenremtn ordered it torn down citing a law against shrines to terrorists.

colonelguppy
2nd August 2006, 22:30
human life is always devalued in war. thats what the point of war is, trying to preserve your own self by devalueing the enemy.

lebanese arent the enemy though, its bad the hezbollah fights in a matter which will result in a lot of dead innocents, and israel should try to minimize collateral damage, but it would be stupid to stop because innocents are going to die. innocents will always die.

Enragé
3rd August 2006, 00:09
yes the manaics, who we niether allow in israels govenrment nor do most jews allo wthme to do it. the same cannot be said about muslims.

Well maybe thats because if you live under the constant threat of state terror, when you are unable to build, to progress in anyway your community and thus yourself, you tend to become desparate and vote for whoever is most ardent about fighting that state terror.


then expalin the US debate about ceasefire. if we didnt care about dead arabs we would jsut tel israel to keep bombing.

did i miss something?
Thats exactly what they do.
They support israel in everything they do, not ONCE did you condemn what they do.
Ofcourse they say "there should be a ceasefire soon", because the world (especially the arab world) is getting more and more pissed off at the USA.


on what do you base that?

now i dont really feel like debating details of religions which by the mere fact that they are religions suck equally,

part of islam is actually based on what they percieve as "liberation for women". They have certain rights. Certainly for the time in which Islam first saw light, it was a progressive force.
Judaism on the contrary has no such ideas, and women (even under contemporary israeli law) are as much harrassed regarding divorce (perhaps even more) as muslim women.

Also, under islamic law, there is something like a woman counts as half or as a third of a witness, whereas under jewish law they arent allowed to be witnesses at all.

theraven
3rd August 2006, 00:14
Well maybe thats because if you live under the constant threat of state terror, when you are unable to build, to progress in anyway your community and thus yourself, you tend to become desparate and vote for whoever is most ardent about fighting that state terror.

except the rason your living in fear is those who fight israel.



now i dont really feel like debating details of religions which by the mere fact that they are religions such equally,

part of islam is actually based on what they percieve as "liberation for women". They have certain rights. Certainly for the time in which Islam first saw light, it was a progressive force.
Judaism on the contrary has no such ideas, and women (even under contemporary israeli law) are as much harrassed regarding divorce (perhaps even more) as muslim women.

you clealyr have no idea wha your talking. I am not postiive on jewish divorce law (any jewish law is bound to be a complicated mess of torah and talmud refences anyway) but in islam i believe the way a husband divorces a wife is asying "i divorce you" 3 times. he gets all porepty and the kids. how is judiasm worse?

Enragé
3rd August 2006, 00:26
except the rason your living in fear is those who fight israel.

No
the reason is that the israelis expelled hundreds of thousands of palestinians from their lands (who still have not been able to return), which was met with resistance, which was met with state terror.


you clealyr have no idea wha your talking. I am not postiive on jewish divorce law (any jewish law is bound to be a complicated mess of torah and talmud refences anyway) but in islam i believe the way a husband divorces a wife is asying "i divorce you" 3 times. he gets all porepty and the kids. how is judiasm worse?

now who has no idea what he&#39;s talking about?

"The rules for Talaq (divorce) vary among the major Islamic schools. Most importantly Shi&#39;a and Sunni Muslims have different rules to engage a Talaq. In both the Sunni and Shi&#39;a traditions the right of divorce is primarily for men, unless otherwise specified in the marriage contract, so that women can only seek divorce through court proceedings by convincing a Qadi to grant a divorce. Shi&#39;as and Sunnis believe that a wife has the right to Hula or &#39;Khulah&#39; (divorce by the wife) but is only recommended if her problem is serious -- for example, a husband who is beating her regularly or if her husband is treating her unjustly. In practice divorce can be quite involved; there may be separate state proceedings to follow as well. This is the case in most of the Muslim world today. The divorced wife keeps her mahr, both the original gift and any supplementary property specified in the marriage contract. She is also given child support until the age of weaning, at which point the childs&#39; custody will be settled by the couple or by the courts. In traditional Islamic law custody goes to the father after the child has reached a certain age.

Women were guaranteed certain rights of divorce and inheritance in Islam at an early stage, although the extent to which these rights have been exercised in practice has differed significantly from nation to nation, and from time period to time period."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Musl...cieties#Divorce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Muslim_societies#Divorce)

Yes there is such a thing as saying divorce three times (talaq, talaq, talaq) but that isnt the end of it, its not that simple. The reason for saying it 3 times has to do with thinking it over or something. After the 1st and second time they can still remarry, after the third its "haram".

Furthermore, in mohammedan islam (islam as in the time of mohammed) there were female imams.

As for divorce in judaism, i dont seem to be able to find anything about that really on the web. My information is based on a documentary I saw a couple of weeks ago about Israeli women in a divorce.

As for jewish law being a mess anyway, do you think islamic law is any different? Yes you have sha&#39;ria, but not all accept it, and then there are the hadiths which often conflict.

anyway this is all getting quite out of hand.

HinduKush
3rd August 2006, 03:01
Hizballah is targeting israeli civilians with there rockets, although they havent killed as many civillians as israel has, and if the lebanese government is so appauld by the killing of civilians than maybe they should be getting invloved more, talking to hizballah, evacuating civillians from the southern border and setting up more housing camps for civilians to come to, but knowing how pathetic hizballah is they would probably set up there rocket sites near the camps hoping israel wont bomb them

theraven
3rd August 2006, 04:51
No
the reason is that the israelis expelled hundreds of thousands of palestinians from their lands (who still have not been able to return), which was met with resistance, which was met with state terror.


israel did not force 95% of the people off their land, even if you can prove one or two isolated incidents



As for divorce in judaism, i dont seem to be able to find anything about that really on the web. My information is based on a documentary I saw a couple of weeks ago about Israeli women in a divorce.

As for jewish law being a mess anyway, do you think islamic law is any different? Yes you have sha&#39;ria, but not all accept it, and then there are the hadiths which often conflict.

anyway this is all getting quite out of hand.

jewish law is far less hereicahal. basicly it vaires fromt emple to tempel and rabbi to rabbi. you&#39;ll find two rabbis at two consertive tmepels differing vastly on many things.

Enragé
3rd August 2006, 15:23
israel did not force 95% of the people off their land, even if you can prove one or two isolated incidents

ok go ahead, believe what you want to believe, but thats a load of crap.

Its no use for me to come with examples now, because as you said, you&#39;ll just say they were isolated incidents.

thats like calling auschwitz an isolated incident


jewish law is far less hereicahal. basicly it vaires fromt emple to tempel and rabbi to rabbi. you&#39;ll find two rabbis at two consertive tmepels differing vastly on many things.

I&#39;m not an expert on jewish nor on islamic law, but i do know that there are great differences in islam too. It all depends on how "liberal&#39; (thats the word we in my country use but it has different connotations in the US, by liberal i do not mean democrat, or leftist, just more free-thinking-ish) the imam is.

In decentralized religion (that is, without a central authority, e.g the pope) its always up to the local imam, or the society in which that imam teaches as a whole, how radical, how orthodox the views propagated actually are.

The point i was trying to make however, is that there is no difference between jewish radicalism, and islamic radicalism, and even christian radicalism, certainly not in the way propagated by western media (christianity and judaism are ok, islam is moronic...WRONG...they are all moronic ^^ )

skooma
3rd August 2006, 15:56
The Hebrew religion is fundumentally good, merciful and absolutely not totalitarian

<_< so is islam

try reading the koran as a whole instead of messed up semiquotations from it on racist rightwing websites.

there are nutters in all religions, don&#39;t just give islam a bad name just because you want an excuse to invade.hell, if something is making us radical/fundementalist is the imperialist infidels fucking with us, not something thats essential to islam.


hehe, i used the word "infidel". :P

Enragé
3rd August 2006, 16:04
all religions have some "fundamentally good, merciful" etc things in ti because without them who would follow it?

