Middle East war

[Pontiakos]

DAMN THAT CLOWN! :fool:

 

[Krypton X]

Al-Qaida are losing in the ratings war with Hizbollah. Even though this war will probably be generating a lot more extremists, many of them won't think Osama's homeboys are so hot anymore.

Success by Hezbollah overshadows Al-Qaida

By Shibley Telhami



Suddenly, Al-Qaida feels upstaged. After months of waging a war of words with the Shiite Hezbollah, and after years of fighting a real war in Iraq against the very sect that Hezbollah represents, Al-Qaida has found itself a bit player in a drama that is capturing imaginations in the Middle East.

As the bruised Israeli army grudgingly admits that Hezbollah is putting up a much tougher fight than it expected in Lebanon, the group is becoming a regional icon. It is so popular right now that even as some Sunnis and Shiites kill each other daily in Iraq and even as Arab leaders express fears of growing Shiite power in the region, much of the Arab public -- Sunni, Shiite and secular -- and some Sunni leaders have announced support for Hezbollah.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, one of the strongest Sunni organizations in the Arab world, last week rejected a fatwa by a Saudi religious authority that prohibited helping Hezbollah. And the Sunni head of the Arab Lawyers Union said: "If Hezbollah is Shiite, if the struggle is Shiite, then we are all Shiite.''

It is, therefore, no surprise that Al-Qaida's powerful second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, tried Thursday to get in on the act. In a video, Zawahiri called for Muslims to join in a holy war against Israel. He is not likely to get much attention.
What was especially telling in Zawahiri's speech was that religious puritanism and sectarianism were no longer topics; instead he called on ``all the weak'' on earth to unite against ``injustice.'' Certainly, one reason for this shift was the apparent success of Hezbollah, which Sunni Al-Qaida had previously disdained for practicing a form of Islam it considers heretical. But there is another reason the group is sounding more inclusive: Although it is rarely talked about, in the nearly five years since Sept. 11, Al-Qaida's agenda has failed to capture many hearts and minds in the Arab world, even as anti-Americanism has grown.

In fact, last week's images were striking: At large demonstrations in the Arab world, many people were carrying pictures of Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah, celebrating him as a hero in ways that Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden never has been.

To be sure, Al-Qaida's threat remains significant, and the war in Iraq has proven a great recruiting tool. It's also clear that many Muslims opposed to the U.S. war in Iraq support the insurgency there, led in part by Al-Qaida. Still, the terrorist group has failed in its attempts to convince the region to embrace its worldview, which envisions a Taliban-like fanatical regime that transcends state boundaries and rules over Muslims worldwide.

The group hasn't given up on its original goal; Zawahiri asked Muslims to fight in Lebanon and Gaza until Islam reigns from Spain to Iraq. But this time he appeared to welcome Shiites into the fight, despite the fact that Al-Qaida operatives in Iraq continue to kill Shiites.
Al-Qaida's failure thus far to win many converts to its vision may seem to be paradoxical given recent trends. Polls done a year after the Iraq war started indicated that a plurality of Arabs in several states identified themselves as Muslims first rather than as citizens of a particular country. Over the past two years, meanwhile, Islamist parties in the Arab world scored big successes: the electoral victory of the Palestinian Hamas, the strong showing by the Muslim Brotherhood in the Egyptian elections, the victory of Islamist parties in Iraq, Hezbollah's success in winning seats in the legislature and Cabinet in Lebanon, and the recent rise in the power of Islamists in Somalia.
But a closer look at the strained relations between Al-Qaida and those newly empowered Islamist groups and a review of more recent polls provide evidence that neither Muslims' anger at the United States nor their support for more-religious governments equals approval for a super-Muslim state ready to do battle with the West or for a puritanical Taliban-like political order.

First the polls. Many Arabs probably identified themselves as Muslims first after the fall of Baghdad in part because the war on terrorism and the Iraq war were seen to be aimed at weakening the Muslim world, not because they wanted to join together under one government with other Muslims or because they embraced Al-Qaida.

A poll I conducted last year with Zogby International in six Arab countries supported that notion. Although many said they wanted religion to play a larger role in politics and wanted their governments replaced, they appeared to be thinking more locally than globally. The majority of people in those countries -- Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates -- said they want their government to do what's good for its citizens, not what's good for Muslims broadly.

In addition, last year's survey also showed a decline in the number of people who identify themselves as Muslims first and a rise in the number of those identifying with their state. In a poll Zogby and I conducted in 2004, a plurality of people identified themselves as Muslims first in four of six countries where we polled; in 2005, a plurality of people in four of the six countries identified themselves as citizens of their countries first.

We don't know for sure why the shift occurred, but it seems likely that people were terrified by both the anarchy that followed the dissolution of the Iraqi state and by the brutal tactics of Al-Qaida in Iraq under the leadership of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has since been killed by U.S. forces. Fellow Muslims may have rooted for Zarqawi to defeat the United States, but they probably could not envision his ruling over their children.

