[quote]dannyrat wrote:
eic wrote:
since this is not a conventional conflict, many of the casualties reported as “civilians” are no doubt members of Hezbollah. Remember that Israel is not attacking people who have enough decency to wear uniforms. Israel is attacking terrorists who are virutally indistinguishable–intetionally so–from the true civilian population. We know this because 19 “civilians” boarded our planes on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. So when Israel kills “civilians,” you might wonder how many of those are terrorist thugs and how many are truly–and unfortunately–innocent men, women, and children.
The UN has been screaming it’s head off about Darfur also. But nobody is listening.
The UN isn’t a do-organisation. It’s a talk-organisation. And that’s how it should be. But if Israel doesn’t want to listen and if the US is supporting them every way, what can you expect?
Unconditional support. Anything else would have taken some political courage and there’s none of that in the white house atm.
Good points. EIC- If Israel wants to have th emoral high ground- It should engage the Hezbollah just how hezbollah fight- sneaky and dirty. That will take patience and planning.
By bombing people you accept look just like civilians, and live in places where civilians live, etc etc, You are waiting to be called a cunt. And for every mother that dies, 5 boys will join the ‘struggle’. So don’t be stupid.
Remember also the shift in public image for Nelson Mandela. He did evil things in the name of a good cause. He was a terrorist. But he helped undermine apartheid. I’ve seen many similarities between apartheid and zionism. If you want, soberly ask and i’ll list them
What you need to comprehend is that Israel has chosen this war, which will never end. It was warned pre=balfour declaration. It suffered some losses in 1947. It has every few years had to do evil things to many many civilians, just to justify its incongruent position in the arab world. If it had not depicted Arafat as a terrorist, and undermined him, or dealt with Sadat before he died, there might have been compromise- for peace.
Any of you read ‘the prince’?
Here’s a point i feel is pertinent, that Israel just can’t get/carry out- “Either kill a man dead or leave him alone. He can avenge a partial injury, but not a fatal one”
They are continually partially wounding, spanking the shabby dogs of the mideast, these dogs aren’t equipped to fight back legitimately in open war, so they will continue to revenge through inscrutable means[/quote]
Don’t try and pretend that you can understand Israel’s position. Ask yourself something: How did Sadat die? He was shot by extremist Muslims because he was willing to work peace with Israel and Israel accepted him.
Arafat was a piece of shit who deserved to suffer before he died like he did. He talked peace in front of your cameras then handed terrorists a suitcase full of money when the cameras were off. Unfortunately, a goodly portion of Americans and virtually every Frenchman doesn’t understand how this game is played.
Believe me, Israel would have no problem dealing the problematic Arab Muslims a “fatal blow” if it wasn’t for outside interests getting in the way. The UN is one example. Another example is the United States when a democratic president is in office. When a Republican is in office, it’s unconditional support for Israel (as it should be). When Billy was in office, Israel’s hands were tied.
Eventually ALL of America will come to realize that Israel is fighting the same enemy that America is in Afgahnistan and Iraq: Muslim terrorists. People are up in arms because we went into Iraq when we didn’t even have a photo of Saddam sucking Osama’s dick. What those people fail to realize is that Islamic terrorists–and the dollars that fund them–are fungible.
At a fundamental level an Islamic terrorist in Afghanistan and an Islamic terrorist in Syria or where ever all want the same things: Death to the West and death to the Jews. That common ground keeps them cooperating with each other in a more general sense. They don’t need to be shaking hands for them to be allied. Saddam gave money to terrorists that support the same agenda as Al Qaeda; does it really matter that we can’t find the smoking gun between him and Al Qaeda. What the fuck is the difference between a Muslim in a mask with an AK-47 and an RPG wearing an “Al-Qaeda” t-shirt and a Muslim in a mask with an AK-47 and an RPG wearing an “Al-Aqsa Martyr’s Bergade”/“Hezbollah”/“Hamas”/“Islamic Jihad” t-shirt?
Also, if you’ve looked at a map of the region, you’ll see that Iran is smack dab in the middle of Iraq in the west and Afghanistan in the east. Much like a C-clamp squeezes what is between it, you could easily see that Bush’s strategy is to put political and social pressure on Iran by establishing democracies on its eastern and western borders. Remember that Iran became the religiously dominated oligarchy it is today because of popular revolution in the 1970s. Since it would be extremely difficult to send tanks rolling into Tehran anytime soon, perhaps the Bush Administration was hoping that the Iraq War might incite a democratic revolution in Iraq. Of course why believe that when it is much more plausible to accept that we are there for “oil” and to help Haliburton with business.*
*This last statement tainted with sarcasm.