Intifada
3rd August 2006, 16:14
Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 10:24 PM
i think a better questiont hne is "why does lebanon allow a foriegn agent which posses a violent miltia to hold seats in its parliment
Hezbollah are not a "foreign" entity, and indeed it is good, legitimate and sensible that they are armed in the face of Israeli aggression, even though any such weapons are like fire-crackers in comparison to the arsenal of the Israeli state.

I am stunned that a Zionist can label Hezbollah a "violent militia" when in comparison to the actions of Israel they look like angels.

Israel has killed hundreds more civilians than it has Hezbollah fighters, even though the IOF brags about it&#39;s "precision bombings". Israel has displaced hundreds of thousands of innocent people from their homes and then destroyed their empty villages, something known as a "scorched earth" policy.

Meanwhile, of the 55 Israelis killed by Hezbollah, only 19 have been innocents.

Israel&#39;s actions in both Lebanon and the seemingly forgotten Occupied Palestinian Territories have shown a complete lack of regard for human life as well as the process of "democracy" that both Israel and their American allies boast about.


except neither fit the definition msot o fisraels captives were captured int he process of commiting a crime and/or plannign to attack israel. the soliders were doing garud duty.

Why doesn&#39;t Israel then, in response to Hezbollah&#39;s challenge, show the world who their "guilty captives" are?

It&#39;s because the vast majority are innocents.

Any IOF soldier is a criminal.


so israel is occusing about 9 mile long and 2 mile thick strip of land, clealry for defesneve purpoes (its a high ground over israeli villages)

It is an occupation of another people&#39;s land.


then expalin the US debate about ceasefire. if we didnt care about dead arabs we would jsut tel israel to keep bombing.

The US tells the world it wants peace, while at the same time bombs made in America are being transported, through the 51st state of Britain, to Israel.

theraven
3rd August 2006, 18:37
ok go ahead, believe what you want to believe, but thats a load of crap.

Its no use for me to come with examples now, because as you said, you&#39;ll just say they were isolated incidents.

thats like calling auschwitz an isolated incident


I sayt "isolated incdinet" because whenever i bring this up you mention some town where a bunch of solider killed some peopel as rpoof israel herding all the peopel away. the holacuast is provebly not isloted thus that would be ridiclous.




Hezbollah are not a "foreign" entity, and indeed it is good, legitimate and sensible that they are armed in the face of Israeli aggression, even though any such weapons are like fire-crackers in comparison to the arsenal of the Israeli state.

you mean hezbollah isn&#39;t funded and trained by iran and its leader doens htave close ties to iran?

I am stunned that a Zionist can label Hezbollah a "violent militia" when in comparison to the actions of Israel they look like angels.


Israel has killed hundreds more civilians than it has Hezbollah fighters, even though the IOF brags about it&#39;s "precision bombings". Israel has displaced hundreds of thousands of innocent people from their homes and then destroyed their empty villages, something known as a "scorched earth" policy.

proof?


Meanwhile, of the 55 Israelis killed by Hezbollah, only 19 have been innocents.
in the rocket attacsk? wow those rockts sure are accurate (why am i skepitcal of this?)


Israel&#39;s actions in both Lebanon and the seemingly forgotten Occupied Palestinian Territories have shown a complete lack of regard for human life as well as the process of "democracy" that both Israel and their American allies boast about.

how does this show disregard for demoracy?



Why doesn&#39;t Israel then, in response to Hezbollah&#39;s challenge, show the world who their "guilty captives" are?

It&#39;s because the vast majority are innocents.

Any IOF soldier is a criminal.

so why would israel bother locking up a bunch of innocent people. that defies all logic.

what is IOF?



It is an occupation of another people&#39;s land.

its also a high ground over looking a lot of israel. israel took it in a dfesneve war and kept it for defense purposes.



The US tells the world it wants peace, while at the same time bombs made in America are being transported, through the 51st state of Britain, to Israel.

through war is the path of peace sadly enough

Intifada
3rd August 2006, 19:01
you mean hezbollah isn&#39;t funded and trained by iran and its leader doens htave close ties to iran?


Hezbollah may be funded and trained by Iran, but Israel is funded, equipped and trained by the US.

Therefore, by your logic on Hezbollah in Lebanon, you must also state that the Israeli state is a foreign entity and does not belong in the Middle East.

:lol:


proof?

I will give you proof, although you will probably ignore it out of hand...

Lebanese Premier: Death Toll Tops 900 (http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/08/03/ap2924319.html)

Ignore the title of the above link and read the following:

Lebanon&#39;s death toll was previously thought to be 548 - including 477 civilians confirmed dead by the Health Ministry, 25 Lebanese soldiers and at least 46 Hezbollah guerrillas.

Lebanon death toll &#39;reaches 900&#39; (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5242732.stm)

Again ignore the title and read the following:

Latest UN estimates for displaced people in Lebanon put the figure at between 700,000 and 800,000.

Also, the updated Israeli casualties figure is:

62, including 24 civilians, after new Hezbollah attacks.

Scorched earth policy in south Lebanon (http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060801-071004-7783r)


in the rocket attacsk? wow those rockts sure are accurate (why am i skepitcal of this?)

The BBC article I linked above shows an updated Israeli death toll of 62, of which only 24 were civilians.


how does this show disregard for demoracy?

Political buildings of Hezbollah were/are being attacked even though they were democratically elected to positions in the Lebanese parliament, whilst in the OPTs Israel has attacked Palestinian political buildings since the democratically elected Hamas took power.

Intifada
3rd August 2006, 19:07
I see you edited your post.


so why would israel bother locking up a bunch of innocent people. that defies all logic.

They have done so before in the OPTs.

ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: Mass detention in cruel, inhuman and degrading conditions (http://www.amnesty.org.il/reports/MDE.html)


what is IOF?

The Israeli Offence Force.

Nothing Israel has done has been "defensive" as the name "IDF" suggests.


its also a high ground over looking a lot of israel. israel took it in a dfesneve war and kept it for defense purposes.


Which "defensive war" do you speak of?

The previous invasion of Lebanon?

:rolleyes:


through war is the path of peace sadly enough

Don&#39;t fucking avoid my points with such "War is Peace" bullshit.

The American and British governments are both utterly complicit in the Israeli war crimes in Lebanon and the OPTs.

theraven
3rd August 2006, 23:28
see you edited your post.

I did, i missed several points the first time so i added them on.



They have done so before in the OPTs.

ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: Mass detention in cruel, inhuman and degrading conditions

in that it disucses "mass arbitray arrests" obviusly this implies a great number of innconets in it...and thus ti had a high reliease rate. wow so israel releases innocnet people. shocking.




The Israeli Offence Force.

Nothing Israel has done has been "defensive" as the name "IDF" suggests.

nonethe less "IDF" is the offical name thus the one apporaite in discussing it with someoene else




Which "defensive war" do you speak of?

The previous invasion of Lebanon?

rolleyes.gif

no, they were obtained in the 6 day war from syria. lebanon did not control them.



Don&#39;t fucking avoid my points with such "War is Peace" bullshit.

The American and British governments are both utterly complicit in the Israeli war crimes in Lebanon and the OPTs.

thats not war is peace, its a fact. when there is a confclit, sometimes it has to be fougth to conculsion for a real peace to be put in place. see WWI

Enragé
4th August 2006, 00:16
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 03:38 PM


ok go ahead, believe what you want to believe, but thats a load of crap.

Its no use for me to come with examples now, because as you said, you&#39;ll just say they were isolated incidents.

thats like calling auschwitz an isolated incident


I sayt "isolated incdinet" because whenever i bring this up you mention some town where a bunch of solider killed some peopel as rpoof israel herding all the peopel away. the holacuast is provebly not isloted thus that would be ridiclous.


tell me how do you prove the holocaust?