Even Al-Qaida's top leadership may have decided that Zarqawi was hurting the public's perception of the group. In a letter last summer that was never authenticated, Zawahiri advised Zarqawi and his devout Sunni supporters that the public beheadings and large-scale killings of Shiites would amount to ``action that the masses do not understand or approve.''
Last year's poll also directly shows little support for Al-Qaida's global goals. When asked what aspects of Al-Qaida they sympathized with most, if any, only 6 percent of Arabs polled identified its advocacy of a puritanical Islamic state, while 7 percent identified its methods. (A plurality identified Al-Qaida's fight with the United States as the strongest aspect.) This trend was confirmed in a recent Pew Global Attitudes Project poll, which showed that confidence in bin Laden has eroded in several Muslim countries in recent years -- in some cases dramatically.

Moreover, if Al-Qaida's imagined world is Taliban-like and virulently anti-Western, the vision is not shared by most in the Arab world. A majority of Arabs surveyed believe that women should have the right to work outside the home, either always or when economically needed, according to my 2005 poll. The vast majority identify Western European countries and even the United States, not Muslim Pakistan, as places where they want to live or have a family member study.

There is also increasing evidence that the recent political successes of Islamists in the Arab world have been primarily local phenomena -- not an embrace of Al-Qaida's agenda. In fact, Al-Qaida has gotten a chilly reception from several of the groups.

When Somalia's Islamists captured Mogadishu in June, bin Laden issued an audiotape that gave advice, including urging them to resist the deployment of foreign troops there. But the Somalis didn't appear to want his counsel. The former leader of the Islamists there, Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, said, ``Osama bin Laden is expressing his views like any other international figure. We are not concerned about it.''
When Sunni Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections in January, Arab headlines highlighted criticism by Zawahiri. The powerful Al-Qaida leader accused Hamas of adopting ``secularist'' rules by participating in an election that was an indirect offshoot of the Oslo Accords, which Al-Qaida deems illegitimate. Hamas' reaction was fast and strong. Representatives advised Al-Qaida to stay out, saying that Hamas was focused on local issues and that its vision of Islam is different.
Al-Qaida's relations with Hezbollah also have been troubled. Even before the current crisis, Hezbollah was popular in the Sunni Arab world, despite being Shiite, because of the widely held perception that its attacks drove Israel out of Lebanon several years ago. Despite that background, or maybe partly because of it, Zarqawi -- who led a bloody war against Iraq's Shiites -- criticized the organization and claimed that it was shielding Israel from attacks by preventing his organization from establishing bases there. In the past week, some Arab commentators have pointedly noted that Hezbollah has been far more effective, with a broader grass-roots base, than Al-Qaida has been.

All of this, of course, does not diminish the grave danger that Al-Qaida continues to pose to the United States and its allies, nor does it suggest that the terrorist group won't continue to attract many recruits who embrace its agenda. In fact, a new report by the British House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee finds that the threat of terrorism has increased as a consequence of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Americans should also be troubled that most Arabs surveyed now see the United States as one of the greatest threats to them (second only to Israel), in large part because of the Iraq war and the deep mistrust of U.S. intentions there, according to my poll with Zogby. In that sense, some have wanted to see the United States fail even more than they have wanted to see Iraq succeed; they worry about Iran, but they will root for it against Washington; and they fear Al-Qaida's world, but hope the group gives America a black eye.
This suggests that the current American challenge in the region is how to help shape outcomes, without making them seem part of an American imperial design. Yet the statements by the Bush administration in the first two weeks of the current crisis have played directly into regional fears. The reluctance to call for a quick cease-fire despite the massive damage and civilian casualties and statements about the suffering as being ``the birth pangs of a new Middle East'' have made many in the region conclude that the Lebanon war is America's war.
Seen from this perspective, Al-Qaida's failure does not translate into an American success.

 

[Jambo Den]

www.obsessionthemovie.com

 

[The_Knight]

Here's Hezbollah's politician branch peace proposal:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060729/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_peace_package

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hezbollah politicians, while expressing reservations, have joined their critics in the government in agreeing to a peace package that includes strengthening an international force in south Lebanon and disarming the guerrillas, the government said.

The agreement — reached after a heated six-hour Cabinet meeting — was the first time that Hezbollah has signed onto a proposal for ending the crisis that includes the deploying of international forces.

The package falls short of American and Israeli demands in that it calls for an immediate cease-fire before working out details of a force and includes other conditions.

But European Union officials said Friday the proposals form a basis for an agreement, increasing the pressure on the United States to call for a cease-fire.

President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday they too want an international force dispatched quickly to the Mideast but said any plan to end the fighting — to have a lasting effect — must address long-running regional disputes.

"This is a moment of intense conflict in the Middle East," Bush said after his meeting with Blair in Washington. "Yet our aim is to turn it into a moment of opportunity and a chance for broader change in the region."

By signing onto the peace proposals, Hezbollah gave Western-backed Prime Minister Fuad Saniora a boost in future negotiations.

Going into Thursday night's Cabinet session, Hezbollah's two ministers expressed deep reservations about the force and its mandate, fearing it could turn against their guerrillas.

"Will the international force be a deterrent one and used against who?" officials who attended the Cabinet meeting said in summing up Hezbollah cabinet ministers concerns. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the debate.

But afterward, Information Minister Ghazi Aridi announced that the package had been agreed on by consensus in a rare show of unity by a divided administration.

While all sides seemed to be looking for a way to stop the fighting, details of plans taking shape on all sides were still fuzzy. And it was not at all certain Hezbollah would really follow through on the Lebanese government plan that would effectively abolish the militants' military wing. It may have signed on to the deal convinced that Israel would reject it.

But the agreement presents Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with a package she might find hard to ignore when she returns to the region.

The plan approved by the Cabinet was an outline that Saniora presented at an international conference in Rome on Wednesday.

It starts out with an immediate cease-fire. Following that would come:

• the release of Lebanese and Israeli prisoners; Israeli withdrawal behind the border; the return of Lebanese displaced by the fighting.

• moves to resolve the status of Chebaa Farms, a small piece of land held by Israel and claimed by Lebanon. The proposal calls for the U.N. Security Council to commit to putting the area under U.N. control until a final demarcation of the border.

• the provision by Israel of maps of minefields laid during its 18-year occupation of the south.

• "the spreading of Lebanese government authority over the entire country," meaning the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south, with the strengthening and increasing of the small, lightly armed U.N. peacekeeping force currently there.

 

[Pontiakos]

Well this a move in the right direction. But honestly I don't see Israel releasing the prisoners.

 

[Bobby]

WAKE UP AMERİCA
YOU CANT BE SİLENT TO WHATS GOİNG ON ANYMORE. [/QUOTE]

You guys wanted us off Muslim lands, you're getting your wish.

 

[The_Knight]

I'm kinda sick of this "Terrorist" portrayal of Hezbollah. If these are terrorists, then what exactly is Israel?

Hezbollah rose in Lebanon during the Israeli occupation as special forces aimed at pushing Israel out of Lebanon. They mainly and primarily attacked Israeli military forces and pushed them almost out of the country in 2000, except for the Shebaa farms. A part Israel says belongs to Syria, which Syria itself denies.

Between 1967-2000, during this period, Israel massacred civilian populations, such as the 1996 bombardment of the United Nations compound in Qana; targetted Lebanon's infrastructure, including power plants and highways. Israel opened the notorious Khiam prison where hundreds of Lebanese were tortured and imprisoned for years without charge.

During its occupation of Lebanon, Israel detained hundreds of Lebanese, often times by crossing over the border and abducting them. To this day, Israel continues to detain a number of Lebanese.

Though Israel departed from southern Lebanon in 2000, it left over 130,000 land mines which have killed and injured countless children. Israel refuses to disclose the location of all of these mines.

These 130,000 mines have rendered the entire southern Lebanon useless, even worse, harmful. Impossible for people to live and prosper, talk about invest in any business. And til this day, Israel refuses to disclose the location of these mines.

And between year 2000-2006, after the Israeli withdrawal, here's what US media labelled as "terroristic anti civilian" attacks. Don't u hear about "rockets being fired a Israel" for 6 years? There you go:

This is from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is as biased as it can get:

Hizbullah attacks along Israel's northern border May 2000 - June 2006
The following is a chronological list of events along Israel's northern border in which Israeli civilians or soldiers were killed or wounded since May 2000:

27 May 2006 - An IDF soldier was wounded when Katyushas were fired at an army base at Mt. Meron in the upper Galilee.

21 Nov 2005 - An attempt to kidnap an IDF soldier was foiled when paratroopers patrolling near Rajar village discerned a Hizbullah unit approaching. Private David Markovitz opened fire, killing all four. In a heavy attack of mortars and Katyusha rockets that ensued, nine soldiers and and two civilians were injured. (<----that's how u define war collateral damage, not bombing a refugee camp)

29 June 2005 - More than 20 mortars were fired from across the border. Cpl. Uzi Peretz of the Golani Brigade was killed and four soldiers wounded, including the unit's doctor. Fire was exchanged and helicopters and planes attacked five Hizbullah outposts in the Reches Ramim area.

9 Jan 2005 - An explosive device was detonated against an IDF patrol at Nahal Sion. One Israeli soldier was killed, and a UN officer was killed.

20 July 2004 - Hizbullah sniper fired at an IDF post in the western sector of the Israeli-Lebanese border. Two IDF soldiers were killed.

7 May 2004 - Fire in the Mt. Dov sector. IDF soldier Dennis Leminov was killed, and two other soldiers were severely wounded. The IDF returned fire.

19 Jan 2004 - An anti-tank missile was fired at IDF D9 while neutralizing explosive charges near Zari’t. An IDF soldier, Yan Rotzenski, was killed and another soldier was severely wounded.

6 Oct 2003 - Staff Sgt. David Solomonov was killed when Hizbullah fired at an IDF force south of the Fatma Gate in the eastern sector. In addition, the Hizbullah fired missiles and rockets at an IDF post in the Reches Ramim area.