By pointing at auschwitz, bergen belsen, etc


how do you prove the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of palestinians?

by pointing at the towns in which there were killings and people were afterwards forced to leave.

logic&#39;s a ***** isnt it :wub:

theraven
4th August 2006, 01:00
Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Aug 3 2006, 09:17 PM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Aug 3 2006, 09:17 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 03:38 PM


ok go ahead, believe what you want to believe, but thats a load of crap.

Its no use for me to come with examples now, because as you said, you&#39;ll just say they were isolated incidents.

thats like calling auschwitz an isolated incident


I sayt "isolated incdinet" because whenever i bring this up you mention some town where a bunch of solider killed some peopel as rpoof israel herding all the peopel away. the holacuast is provebly not isloted thus that would be ridiclous.


tell me how do you prove the holocaust?

By pointing at auschwitz, bergen belsen, etc


how do you prove the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of palestinians?

by pointing at the towns in which there were killings and people were afterwards forced to leave.

logic&#39;s a ***** isnt it :wub: [/b]
yes and if you had many towns you might be onto sometihng. but 2 or 3 makes a few soliders getting out of hand not a forced expulison.

Janus
4th August 2006, 01:04
Then how do you explain the Palestinian refugee problem?

Palestinian Exodus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Exodus)

Intifada
4th August 2006, 02:03
i missed several points the first time so i added them on.


You are ignoring several of my points as well.

I would like responses to all my points not just a select few.


in that it disucses "mass arbitray arrests" obviusly this implies a great number of innconets in it...and thus ti had a high reliease rate. wow so israel releases innocnet people. shocking.


The mass arrest of people on the basis that they are in the wrong place at the wrong time is illegal, yet Israel has a history of doing this to the incarcerated people of Palestine and Lebanon too.

Moreover, the treatment of such men, women and children is hardly a show of respect for human rights, as the report I linked shows quite conclusively.


nonethe less "IDF" is the offical name thus the one apporaite in discussing it with someoene else

I will refer to the forces of Israel in a manner that reflects their actions.


no, they were obtained in the 6 day war from syria. lebanon did not control them.

So what.

The land is not Israel&#39;s.

UN Resolution 242 was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council in November 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. It calls for the withdrawal of Israel from all the territories it occupied in the 1967 War.

This Resolution was later reaffirmed and made binding by UN Security Council Resolution 338 after the 1973 War.

Now the Israelis are harping on about 1559.

The hypocrisy is tragic.


thats not war is peace, its a fact. when there is a confclit, sometimes it has to be fougth to conculsion for a real peace to be put in place. see WWI

WW1 was ended with the Treaty of Versailles which is arguably one of the main reasons behind the rise of Hitler and his Nazi ideology in Germany, which led to WW2.

Wars do not guarantee lasting peace.


yes and if you had many towns you might be onto sometihng.

Here is a list of villages and towns depopulated by Israel in 1948:

LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Arab-Israeli_war#Arab_villages)

Enragé
4th August 2006, 02:11
Originally posted by theraven+Aug 3 2006, 10:01 PM--> (theraven @ Aug 3 2006, 10:01 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 09:17 PM

[email protected] 3 2006, 03:38 PM


ok go ahead, believe what you want to believe, but thats a load of crap.

Its no use for me to come with examples now, because as you said, you&#39;ll just say they were isolated incidents.

thats like calling auschwitz an isolated incident


I sayt "isolated incdinet" because whenever i bring this up you mention some town where a bunch of solider killed some peopel as rpoof israel herding all the peopel away. the holacuast is provebly not isloted thus that would be ridiclous.


tell me how do you prove the holocaust?

By pointing at auschwitz, bergen belsen, etc


how do you prove the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of palestinians?

by pointing at the towns in which there were killings and people were afterwards forced to leave.

logic&#39;s a ***** isnt it :wub:
yes and if you had many towns you might be onto sometihng. but 2 or 3 makes a few soliders getting out of hand not a forced expulison. [/b]
what Janus said

theraven
4th August 2006, 04:38
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:05 PM
Then how do you explain the Palestinian refugee problem?

Palestinian Exodus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Exodus)
the way your link does is pretty good. mostly it was because the palestianins left or because the arab leadership watned them to. in a few cases they were forced out because they were hostile and israel couldn&#39;t leave them in the rear of thier troops.




You are ignoring several of my points as well.

I would like responses to all my points not just a select few.

just becuse my response are not to your liking does not mean i did not resopnd. if i missed on of your points totally feel free to repeat it.



The mass arrest of people on the basis that they are in the wrong place at the wrong time is illegal, yet Israel has a history of doing this to the incarcerated people of Palestine and Lebanon too.

Moreover, the treatment of such men, women and children is hardly a show of respect for human rights, as the report I linked shows quite conclusively.

israel does not have the luxury to act like a police force sadly enough, thus mass arrests followed by mass release is probably the best way to do it.



I will refer to the forces of Israel in a manner that reflects their actions.

thats not helpful in a disucssion



So what.

The land is not Israel&#39;s.

UN Resolution 242 was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council in November 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. It calls for the withdrawal of Israel from all the territories it occupied in the 1967 War.

This Resolution was later reaffirmed and made binding by UN Security Council Resolution 338 after the 1973 War.

Now the Israelis are harping on about 1559.

The hypocrisy is tragic.


the fact remains tis not lebanse terrotiy. israel is keeping the land because it is of streatgic value.




WW1 was ended with the Treaty of Versailles which is arguably one of the main reasons behind the rise of Hitler and his Nazi ideology in Germany, which led to WW2.

Wars do not guarantee lasting peace.

thank you for proving my opint. wars in which the losing side is not fully beaten will result in another war.

see: rome and carthage



Here is a list of villages and towns depopulated by Israel in 1948:

LINK

those are villages depopulaited during the war, not nesscairly by israel.

Enragé
4th August 2006, 04:48
thank you for proving my opint. wars in which the losing side is not fully beaten will result in another war.

see: rome and carthage


So your solution would&#39;ve been burning down ALL of germany to a heap of ash?

theraven
4th August 2006, 05:06
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 01:49 AM

thank you for proving my opint. wars in which the losing side is not fully beaten will result in another war.

see: rome and carthage


So your solution would&#39;ve been burning down ALL of germany to a heap of ash?
see world war II

Enragé
4th August 2006, 05:08
Originally posted by theraven+Aug 4 2006, 02:07 AM--> (theraven @ Aug 4 2006, 02:07 AM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 01:49 AM

thank you for proving my opint. wars in which the losing side is not fully beaten will result in another war.

see: rome and carthage


So your solution would&#39;ve been burning down ALL of germany to a heap of ash?
see world war II [/b]
:huh: world war 2 was solved by eliminating the reasons for going to war (poverty, alienation, nationalism, imperialism) and by providing a new enemy

instead of turning it to ashes, germany was built back up again.

theraven
4th August 2006, 05:30
Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Aug 4 2006, 02:09 AM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Aug 4 2006, 02:09 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:07 AM

[email protected] 4 2006, 01:49 AM

thank you for proving my opint. wars in which the losing side is not fully beaten will result in another war.

see: rome and carthage


So your solution would&#39;ve been burning down ALL of germany to a heap of ash?
see world war II
:huh: world war 2 was solved by eliminating the reasons for going to war (poverty, alienation, nationalism, imperialism) and by providing a new enemy

instead of turning it to ashes, germany was built back up again. [/b]

huh.gif world war 2 was solved by eliminating the reasons for going to war (poverty, alienation, nationalism, imperialism) and by providing a new enemy

not at all

poverty still exists in the sense that not everyone is equal

people will always be alientiated

nationlism still exists

impeirelism stopped because the empires were tired from WWII

the new enemy helped, but germany wasnt&#39; geting up anytime soon anyway

Enragé
4th August 2006, 15:28
Originally posted by theraven+Aug 4 2006, 02:31 AM--> (theraven @ Aug 4 2006, 02:31 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:07 AM

[email protected] 4 2006, 01:49 AM

thank you for proving my opint. wars in which the losing side is not fully beaten will result in another war.

see: rome and carthage


So your solution would&#39;ve been burning down ALL of germany to a heap of ash?
see world war II
:huh: world war 2 was solved by eliminating the reasons for going to war (poverty, alienation, nationalism, imperialism) and by providing a new enemy

instead of turning it to ashes, germany was built back up again.

huh.gif world war 2 was solved by eliminating the reasons for going to war (poverty, alienation, nationalism, imperialism) and by providing a new enemy

not at all

poverty still exists in the sense that not everyone is equal

people will always be alientiated

nationlism still exists

impeirelism stopped because the empires were tired from WWII

the new enemy helped, but germany wasnt&#39; geting up anytime soon anyway [/b]
:huh:

err
the nationalism faded away because it wasnt taught in schools anymore
same goes for blatant imperialism

sure, but not everyone being equal is something different than everyone living in slums (except for the wealthy few ofcourse).