10 Aug 2003 - Haviv Dadon, 16, of Shlomi, was struck in the chest and killed by shrapnel from an anti-aircraft shell fired by Hizbullah terrorists in Lebanon. Four others were wounded.

20 Jul 2003 - Hizbullah snipers fired on an Israeli outpost near Shtula, killing two Israeli soldiers.

7 May 2003 - Hizbullah attacked IDF positions in the Sheba farms with heavy rocket, mortar, and small arms fire. One Israeli soldier was killed and five others were wounded in the attack.

29 Aug 2002 - Fire at an IDF post in the Mt. Dov sector. IDF soldier Ofer Misali was killed, and two other soldiers were lightly wounded.

12 Mar 2002 - Infiltration: In a shooting attack on the Shlomi- Metzuba route. Six Israelis civilians were killed, among them IDF officer Lt. German Rojkov.

14 Apr 2001 - Fire at an IDF post in the Mt. Dov sector. IDF soldier Elad Litvak was killed.

16 Feb 2001- Fire at an IDF convoy on Mt. Dov. IDF soldier Elad Shneor was killed, and three other soldiers were wounded.

26 Nov 2000 - A charge was detonated near an IDF convoy. IDF soldier Khalil Taher was killed and two other soldiers were wounded.

7 Oct 2000 - Kidnapping: Three IDF soldiers: Adi Avitan, Omer Soued and Binyamin Avraham were kidnapped by the Hizballah from the Mt. Dov sector.

It takes a powerful Israeli media machine to portray these attacks as 'terrorism against civilians". But wait, they already have this influence in US media. In all Israeli matters, solid facts crush the actual news portrayal.

I truly hope this all ends.

 

[The True]

Damn, I haven't been here for a long long time..
same old ****ty opinions, and narrow views.
Israel=bad. Arabs=good. Muslims=bad. Jew=good.
would you ******* get out of the box for a minute??

To me, at least, as someone who lives in Israel, the situation is pretty clear.
I can't stand the absurd of someone who lives in Sweden or any other country
which is TOTALLY unconnected with the situation,
got his opinion so solid, while basing it on TV and articles only.
absurd - but then again, that's the situation I guess...

what all the argument is about? Lebanon? Palestinian authonomy? what?
I'll get you step by step with my view, as someone who actually lives here.

1. Israel went out of Lebanon in '2000. not even one Israeli soldier left on Lebanon's ground. All according to the UN resolution, which also approved again that Israel has followd the reolution FULLY.

take this fact and add to it that Hizballah was announced worldwide as a terror organization. all facts so far? good...

Hizballah, with the back of Syria and Iran (and it was told not once or twice) have kept on attacking the Israeli border here and there. Israel have not reacted. again and again. and may I remind you that Israel have followed the UN resolution FULLY, what means those are attacks on Israeli land, just imagine that someone will attack your country's border... will you react? will you attack back? yep... you probably would. but Israel didn't.

After 6(!!) years of such "small" attacks, came a "big" one, with killing soldiers and kiddnaping 2 of them, once again - without ANY provocation from the Israeli side in 6 years!

Israel, as any country, have said: enough is enough! and went on striking back. something wrong here? I guess Israel should always be on the suffering side and never strike back, does it?

well, you might say - so far so good, but the Israeli strike is not propotional.
and here you might "forget" a small fact...
Hizaballah is equiped with Iranian and Syrian Missles... no kinder game at all...
imagine those kind of rockets and missles landing on you own house...
can you accept it? give me an honest answer...

just today - 200 (!!!) missles have stroke Israels' northern city's...
200! just today!

so "strike back" you'll might say, but do it against soldiers only.
well, here's the catch: Hizballah is a terror orginization,
it mingle with the citizens on purpose...
the missles are lounched, and in seconds they hide back among civillians.
the fire arms is hidden under house, hostpitals and schools...
now go and strike back against such a twisted mind... a hugh problem.

many many times Israel have not targeted the place where missles were launched from just to prevent a killing of civillians.
are you even getting the situation?
someone is targeting missles uppon you city, and you don't strike back
just because you don't want to target civillians!

Hizballah is a twisted, barbaric and fanatic terror orginization,
I hope that the Israeli govremeant will not accept any deal
untill Hizballah is on his knees and will stop targeting Israel.

2. The palestinian story is much more complicated then Lebanon.
billion words have been said on the issue,
and even I have said mine once or twich on those boards few years ago.
but as you lads are making it so simple, as I've mentioned,
not taking in mind the complicity of the issue,
I'll remind you that the Palestinian Terrorists are using the same methods,
firing rockets, and then hiding behind civillians and behind the UN.
once again - a tricky situation.
someone is shooting directly at you...
someone is launching rockets at your city,
it's not a ******* PC game, Israeli civillians are dieing... women & children...
what would you do?

take a quick look at this video, the site is a bit ectermist to my opinion
but the video showing palestinians launching rockets over Israel,
and then hide... where? you've guessed it...
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2006/07/un-spying-for-hezbollah.html

 

[Pontiakos]

Interesting.......I guess Israel is innocent then. They haven't done anything wrong or illegal. Thank God you enlightened us mate.


thanks for the info

 

[The_Knight]

Welcome back, The True

That was an amusing attempt to portray Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, as an act of "compliance to the UN resolution" Really amusing.

Don't think, or try to imply, for ONE SECOND, that Israel withdrew from Lebanon in compliance to some UN resolution 30 years ago. There are at least 65 UN resolutions against Israel, for which it couldn't care less. It withdrew because its military losses there were too huge to stay in this region. And it was hoping for some sort of political victory to gain from its illegitamite situation in Lebanon for decades.

Another interesting piece of information regarding the withdrawal: Israel left over 130,000 land mines which have killed and injured countless children. Israel refuses to disclose the location of all of these mines.

These 130,000 mines have rendered the entire southern Lebanon useless. Even worse, harmful. It has created a land where it is impossible for any group of people to live and prosper, talk about investment, throwing the whole economy of the region down the drain. Israel refuses to disclose the location of any of these 130,000 mines it left behind.

After its withdrawal, Israel refused to even negotiate on any of these points. Israel rejected any peace negotiations offered by Lebanon or Hezbollah. And the reason for this BULLYING was clear: It could step into Lebanon any time, any day, for any reason, and level down the entire country, in front of international eyes.

Let alone the Shabaa farms issue, which Syria itself says belongs to Lebanon.

And when u say "Hezbollah continued to fire rockets at Israel." Nice play on words, sounds "terroristic". Anyway, again, here are ur "terrorist"s targets: From ur Israeli Ministry of Foreign affairs, which is as biased as it could get:

Hizbullah attacks along Israel's northern border May 2000 - June 2006
The following is a chronological list of events along Israel's northern border in which Israeli civilians or soldiers were killed or wounded since May 2000:

27 May 2006 - An IDF soldier was wounded when Katyushas were fired at an army base at Mt. Meron in the upper Galilee.

21 Nov 2005 - An attempt to kidnap an IDF soldier was foiled when paratroopers patrolling near Rajar village discerned a Hizbullah unit approaching. Private David Markovitz opened fire, killing all four. In a heavy attack of mortars and Katyusha rockets that ensued, nine soldiers and and two civilians were injured. (<----that's how u define war collateral damage, not bombing a refugee camp)

29 June 2005 - More than 20 mortars were fired from across the border. Cpl. Uzi Peretz of the Golani Brigade was killed and four soldiers wounded, including the unit's doctor. Fire was exchanged and helicopters and planes attacked five Hizbullah outposts in the Reches Ramim area.

9 Jan 2005 - An explosive device was detonated against an IDF patrol at Nahal Sion. One Israeli soldier was killed, and a UN officer was killed.

20 July 2004 - Hizbullah sniper fired at an IDF post in the western sector of the Israeli-Lebanese border. Two IDF soldiers were killed.

7 May 2004 - Fire in the Mt. Dov sector. IDF soldier Dennis Leminov was killed, and two other soldiers were severely wounded. The IDF returned fire.

19 Jan 2004 - An anti-tank missile was fired at IDF D9 while neutralizing explosive charges near Zari’t. An IDF soldier, Yan Rotzenski, was killed and another soldier was severely wounded.

6 Oct 2003 - Staff Sgt. David Solomonov was killed when Hizbullah fired at an IDF force south of the Fatma Gate in the eastern sector. In addition, the Hizbullah fired missiles and rockets at an IDF post in the Reches Ramim area.

10 Aug 2003 - Haviv Dadon, 16, of Shlomi, was struck in the chest and killed by shrapnel from an anti-aircraft shell fired by Hizbullah terrorists in Lebanon. Four others were wounded.

20 Jul 2003 - Hizbullah snipers fired on an Israeli outpost near Shtula, killing two Israeli soldiers.

7 May 2003 - Hizbullah attacked IDF positions in the Sheba farms with heavy rocket, mortar, and small arms fire. One Israeli soldier was killed and five others were wounded in the attack.

29 Aug 2002 - Fire at an IDF post in the Mt. Dov sector. IDF soldier Ofer Misali was killed, and two other soldiers were lightly wounded.

12 Mar 2002 - Infiltration: In a shooting attack on the Shlomi- Metzuba route. Six Israelis civilians were killed, among them IDF officer Lt. German Rojkov.

14 Apr 2001 - Fire at an IDF post in the Mt. Dov sector. IDF soldier Elad Litvak was killed.

16 Feb 2001- Fire at an IDF convoy on Mt. Dov. IDF soldier Elad Shneor was killed, and three other soldiers were wounded.

26 Nov 2000 - A charge was detonated near an IDF convoy. IDF soldier Khalil Taher was killed and two other soldiers were wounded.