If people have something to lose, they wont go to war so quickly.
Look, i live 100 metres from the german border, there really is no such thing anymore as german nationalism in the mainstream, because, among other things, the shame for WW2 was imprinted on a massive scale on each succesive generation of germans.

The world cup in germany this year was one of the first times since WW2 that germans even felt comfortable waving a german flag.

theraven
4th August 2006, 18:58
Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Aug 4 2006, 12:29 PM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Aug 4 2006, 12:29 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:07 AM

[email protected] 4 2006, 01:49 AM

thank you for proving my opint. wars in which the losing side is not fully beaten will result in another war.

see: rome and carthage


So your solution would&#39;ve been burning down ALL of germany to a heap of ash?
see world war II
:huh: world war 2 was solved by eliminating the reasons for going to war (poverty, alienation, nationalism, imperialism) and by providing a new enemy

instead of turning it to ashes, germany was built back up again.

huh.gif world war 2 was solved by eliminating the reasons for going to war (poverty, alienation, nationalism, imperialism) and by providing a new enemy

not at all

poverty still exists in the sense that not everyone is equal

people will always be alientiated

nationlism still exists

impeirelism stopped because the empires were tired from WWII

the new enemy helped, but germany wasnt&#39; geting up anytime soon anyway
:huh:

err
the nationalism faded away because it wasnt taught in schools anymore
same goes for blatant imperialism

sure, but not everyone being equal is something different than everyone living in slums (except for the wealthy few ofcourse).

If people have something to lose, they wont go to war so quickly.
Look, i live 100 metres from the german border, there really is no such thing anymore as german nationalism in the mainstream, because, among other things, the shame for WW2 was imprinted on a massive scale on each succesive generation of germans.

The world cup in germany this year was one of the first times since WW2 that germans even felt comfortable waving a german flag. [/b]
I thought you were takling general not just in germany.

well of course nationalism is low, they had the livin #&#036;%@ kicked out of them and then were split tinto two countires and used as pawns for 50 years. i&#39;d be really proud o fmny naitn too.

anyway the fact is thatthe reason there hasn&#39;t been a repeat of WWI and WWII is becuse during WWII the allies finnished the job.

Enragé
4th August 2006, 19:52
well of course nationalism is low, they had the livin #&#036;%@ kicked out of them and then were split tinto two countires and used as pawns for 50 years.

Err
no

Nationalism is low because it isnt being propagated anymore. Widespread nationalism is a result of a conscious effort by the ruling class.

Nationalism is a social construct, there is nothing natural or logical about it.

Look at my country, the netherlands. Technically, we could be nationalist as hell (certainly looking at our past imperial aspirations), but we&#39;re not, why? Because there is no large scale effort to make us nationalist (some are trying to set it up though)

In the US for example kids are being engrained with a national idea of what the USA is, what it stands for, that what it stands for is just fucking great, and that everything the US does is just peachy. This translates into people having flags on their porches, and being all "the US can do no wrong&#33;&#33;&#33;1&#33;1&#33;1&#33;&#33;one&#33;&#33;&#33;1&#33;&#33;111&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;one1&#33;&#33;&#33;"

theraven
4th August 2006, 20:24
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 04:53 PM

well of course nationalism is low, they had the livin #&#036;%@ kicked out of them and then were split tinto two countires and used as pawns for 50 years.

Err
no

Nationalism is low because it isnt being propagated anymore. Widespread nationalism is a result of a conscious effort by the ruling class.

Nationalism is a social construct, there is nothing natural or logical about it.

Look at my country, the netherlands. Technically, we could be nationalist as hell (certainly looking at our past imperial aspirations), but we&#39;re not, why? Because there is no large scale effort to make us nationalist (some are trying to set it up though)

In the US for example kids are being engrained with a national idea of what the USA is, what it stands for, that what it stands for is just fucking great, and that everything the US does is just peachy. This translates into people having flags on their porches, and being all "the US can do no wrong&#33;&#33;&#33;1&#33;1&#33;1&#33;&#33;one&#33;&#33;&#33;1&#33;&#33;111&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;one1&#33;&#33;&#33;"
the netherlands is less patrtoic because there is a concerted effort to lessen that perhaps ot encourage a europena union?

America is natiolisn regardless of th schools because we have a great deal to be proud of and we know it. most peole know the us has done bad thinsg int he past, but they also know the us has done good things.

Janus
4th August 2006, 22:13
most peole know the us has done bad thinsg int he past, but they also know the us has done good things.
A lot of those "bad things" are skimped out on in history class.

Enragé
5th August 2006, 03:03
the netherlands is less patrtoic because there is a concerted effort to lessen that perhaps ot encourage a europena union?

No.
There is no concerted effort whatsoever in regard nationalism or anything like it, as if europeanism would be any different than nationalism, (we voted NO on the european constitution btw ^^), and thus there is no such thing in the mainstream over here.


America is natiolisn regardless of th schools because we have a great deal to be proud of and we know it. most peole know the us has done bad thinsg int he past, but they also know the us has done good things.

America is nationalist because it focuses on national identity in an extreme way, because it focuses on everything that they have done right, because kids every day at school say the pledge of allegiance, because everyone is taught the national anthem etc
(i know like three sentences of mine)

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to The Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

According to current U.S. custom, as codified by the United States Congress, persons are expected (but not legally required) to recite the Pledge as follows:

by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute. "

You treat your natonial identity like a fuckin religion



As for doing good things etc
did you know the netherlands was one of the first republics in the world? Yes thats right, BEFORE the US :P

But do we focus on that? nope
Most people barely know who founded our country (it was Willem something)

and thats a good thing too
not like its important which aristocratic (or in your case bourgeois) fuck founded something to avoid having to pay taxes and the like.

and as janus said, you dont teach the bad things.
Who in the US knows that the US and the UK overthrew mossadegh?

theraven
5th August 2006, 06:23
No.
There is no concerted effort whatsoever in regard nationalism or anything like it, as if europeanism would be any different than nationalism, (we voted NO on the european constitution btw ^^), and thus there is no such thing in the mainstream over here.

if they don&#39;t talk about natianlism its to tone down natioanlsim.


America is nationalist because it focuses on national identity in an extreme way, because it focuses on everything that they have done right, because kids every day at school say the pledge of allegiance, because everyone is taught the national anthem etc
(i know like three sentences of mine)

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to The Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

According to current U.S. custom, as codified by the United States Congress, persons are expected (but not legally required) to recite the Pledge as follows:

by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute. "

You treat your natonial identity like a fuckin religion

america is a moderatley nationalist country. a hardcore natiaonlsit country would have laid waste to half he middle east and our tactics in iraq would be 500 times more brutal.