7 Oct 2000 - Kidnapping: Three IDF soldiers: Adi Avitan, Omer Soued and Binyamin Avraham were kidnapped by the Hizballah from the Mt. Dov sector.

Do you really need to compare those to Israel's missiling and rocketing? Really? Still want to take another pass on the whole "terrorists" thing?

Do you need to see the Israeli civilian massacres in Lebanon this past week? past month? How about during the Israeli occupation of Lebanon?

Welcome back

 

[RobbieD_PL]

Hizbollah rocket reprisals hit West Bank @ EuroNews

 

[The_Knight]

From that site:

In a statement issued in Lebanon, Hizbollah said it had stepped up attacks 'after the enemy went too far in targeting civilians'.

It's wrong, I can't possibly say it isn't. However, when Israel -with all its modern warefare accuracy- kills over 450 civlians in 14 days, out of a total of around 560 Labanese killed, 45% children, you can easily see behind that.

And note, Hezbollah's previous purely military targeting, IN SPITE of having the least accurate weapons in the region, over the past 6 years.

So, nice justication. I guess Israel should now use the A bomb.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/30072006/325/israeli-air-strike-kills-54-civilians.html

Israeli civilian massacring in Lebanon is so common, sometimes u have the exact 2 events occurring at the same village, with different timelines.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1833917,00.html

An airstrike on the Lebanese village of Qana killed more than 60 people, including 34 children. At a stroke, Israel's armed forces destroyed almost as many Lebanese lives as the total number of Israelis who have died since this conflict began nearly three weeks ago. To underline the senselessness, 10 years ago Qana was the victim of another bombardment. In April 1996, 102 people sheltering in a UN compound there were killed by a barrage that an Amnesty International report later described as deliberate. Ten years apart, identical justifications were advanced....

Israel had the word 'war crimes' removed from its dictionary decades ago.

 

[Bobby]

do the Jewish owned Mass Media of England know...............................

BBC = State controlled, propped up by public money.
SKY = A NewsCorp company, NewsCorp is chaired by Australian-born American Rupert Murdoch, who is not Jewish.

Yea, Jewish controlled.

Just admit it, you're racist.

The spin? It stops right here. Because I'm looking out for the truth.

 

[Rob]

BBC = State controlled, propped up by public money.
SKY = A NewsCorp company, NewsCorp is chaired by Australian-born American Rupert Murdoch, who is not Jewish.

Yea, Jewish controlled.

Just admit it, you're racist.

The spin? It stops right here. Because I'm looking out for the truth.

Welcome, To the no spin zone

 

[Jambo Den]

Oh and Pontiakos, please refrain from being a popinjay.

What say you pinhead?

 

[The True]

The Knight, it doesn't matter why Israel have left Lebanon,
the fact is the it has left, following the UN resolution FULLY.
for that matter you can remind all of us
why did Israel entered south Lebanon for the first place?
oh yeh... as the PLO have stroke Israel cities
from... hmmm southern Lebanon.

You're trying to paint Israel in all black colors,
try to claim the Israel got a weird hunger to
occupide (arabs) land... and that's just lame.

trust me, I have a wife and a daulghter,
nobody wants, did or will want to fight.
We, as a people, as a country, always searching
for the path to peace, and live safely,
making large concession and still suffering terror acts.
what do you think, that I'm bored?
that I wake up every morning thinking
yeh - we should occupied this and that?
I can't care less...
wake up, the world is not black and white.

BUT Israel as a country, and it's people
will not tolerate such attacks this much,
theres a limit to every sh*t.

More then that, you've stated that Israel have
refused to peace offers from Lebanon and Hizballah,
and that's one of the funniest things ever,
and I don't want to use the term "lie"...
first of all, Lebanon is not in a power stand to make peace
it still controlled by Syria, which BTW just redraw her soldiers
from lebanon just few months ago...
another fact wich have probably slipped your mind.

following the fact that Syria is controlling Lebanon,
Israel HAVE made peace talks with Syria
and was willing to give Syria the Golan Heights
and much more... too much for my opinion,
but Hafez El Asad wanted too much
and it ended without results. several times.

the second thing you've said was about peace talks
with the Hizballah... even funnier.
who the f*ck is Hizballah??
will the US get into peace talks with El Quida??
Hizballah is formally a terror orginization worldwide,
and you do not talk peace with terrorist,
you do talk peace with countries, strong countries
such that can sign and stand behind the agreement,
such as Egypt and Jordan,
the kind that want to live in peace,
and not the kind that it's ground rules says
that it's main purpose is to earse Israel from the ground.
got it?
so no case for you there.

as for the user who was
talking sh*t about jews control the media
and that kind of cr*p, just remind me even more
that the jewish people have no other place on earth then Israel,
where they are incharge for their own destiny.
cause damn, I wouln't want to live nearby a dude like you
with your anticemic and dark-aged opinions...
you need to find where the problem is,
it might be in the education system,
or with the education you've got at home,
cause you've really got some issues.

 

[Rob]

The Knight, it doesn't matter why Israel have left Lebanon,
the fact is the it has left, following the UN resolution FULLY.
for that matter you can remind all of us
why did Israel entered south Lebanon for the first place?
oh yeh... as the PLO have stroke Israel cities
from... hmmm southern Lebanon.

You're trying to paint Israel in all black colors,
try to claim the Israel got a weird hunger to
occupide (arabs) land... and that's just lame.

trust me, I have a wife and a daulghter,
nobody wants, did or will want to fight.
We, as a people, as a country, always searching
for the path to peace, and live safely,
making large concession and still suffering terror acts.
what do you think, that I'm bored?
that I wake up every morning thinking
yeh - we should occupied this and that?
I can't care less...
wake up, the world is not black and white.

BUT Israel as a country, and it's people
will not tolerate such attacks this much,
theres a limit to every sh*t.

More then that, you've stated that Israel have
refused to peace offers from Lebanon and Hizballah,
and that's one of the funniest things ever,
and I don't want to use the term "lie"...
first of all, Lebanon is not in a power stand to make peace
it still controlled by Syria, which BTW just redraw her soldiers
from lebanon just few months ago...
another fact wich have probably slipped your mind.

following the fact that Syria is controlling Lebanon,
Israel HAVE made peace talks with Syria
and was willing to give Syria the Golan Heights
and much more... too much for my opinion,
but Hafez El Asad wanted too much
and it ended without results. several times.

the second thing you've said was about peace talks
with the Hizballah... even funnier.
who the f*ck is Hizballah??
will the US get into peace talks with El Quida??
Hizballah is formally a terror orginization worldwide,
and you do not talk peace with terrorist,
you do talk peace with countries, strong countries
such that can sign and stand behind the agreement,
such as Egypt and Jordan,
the kind that want to live in peace,
and not the kind that it's ground rules says
that it's main purpose is to earse Israel from the ground.
got it?
so no case for you there.

as for the user who was
talking sh*t about jews control the media
and that kind of cr*p, just remind me even more
that the jewish people have no other place on earth then Israel,
where they are incharge for their own destiny.
cause damn, I wouln't want to live nearby a dude like you
with your anticemic and dark-aged opinions...
you need to find where the problem is,
it might be in the education system,
or with the education you've got at home,
cause you've really got some issues.

Top post.

 

[The_Knight]

Listen The True, for Israel to secure its illegal establishment, it came up with the idea of 'Safe borders'. As in occupying parts of the lands surrounding it, for more safety.

However, as in Egypt, when this occupied land has been given back in exchange to a peace treaty, then the same "safe borders" are preserved but with people's rights given back.

However, the peace treaty didn't surface in Egypt out of plain negotiations. For instance, Israel occupied Sinai -an Egyptian penisula- in 1967. For 4 years, Egypt tried all channels in diplomacy to resolve the situation. Israel, having the victorious upper hand, refused any concessions. All peace offers were out. Diplomacy---> failed.

Israel built what's known as 'The Barlev Wall' seperating Sinai from the remainder of Egypt.
This "Barlev line" consisted of:

1) The Suez canal. The world's largest, widest man-made water barrier, connecting the west and east hemispheres of the planet.
2) A 25 meters high piles of sand berms by an angle of more than 45 degrees.
3) Pipelines running down to the Suez canal, carrying inflamable oil, ready to ignite and turn the entire canal into a flaming sea of fire with a push of a button, in case the Egyptians attempt to cross it.
4) 22 fortified positions, embodying 31 strong points, each covering about 40,000 square meters. Each above and below sea level.

This Barlev line was said to have cost Israelis around $238 million.
It is said to be the strongest man-made war barrier in modern history.
Russian experts said only a nuclear bomb could breach it.

All Egyptian peace offers and diplomacy were at dead end, and Egyptians were told to forget it. And Israel, being the bully it was, rejected all talks.

However, in October 1973, the Egyptian Armed Forces were able to cross the canal, occupy the entire Barlev line, with all its fortified positions, and hold their positions around 30-200 miles deep into Sinai, along the entire length of the canal. This war is being taught till this very day at every American Military Academy.

After this, Israel was -not suprisingly- suddenly willing to go into peace negotiation talks with Egypt. And Egyptian President, Anwar Al-Sadat, went himself to Israel, being the 1st Arab President to ever do that, to start the negotiations with Israel.

And thru step by step withdrawals, every Egyptian inch in Sinai Peninsula - over 20,000 square miles of Egyptian territory east of the Suez Canal, was retreived.

Now regardless of what u think of this war, you cannot attribute Israel's willingness for a peace treaty alone to Egypt being "A stong country with a reliable President.".

You cannot attribute Israel's willingness to negotiate for a Peace Treaty to President Sadat's personality alone, to his vision for his people, to his sincere wishes in establishing Peace.

You also have to note the dramatic change in the tone of the Israelis from before, to after the war, concerning negotiations and Peace talks.
'Sadat' before, was the same 'Sadat' after. The only difference was, the battlefield rules have drastically changed. As Sadat put it in his final speech, "This was a war, for peace to prevail".