As for doing good things etc
did you know the netherlands was one of the first republics in the world? Yes thats right, BEFORE the US tongue.gif

But do we focus on that? nope
Most people barely know who founded our country (it was Willem something)

you can&#39;t focus on something like that. I&#39;m sure netheralnds teaches about its war of indepnde from spain and how it all worked out (and its william of orange btw).


and thats a good thing too
not like its important which aristocratic (or in your case bourgeois) fuck founded something to avoid having to pay taxes and the like.

of course not-the history of your nation is really a minor thing :lol:

Janus
5th August 2006, 08:35
america is a moderatley nationalist country. a hardcore natiaonlsit country would have laid waste to half he middle east and our tactics in iraq would be 500 times more brutal.
If a "hardcore nationalist country" were as large as the US wanted to even survive it would refrain from doing so. It&#39;s not about how nationalistic a nation is but more about the imperialist policies that stem from it.

Intifada
5th August 2006, 15:31
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 01:39 AM
it was because the palestianins left
Did the Jews not try to flee Nazi terror?

The same goes for the Palestinians who saw what the likes of the Stern Gang and the Haganah were getting up to.

The Zionist movement had always propagated the myth of the "land without people for a people without land". The fact was that there were hundreds of thousands of people already living in the place where the Zionist Jews wished to live.

Indeed, as the infamous Israeli historian Benny Morris so astonishingly admitted in an interview with Ha&#39;aretz in January 2004, recently declassified documents in the archives of the [so-called] IDF reveal that in 1947, Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders concluded that a Jewish state could not come into being in the territory assigned to Jews by the UN without the uprooting of 700 000 Palestinians.

In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves (Why is one reminded of southern Lebanon 2006?).

In places where the Palestinian people did not flee their homeland, such as Lydda and Ramla (July 1948), Ben-Gurion simply ordered the wholesale expulsion of all civilians. Many of the refugees died (apparently 400+) from thirst, hunger, and heat exhaustion after being stripped of their valuables on the way out by the Israeli soldiers.

Morris stated that there had been "far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought", including "many cases of rape [that] ended in murder" and executions of Palestinians who were lined up against a wall and shot (in Operation Hiram).

The dismantling of Palestinian society, the destruction of Palestinian towns and villages, and the expulsion of 700 000 Palestinians were not unavoidable consequences of the war declared on the emerging Jewish state by Arab countries. Rather, as Morris repeatedly confirms, it was a deliberate and planned operation intended to "cleanse" (the term used in the declassified documents) those parts of Palestine assigned to the Jews as a necessary pre-condition for the emergence of a Jewish state.

Morris went on to say that "Ben-Gurion was right. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here".


or because the arab leadership watned them to.

This is a lie.

Benny Morris states that he has "found no contemporary evidence to show that either the leaders of the Arab states or the Mufti ordered or directly encouraged the mass exodus during April [1948]. It may be worth noting that for decades the policy of the Palestinian Arab leaders had been to hold fast to the soil of Palestine and to resist the eviction and displacement of Arab communities".

Similarly, Simha Flapan (the Israeli writer and politician) stated that:

"After April 1948, the flight acquired massive dimensions. Abd al-Rahman Azzam Pasha, secretary general of the Arab League, and King Abdullah both issued public calls to the Arabs not to leave their homes.

Fawzi al-Qawukji, commander of the Arab Liberation Army, gave instructions to stop the flight by force. The Arab government decided to allow entry only to women and children and to send back all men of military age (between eighteen and fifty). Mohammad Adib al-Umri, deputy director of Ramallah broadcasting station, appealed to the Arabs to stop the flight from Jenin, Tulkarm, and other towns in the Triangle that were bombed by the Israelis. On May 10, Radio Jerusalem broadcasted orders on its Arab program from Arab commanders and AHC to stop the mass flight from Jerusalem and the vicinity."


in a few cases they were forced out because they were hostile and israel couldn&#39;t leave them in the rear of thier troops.

Hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages were destroyed and depopulated in Zionist ethnic cleansing.


israel does not have the luxury to act like a police force sadly enough

Israel shoudn&#39;t even be in the OPTs.


mass arrests followed by mass release is probably the best way to do it.

Yeah, and the torture was necessary too...


the fact remains tis not lebanse terrotiy.

The bigger fact is that it is not Israeli land.

It is a disputed territory that belongs to either Syria or Lebanon.


israel is keeping the land because it is of streatgic value.

Bullshit excuse.

The Nazis used similar excuses to justify their invasions and occupations.


thank you for proving my opint. wars in which the losing side is not fully beaten will result in another war.

No.

Unfair peace settlements lead to war.


those are villages depopulaited during the war, not nesscairly by israel.

More than 400 Palestinian towns and villages were destroyed by Israel.

theraven
5th August 2006, 16:12
Did the Jews not try to flee Nazi terror?


yes but then again this is a different situatin.



The same goes for the Palestinians who saw what the likes of the Stern Gang and the Haganah were getting up to.

the haganah was quite civilized, it stuck to military operatiosn. the far right groups were a bit more extreme but there was hardly a genocide planned.


ndeed, as the infamous Israeli historian Benny Morris so astonishingly admitted in an interview with Ha&#39;aretz in January 2004, recently declassified documents in the archives of the [so-called] IDF reveal that in 1947, Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders concluded that a Jewish state could not come into being in the territory assigned to Jews by the UN without the uprooting of 700 000 Palestinians.

In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves (Why is one reminded of southern Lebanon 2006?).

In places where the Palestinian people did not flee their homeland, such as Lydda and Ramla (July 1948), Ben-Gurion simply ordered the wholesale expulsion of all civilians. Many of the refugees died (apparently 400+) from thirst, hunger, and heat exhaustion after being stripped of their valuables on the way out by the Israeli soldiers.

Morris stated that there had been "far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought", including "many cases of rape [that] ended in murder" and executions of Palestinians who were lined up against a wall and shot (in Operation Hiram).

The dismantling of Palestinian society, the destruction of Palestinian towns and villages, and the expulsion of 700 000 Palestinians were not unavoidable consequences of the war declared on the emerging Jewish state by Arab countries. Rather, as Morris repeatedly confirms, it was a deliberate and planned operation intended to "cleanse" (the term used in the declassified documents) those parts of Palestine assigned to the Jews as a necessary pre-condition for the emergence of a Jewish state.

Morris went on to say that "Ben-Gurion was right. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here".


except Morris here is a widely descreidted source with most historians disagreeing with his views and some accusing him of outright fabrication.



This is a lie.

Benny Morris states that he has "found no contemporary evidence to show that either the leaders of the Arab states or the Mufti ordered or directly encouraged the mass exodus during April [1948]. It may be worth noting that for decades the policy of the Palestinian Arab leaders had been to hold fast to the soil of Palestine and to resist the eviction and displacement of Arab communities".


forgive me but benny morris is a crackpot.see above


Similarly, Simha Flapan (the Israeli writer and politician) stated that:

"After April 1948, the flight acquired massive dimensions. Abd al-Rahman Azzam Pasha, secretary general of the Arab League, and King Abdullah both issued public calls to the Arabs not to leave their homes.

Fawzi al-Qawukji, commander of the Arab Liberation Army, gave instructions to stop the flight by force. The Arab government decided to allow entry only to women and children and to send back all men of military age (between eighteen and fifty). Mohammad Adib al-Umri, deputy director of Ramallah broadcasting station, appealed to the Arabs to stop the flight from Jenin, Tulkarm, and other towns in the Triangle that were bombed by the Israelis. On May 10, Radio Jerusalem broadcasted orders on its Arab program from Arab commanders and AHC to stop the mass flight from Jerusalem and the vicinity."

so you mean to say the jordnains didnt want the men to leave?i wonder whyt his is..... :rolleyes:



Hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages were destroyed and depopulated in Zionist ethnic cleansing.

proof?



Israel shoudn&#39;t even be in the OPTs.

It wouldnt&#39; be if they weren&#39;t always s being attacked.



The bigger fact is that it is not Israeli land.

It is a disputed territory that belongs to either Syria or Lebanon.

and now it belongs to neither. land does change hands you know.



Bullshit excuse.

The Nazis used similar excuses to justify their invasions and occupations.

you know the nazi accusatsion are really tiresom. plus no the nazis did not use tha as he reason. they said they needed resouces or land or whatever.