Israel wasn't willing to make Peace with Lebanon, because Hezbollah isn't reliable? Maybe. But again, do u blame Hezbollah for their reluctance to disarm BEFORE a peace treaty? Where are its garuntees? At any given moment, as seen these days, Israel could step into the country, any day, and level it all down throwing the word "war crimes" out of its dictionary.

As a matter of fact, Hezbollah/Lebanon have offered multiple peace offerings to Israel. These times are much more different than the 1960s. Arab countries are willing to make peace in return to the 1967 borders and go on with their lives.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060729/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_peace_package

If history has proven anything, it's that Israel won't take a Peace treaty unless forced to. And since u brought up Syria, Israel will never give up the Golan Heights, regardless any peace talks, due to their military strategic significance. And because if anything, Syria was the biggest loser of the October war in 1973.

And nice try associating Hezbollah with Al-Qaeda. US media has been trying to establish this in people's minds for quite a long time. You and I know that Hezbollah IS a legit resistance group that rose in Lebanon during Israel's bloody 22 years of occupation in Lebanon, with special forces aimed at pushing the Israelis off this land. Which they did accomplish to a certain extent. And they have been attacking purely military targets in Israel and Shabaa farms for the past 6 years which is nothing like what a terrorist organization like al-Qaeda would do.

Anyway, again, even if Hezbollah is gone. Rejection of Israeli injustice will spring in other forms. They always did and always will.
Whether atheists, deists, or plain simple believers in anything, that's not the problem. The root of the problem is in the injustice.
No justice no peace.

 

[rhizome17]

Well while everyone talks religion, terrorism, who can have an opinion and who can't, they've missed the bigger picture. An organisation doesn't become a 'terrorist' organisation overnight - to even try and draw a comparison between Al Queda and Hizbollah is laughable.

But enough with the small stuff. The real question is this: why has Saudi Arabia supported Israel in this affair? This has nothing to do with Jews, Muslims, or whatever definition of terrorism you happen to be seduced by. Do some research on the pipelines running around the region, who controls them, where they are currently 'inactive' and what (and where) they are capable of transporting oil to. And check out where the piplines are, and compare that with the regions israel have focused their attacks.

This whole thing has very little to do with Hizbollah, other than as a proxy of Iran. Sure they want to be rid of Hizbollah, but not because of the rockets being sent towards haifa. Thats just the smokescreen for a far bigger game. The same game that led to the occupation of Afghanistan, the same game that led to the invasion of Iraq.

Again, the question is worth osing - why the House of Saud are so keen to line up with israel.

Thats where the answers are.

 

[The_Knight]

You're bringing up a very unusual point in this discussion, maybe the real point everybody should be talking about. The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil.

Here's an article that sums up the main linked points in the current events.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060726&articleId=2824

The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil.

Is there a relationship between the bombing of Lebanon and the inauguration of the World's largest strategic pipeline, which will channel more than a million barrels of oil a day to Western markets?

Virtually unnoticed, the inauguration of the Ceyhan-Tblisi-Baku (BTC) oil pipeline, which links the Caspian sea to the Eastern Mediterranean, took place on the 13th of July, at the very outset of the Israeli sponsored bombings of Lebanon.

One day before the Israeli air strikes, the main partners and shareholders of the BTC pipeline project, including several heads of State and oil company executives were in attendance at the port of Ceyhan. They were then rushed off for an inauguration reception in Istanbul, hosted by Turkey's President Ahmet Necdet Sezer in the plush surroundings of the Çýraðan Palace.....

Prior to the bombing of Lebanon, Israel and Turkey had announced the underwater pipeline routes, which bypassed Syria and Lebanon. These underwater pipeline routes do not overtly encroach on the territorial sovereignty of Lebanon and Syria.

On the other hand, the development of alternative land based corridors (for oil and water) through Lebanon and Syria would require Israeli-Turkish territorial control over the Eastern Mediterranean coastline through Lebanon and Syria.

The implementation of a land-based corridor, as opposed to the underwater pipeline project, would require the militarisation of the East Mediterranean coastline, extending from the port of Ceyhan across Syria and Lebanon to the Lebanese-Israeli border.

Is this not one of the hidden objectives of the war on Lebanon? Open up a space which enables Israel to control a vast territory extending from the Lebanese border through Syria to Turkey.

"The Long War"

Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert has stated that the Israeli offensive against Lebanon would "last a very long time". Meanwhile, the US has speeded up weapons shipments to Israel.

There are strategic objectives underlying the "Long War" which are tied to oil and oil pipelines.

The air campaign against Lebanon is inextricably related to US-Israeli strategic objectives in the broader Middle East including Syria and Iran. In recent developments, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice stated that the main purpose of her mission to the Middle East was not to push for a ceasefire in Lebanon, but rather to isolate Syria and Iran. (Daily Telegraph, 22 July 2006)

At this particular juncture, the replenishing of Israeli stockpiles of US produced WMDs points to an escalation of the war both within and beyond the borders of Lebanon.