No.

Unfair peace settlements lead to war.

no

perception of an unfair peace settlemnet leads to war. thankfully having your country pounded into rubble has the effect making yout hink "thank god we&#39;re still alive" and a peace becomes much eaiser.



More than 400 Palestinian towns and villages were destroyed by Israel.

your constatn repetion of the "fact" :snicker: won&#39;t make it true.

Enragé
5th August 2006, 17:19
if they don&#39;t talk about natianlism its to tone down natioanlsim.

oh for fuck sake.
There barely is nationalism, nationalism is regarded widely to be something extremely fucked.

Nationalism ---&#62; superiority complex ----&#62; wars, genocides, murders.
etc etc.


america is a moderatley nationalist country. a hardcore natiaonlsit country would have laid waste to half he middle east and our tactics in iraq would be 500 times more brutal.

:huh: would it now?
america wasnt more brutal because if they were the whole world would hate them even more (as if thats even possible) and the resistance would be even harder.


you can&#39;t focus on something like that. I&#39;m sure netheralnds teaches about its war of indepnde from spain and how it all worked out (and its william of orange btw).

Its one extremely boring chapter of the history book i have ^^

yeh something like that
Willem I van Oranje-Nassau


of course not-the history of your nation is really a minor thing

Well thats not really true.

New York used to be New Amsterdam.
We used to rule the seas with the United East-India Company
We fought wars with britain on the sea and did pretty fucking well
We owned the slave-trade for a substantial amount
We owned Indonesia
we still have Aruba, Curacao, Bonaire, Suriname.

What did you do before the 20th century?
Hmm..you kicked out some british mercenaries
err
You killed some people mainly armed with bows and arrows
You killed eachother for a while
You chilled on the prairies
You had some religious revivals

thats it :lol:


pre-20th century
Netherlands > US

Its just that you focus so much on your "great" country that everyone thinks its the greatest in the world
which its not ^^

But lets not let this become some "OMG MY COUNTRY OWNS YOURS" thread :P

just to show that nationalism has nothing to do with actual achievement but with a concerted effort to engrain nationalism in the minds of the people.

Intifada
5th August 2006, 18:44
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:13 PM
yes but then again this is a different situatin.
Not really.

The Nazis wanted to get rid of all the Jews in what they saw as "Greater Germany", while the Zionists want/ed to get rid of all the Palestinians in what they see as their land.


the haganah was quite civilized, it stuck to military operatiosn. the far right groups were a bit more extreme but there was hardly a genocide planned.

The Haganah carried out terrorist attacks on British forces as well as against the Arab population.


except Morris here is a widely descreidted source with most historians disagreeing with his views and some accusing him of outright fabrication.

Morris is hardly pro-Palestinian.

Indeed he is the complete opposite of that.

He is a Zionist who believes that the Israelis should have done a proper job of removing all the Palestinians.


forgive me but benny morris is a crackpot.see above

Forgive me but such a response is hardly a response at all.

Refrain from such bullshit and for once in your whole time here at RevLeft make a constructive point that refutes the evidence I have provided.

In any case, I will add some more evidence, from different sources.

The fact is that Ben-Gurion, and the Zionists in general, supported “compulsory transfer”, something which is nowadays known as “ethnic cleansing”.

In a joint meeting between the Jewish Agency Executive and Zionist Action Committee on June 12th 1938, Ben-Gurion stated:

With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement]… I support compulsory transfer. I don&#39;t see anything immoral in it.

Moreover, let us take into account what Yitzhak Rabin, a man who would later become PM of Israel, wrote in his diary after the occupation of Lydda and al Ramla, in June 1948:

After attacking Lydda and then Ramla… What would we do with the 50 000 civilians living in the two cities… Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution… and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda&#39;s] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward.

Ben-Gurion would repeat the question: "What is to be done with the population?"

Waving his hand in a gesture he said: "Drive them out&#33;"

&#39;Driving out&#39; is a term with a harsh ring… Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook.

Israel’s first Minister of Education, Professor Ben-Zion Dinur echoed Ben-Gurion’s sentiments when he declared in 1954:

In our country there is room only for the Jews. We shall say to the Arabs: Get out&#33; If they don’t agree, if they resist, we shall drive them out by force.

Later, Rabin would underline the cruelty of the operation through the response of his soldiers. He stated during an interview with David Shipler from the New York Times on October 22, 1979:

Great suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in the eviction action. [They] included youth-movement graduates who had been inculcated with values such as international brotherhood and humaneness. The eviction action went beyond the concepts they were used to. There were some fellows who refused to take part… Prolonged propaganda activities were required after the action… to explain why we were obliged to undertake such a harsh and cruel action.

Israeli historians have recorded that there was indeed a clear Zionist objective to expel the indigenous non-Jewish Palestinian population in order to achieve “separation” (apartheid) between Jews and Arabs.

Benny Morris, for example, points out that:

Ben-Gurion clearly wanted as few Arabs as possible to remain in the Jewish state. He hoped to see them flee. He said as much to his colleagues and aides in meetings in August, September and October [1948].

However, this was never enunciated in any official written format outlining the general expulsion policy. Although “Ben-Gurion always refrained from issuing clear or written expulsion orders”, it is nevertheless true that:

He preferred that his generals ‘understand’ what he wanted done. He wished to avoid going down in history as the ‘great expeller’ and he did not want the Israeli government to be implicated in a morally questionable policy… But while there was no [written] ‘expulsion policy’, the July and October [1948] offensives were characterized by far more expulsions and, indeed, brutality towards Arab civilians than the first half of the war.

According to Israeli historian Simha Flapan:

That Ben-Gurion’s ultimate aim was to evacuate as much of the Arab population as possible from the Jewish state can hardly be doubted, if only from the variety of means he employed to achieve this purpose… most decisively, the destruction of whole villages and the eviction of their inhabitants… even [if] they had not participated in the war and had stayed in Israel hoping to live in peace and equality, as promised in the Declaration of Independence.

One operation, Plan Dalet (D), was indeed written by Zionist forces in March of 1948.

Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe, states that the plan:

Defined a very important principle: any Arab village or neighborhood that would not surrender to the Jewish forces, that would not raise the white flag, would be uprooted, destroyed and the people expelled.

Indeed, Tzvi Shiloah, a senior veteran of the Mapai Party and a former deputy mayor of the town of Hertzeliyah recalled that:

In 1948, we deliberately, and not just in the heat of war, expelled Arabs. Also in ’67, after the Six-Day War, we expelled many Arabs.

Not only were Palestinians deliberately expelled, their villages were destroyed so that they could never return.

During May of 1948, Zionists began contemplating ways of consolidating and making permanent the Palestinian exile.

Benny Morris notes that:

The destruction of villages was immediately perceived as a primary means of achieving this aim.

Indeed, Zionist forces carried out massacres of the indigenous population even earlier than May:

On 10 April, Haganah units took Abu Shusha… The village was destroyed that night… Khulda was leveled by Jewish bulldozers on April 20… Abu Zureiq was completely demolished… By mid-1949, the majority of the [depopulated Arab villages] were either completely or partly in ruins and uninhabitable.

Indeed, it was the dire conditions of the Palestinians who came under Zionist tutelage that formed the basis for the intervention of neighbouring Arab nations.

That the Zionists deliberately engineered the exodus of three quarters of a million Palestinians from their homes is a shameful fact.

Such a conclusion has been well documented by the Israeli military historian Aryeh Yitzhaki (Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Eretz Yisrael Studies at Bar Ilan University (Tel Aviv) and Senior Lecturer in Military History in IDF courses for army officers).

Yitzhaki is very much qualified in this area due to his in-depth acquaintance with IDF archives, on which his conclusions are based.

He observes that:

The time has come to face the ocean of lies in which we were brought up. In almost every conquered village in the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as indiscriminate killings, massacres and rapes.

For many Israelis it was easier to find consolation in the lie, that the Arabs left the country under orders from their leaders. This is an absolute fabrication. The fundamental cause of their flight was their fear from Israeli retribution and this fear was not at all imaginary.

From almost each report in the IDF archives concerning the conquest of Arab villages between May and July 1948 - when clashes with Arab villagers were the fiercest - a smell of massacre emanates. Sometimes the report tells about blatant massacres which were committed after the battle, sometimes the massacres are committed in the heat of battle and while the villages are ‘cleansed’. Some of my colleagues, such as Me’ir Pa’il, don’t consider such acts as massacres. In my opinion there is no other term for such acts than massacres. This was at the time the rule of the game.

In the first phase a village was usually subjected to heavy artillery from distance. Then soldiers would assault the village. After giving up resistance, the Arab fighters would withdraw while attempting to snipe at the advancing forces. Some would not flee and would remain in the village, mainly women and old people. In the course of cleansing we used to hit them. One was ‘tailing the fugitives’, as it used to be called (‘mezanvim baborchim’).

In a typical battle report about the conquest of a village we find: ‘We cleansed a village, shot in any direction where resistance was noticed. After the resistance ended, we also had to shoot people so that they would leave or who looked dangerous’.

This record of the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population is backed up by another Israeli military historian, Professor Uri Milstein. In fact, Milstein goes further than Yitzhaki in his conclusion of the Zionist massacres of Palestinians:

If Yitzhaki claims that in almost every village there were murders, then I maintain that even before the establishment of the State, each battle ended with a massacre. In all Israel’s wars, massacres were committed, but I have no doubt that the War of Independence was the dirtiest of them all.


[b]so you mean to say the jordnains didnt want the men to leave?i wonder whyt his is..... :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, you haven&#39;t provided any evidence at all to back up your claims...


It wouldnt&#39; be if they weren&#39;t always s being attacked.

When a people are occupied they will resist.

Until the illegal occupation ends the attacks will not cease.


and now it belongs to neither.

Says who?

The UN have a different approach to the matter.


perception of an unfair peace settlemnet leads to war. thankfully having your country pounded into rubble has the effect making yout hink "thank god we&#39;re still alive" and a peace becomes much eaiser.

So far it has not worked like so in Lebanon, where the whole Lebanese population, Druze, Christian or Sunni, pro-Syrian or anti-Syrian, supports Hezbollah&#39;s resistance against Israeli aggression.

Israeli strikes boost Hizbullah base (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html)

According to a poll released by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, 87 percent of Lebanese support Hizbullah&#39;s fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February. More striking, however, is the level of support for Hizbullah&#39;s resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis.


your constatn repetion of the "fact" :snicker: won&#39;t make it true.

List of Palestinian Localities destroyed after the creation of the State of Israel (1948) (http://www.iahushua.com/Zion/zionrac14.html)

theraven
7th August 2006, 11:41
Not really.

The Nazis wanted to get rid of all the Jews in what they saw as "Greater Germany", while the Zionists want/ed to get rid of all the Palestinians in what they see as their land.


you&#39;d think they&#39;d do it then...since they don&#39;t its a poor compariosn.





The Haganah carried out terrorist attacks on British forces as well as against the Arab population.

the haganh attacked military targets as well as batteled arabs. it did not attack innocnet civilians.



Morris is hardly pro-Palestinian.

Indeed he is the complete opposite of that.

He is a Zionist who believes that the Israelis should have done a proper job of removing all the Palestinians.

...except that he identifies himself as left wing and is a member of the revisionsit school of history. as is your other source. could you find some source thats NOT ridiculed by the whole communtiy of historians for being idiots?


Forgive me but such a response is hardly a response at all.

Refrain from such bullshit and for once in your whole time here at RevLeft make a constructive point that refutes the evidence I have provided.


thats like saying "jack here says your a murderer, he says he saw it" and my response is "but jacks blind" and you saying "don&#39;t avoid the charge of murder&#33;"


In any case, I will add some more evidence, from different sources.


lets see how they stand up...


The fact is that Ben-Gurion, and the Zionists in general, supported “compulsory transfer”, something which is nowadays known as “ethnic cleansing”.

ethnic clensing generaly involves mass murder, or at least thats the thought thats invoked. while i don&#39;t imagine he wnated to run out all the palesitanisn he probably would have been happy they left.


In a joint meeting between the Jewish Agency Executive and Zionist Action Committee on June 12th 1938, Ben-Gurion stated:

With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement]… I support compulsory transfer. I don&#39;t see anything immoral in it.

whers that from?


Moreover, let us take into account what Yitzhak Rabin, a man who would later become PM of Israel, wrote in his diary after the occupation of Lydda and al Ramla, in June 1948:

After attacking Lydda and then Ramla… What would we do with the 50 000 civilians living in the two cities… Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution… and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he [Ben-Gurion] remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda&#39;s] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward.

Ben-Gurion would repeat the question: "What is to be done with the population?"

Waving his hand in a gesture he said: "Drive them out&#33;"

&#39;Driving out&#39; is a term with a harsh ring… Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook.

indeed so whats your point. they were in a war. the villagers, that is all of them, openly sided with the enemy so israel drove them to the enemy. no mass murder, no rape it was a stratgeic nessicty and as evidnce by his ending remaks "pyshcolgilcy this was one of the most diffiuclt actiosn we undertook" it was a rare one. if the israelis were spending their days driving palestianisn from thier homes why would it be taxing to do those cities?



Israel’s first Minister of Education, Professor Ben-Zion Dinur echoed Ben-Gurion’s sentiments when he declared in 1954:

In our country there is room only for the Jews. We shall say to the Arabs: Get out&#33; If they don’t agree, if they resist, we shall drive them out by force.

he was the minister of education, not the prime minster or minsiter of defens.


Later, Rabin would underline the cruelty of the operation through the response of his soldiers. He stated during an interview with David Shipler from the New York Times on October 22, 1979:

Great suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in the eviction action. [They] included youth-movement graduates who had been inculcated with values such as international brotherhood and humaneness. The eviction action went beyond the concepts they were used to. There were some fellows who refused to take part… Prolonged propaganda activities were required after the action… to explain why we were obliged to undertake such a harsh and cruel action.


once again proving how unusual the actsion were.


Israeli historians have recorded that there was indeed a clear Zionist objective to expel the indigenous non-Jewish Palestinian population in order to achieve “separation” (apartheid) between Jews and Arabs.

advocating seperate states is not aparethid but nice try.


Benny Morris, for example, points out that:

Ben-Gurion clearly wanted as few Arabs as possible to remain in the Jewish state. He hoped to see them flee. He said as much to his colleagues and aides in meetings in August, September and October [1948].

you mean a zionsit wasn&#39;t fond of people who proabbly weren&#39;t fond of israel. thats a shocker.


However, this was never enunciated in any official written format outlining the general expulsion policy. Although “Ben-Gurion always refrained from issuing clear or written expulsion orders”, it is nevertheless true that:

He preferred that his generals ‘understand’ what he wanted done. He wished to avoid going down in history as the ‘great expeller’ and he did not want the Israeli government to be implicated in a morally questionable policy… But while there was no [written] ‘expulsion policy’, the July and October [1948] offensives were characterized by far more expulsions and, indeed, brutality towards Arab civilians than the first half of the war.


what does he base this on?


According to Israeli historian Simha Flapan:

That Ben-Gurion’s ultimate aim was to evacuate as much of the Arab population as possible from the Jewish state can hardly be doubted, if only from the variety of means he employed to achieve this purpose… most decisively, the destruction of whole villages and the eviction of their inhabitants… even [if] they had not participated in the war and had stayed in Israel hoping to live in peace and equality, as promised in the Declaration of Independence.


again what evidince does she provide?


One operation, Plan Dalet (D), was indeed written by Zionist forces in March of 1948.

Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe, states that the plan:

Defined a very important principle: any Arab village or neighborhood that would not surrender to the Jewish forces, that would not raise the white flag, would be uprooted, destroyed and the people expelled.


you mean during war israel would destroy towns that were supportive of the enemy? wow thats a shock no county ever does that



Indeed, Tzvi Shiloah, a senior veteran of the Mapai Party and a former deputy mayor of the town of Hertzeliyah recalled that:

In 1948, we deliberately, and not just in the heat of war, expelled Arabs. Also in ’67, after the Six-Day War, we expelled many Arabs.

Not only were Palestinians deliberately expelled, their villages were destroyed so that they could never return.

interasting and i wonder what the context of this was.


During May of 1948, Zionists began contemplating ways of consolidating and making permanent the Palestinian exile.


and who knew of these plans? what proof of thier existance is there?



Benny Morris notes that:

The destruction of villages was immediately perceived as a primary means of achieving this aim.

Indeed, Zionist forces carried out massacres of the indigenous population even earlier than May:

On 10 April, Haganah units took Abu Shusha… The village was destroyed that night… Khulda was leveled by Jewish bulldozers on April 20… Abu Zureiq was completely demolished… By mid-1949, the majority of the [depopulated Arab villages] were either completely or partly in ruins and uninhabitable.

Indeed, it was the dire conditions of the Palestinians who came under Zionist tutelage that formed the basis for the intervention of neighbouring Arab nations.

That the Zionists deliberately engineered the exodus of three quarters of a million Palestinians from their homes is a shameful fact.

Such a conclusion has been well documented by the Israeli military historian Aryeh Yitzhaki (Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Eretz Yisrael Studies at Bar Ilan University (Tel Aviv) and Senior Lecturer in Military History in IDF courses for army officers).

Yitzhaki is very much qualified in this area due to his in-depth acquaintance with IDF archives, on which his conclusions are based.

He observes that:

The time has come to face the ocean of lies in which we were brought up. In almost every conquered village in the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as indiscriminate killings, massacres and rapes.

For many Israelis it was easier to find consolation in the lie, that the Arabs left the country under orders from their leaders. This is an absolute fabrication. The fundamental cause of their flight was their fear from Israeli retribution and this fear was not at all imaginary.

From almost each report in the IDF archives concerning the conquest of Arab villages between May and July 1948 - when clashes with Arab villagers were the fiercest - a smell of massacre emanates. Sometimes the report tells about blatant massacres which were committed after the battle, sometimes the massacres are committed in the heat of battle and while the villages are ‘cleansed’. Some of my colleagues, such as Me’ir Pa’il, don’t consider such acts as massacres. In my opinion there is no other term for such acts than massacres. This was at the time the rule of the game.

In the first phase a village was usually subjected to heavy artillery from distance. Then soldiers would assault the village. After giving up resistance, the Arab fighters would withdraw while attempting to snipe at the advancing forces. Some would not flee and would remain in the village, mainly women and old people. In the course of cleansing we used to hit them. One was ‘tailing the fugitives’, as it used to be called (‘mezanvim baborchim’).

In a typical battle report about the conquest of a village we find: ‘We cleansed a village, shot in any direction where resistance was noticed. After the resistance ended, we also had to shoot people so that they would leave or who looked dangerous’.

This record of the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population is backed up by another Israeli military historian, Professor Uri Milstein. In fact, Milstein goes further than Yitzhaki in his conclusion of the Zionist massacres of Palestinians:

If Yitzhaki claims that in almost every village there were murders, then I maintain that even before the establishment of the State, each battle ended with a massacre. In all Israel’s wars, massacres were committed, but I have no doubt that the War of Independence was the dirtiest of them all.



I can see why this guy is attacke dby real historians. that read like a propagana piece not a historical article



When a people are occupied they will resist.

Until the illegal occupation ends the attacks will not cease.


and until the attacks end neither will the occupation.



Says who?

The UN have a different approach to the matter.

oh well the UN is not in charge now is it. israelt won the land in a defnesve war and it is a strategic nessicty since it would bea perfect spot to shell israel from.




So far it has not worked like so in Lebanon, where the whole Lebanese population, Druze, Christian or Sunni, pro-Syrian or anti-Syrian, supports Hezbollah&#39;s resistance against Israeli aggression.

Israeli strikes boost Hizbullah base

According to a poll released by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, 87 percent of Lebanese support Hizbullah&#39;s fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February. More striking, however, is the level of support for Hizbullah&#39;s resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis.

I am doubtful. I have lebanse freinds (from a summer camp, from highs chool and from college). all universally despise hezbollah. most are no big fans of israel but they hate Palestianisn mroe. one freind-from summer camp- put it this way (i am paraphrasing here-he didnt speak enlish very well) "If i could shoot a Palestianin or an Israel I would shoot the Paletianin because they cause the civil war in my country" and this guy is a muslim btw.

anyway i doubt any good poll ca be taken in lebanon now anyway.




List of Palestinian Localities destroyed after the creation of the State of Israel (1948)

once again this is a list of places destroye do r desrted during the war.

this is not proof that israel forced many arabs to leave tiher homes to estabslih a greater israel ro whatever you believ.e
newkindof solider


oh for fuck sake.
There barely is nationalism, nationalism is regarded widely to be something extremely fucked.

Nationalism ---&#62; superiority complex ----&#62; wars, genocides, murders.
etc etc.


exactly and where does this view come from? populatul culture and the educationl system.



huh.gif would it now?
america wasnt more brutal because if they were the whole world would hate them even more (as if thats even possible) and the resistance would be even harder.

we cuould probably break it, we however prefer t be nice as that acomlishses more



Its one extremely boring chapter of the history book i have ^^

yeh something like that
Willem I van Oranje-Nassau

yea i did the anglo version (his wife was queen of egnalnd


Well thats not really true.

New York used to be New Amsterdam.
We used to rule the seas with the United East-India Company
We fought wars with britain on the sea and did pretty fucking well
We owned the slave-trade for a substantial amount
We owned Indonesia
we still have Aruba, Curacao, Bonaire, Suriname.


when exactly did you rule the seas? 1700s? anyway yes netheldns did a lot of cool things? so what?


What did you do before the 20th century?
Hmm..you kicked out some british mercenaries
err
You killed some people mainly armed with bows and arrows
You killed eachother for a while
You chilled on the prairies
You had some religious revivals


we estabslihed the first (and most contious) republic on earth (first in over 2000 years anyway). we kciked out one of the worlds biggest empires, we then fought several wars, inclduing our first overseas venture (against the barbary pritates int he 1800s). we settled downa nd spent most of the next 80 years expanidng. we fought mexico breifly to get some lan dout west, and in less thne 100 years settled almsot all of the contitnal usa.

I confess its a bit boring but it oest make us not great.
thats it laugh.gif



pre-20th century
Netherlands > US

in some ways...


Its just that you focus so much on your "great" country that everyone thinks its the greatest in the world
which its not ^^


the US is not perfect, and some coutnire surpass it in one way ro another. , but overall it is the best on earth.

red team
7th August 2006, 12:09
Nationalism is a natural historic outgrowth of people of common culture and geography joining into an organization. In times of material scarcity and technical ignorance it was quite natural for have a "my nation right or wrong" attitude toward every other nation. What&#39;s the alternative in terms of costs to you if you don&#39;t go out and conquer the other fellow first, since material wealth being scarce and technology for making wealth limited the best alternative to secure a relatively better life would be for any nation to choose the conquest option. No use complaining about it now.

But now, there is a lot more in common with people sharing the same class across all ethnic boundaries than there are people sharing the same ethnicity among different classes. I have a lot more in common with somebody that speaks a different language and lives some place else, but works for a living as opposed to somebody which speaks a common language, but owns things for a living. There&#39;s more of a shared culture among workers of all ethnicities than there is among all classes of a common ethnicity. So what&#39;s my motivation for going off to war?

It will be like this situation for me, so why would I do it? What&#39;s my motivation?

http://www.worldsocialism.org/images/cartoons/conflict_.jpg