15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 05:43 pm
OE said...
Quote:
What really shocks me though is that you, McGentrix and mysteryman don't seem to have any problem at all with ican's statement - and rather think they have to defend him in the face of the racist garbage he posted here.


First of all,I am not defending the statement,because I hadnt read it till now.
So,please show me ANYWHERE that I defended the statement.

Having said that,the statement is despicable,and I cannot and will not defend or support it.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 06:01 pm
mysteryman wrote:
OE said...
Quote:
What really shocks me though is that you, McGentrix and mysteryman don't seem to have any problem at all with ican's statement - and rather think they have to defend him in the face of the racist garbage he posted here.


First of all,I am not defending the statement,because I hadnt read it till now.
So,please show me ANYWHERE that I defended the statement.

Having said that,the statement is despicable,and I cannot and will not defend or support it.


mysteryman,

I assumed you had read the statement, as you appeared to be criticising Cycloptichorn's reaction to that post by ican.

To me, it sounded as if you were defending ican's post, but I admit that you may have simply posted in reaction to Cyc without reading the previous posts, and you did neither repeat nor explicitly endorse ican's statement.

I am very glad indeed to read that you don't associate yourself with something like that. To a small, but noticeable degree, it restores some of the faith I tend to have in fellow human beings. And I'm being very serious here.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 06:25 pm
old europe wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
OE said...
Quote:
What really shocks me though is that you, McGentrix and mysteryman don't seem to have any problem at all with ican's statement - and rather think they have to defend him in the face of the racist garbage he posted here.


First of all,I am not defending the statement,because I hadnt read it till now.
So,please show me ANYWHERE that I defended the statement.

Having said that,the statement is despicable,and I cannot and will not defend or support it.


mysteryman,

I assumed you had read the statement, as you appeared to be criticising Cycloptichorn's reaction to that post by ican.

To me, it sounded as if you were defending ican's post, but I admit that you may have simply posted in reaction to Cyc without reading the previous posts, and you did neither repeat nor explicitly endorse ican's statement.

I am very glad indeed to read that you don't associate yourself with something like that. To a small, but noticeable degree, it restores some of the faith I tend to have in fellow human beings. And I'm being very serious here.


I was responding to Cyclo's post,thats all.
I tend to scroll past most of what ican writes,because there is very little of it that even makes sense to me.

I do however,stand by the question I asked.

If you remove your emotions from the discussion,how many of the agreements Israel has made with the Palestinians have been followed with attacks on the Israeli's by the Palestinians?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 06:57 pm
I haven't defended the statement either as I wouldn't make such a statement except in a rhetorical context which is what Ican may or may not have done. He can defend himself there. I only objected to the statement being labeled racist when it isn't and being reworded to make it look like it says something that it doesn't.

Quote:
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
It was not advocating genocide of anybody. It was simply stating a reality as one member saw it.


Saying "The Palestinian Arabs will finally get some peace only after they exterminate all the Jews" is advocating genocide and racist.

Saying "The Israelis will finally get some peace only after they exterminate all the Palestinian Arabs" is advocating genocide and racist.


It may be "a reality as somebody sees it", but it is a point of view that includes the advocation of genocide and racism. Calling this a "statement of fact" is the equivalence of putting lipstick on a pig.


Both statements are statements of fact. Neither is a suggestion that it should be done or would be a good thing if it was done or should even be considered. Therefore neither advocates anything.

Other examples:

We can provide everybody with healthcare by doubling everybody's taxes.

We can eliminate the necessity for traffic enforcement by doing away with all traffic laws.

A few well placed nuclear bombs will take care of the Iranian nuke program.

We can eliminate poverty at least in the short term by sending everybody below a certain income to Mars.

Every one of these is a true statement and in no way advocates that any of these things would be a good thing to do or should even be ocnsidered.

The two statements re Palestinians and Israelis are outrageous, yes, but racist? No. Advocacy? No.

Quote:
Arguing that other people have said things about Israel that you don't like doesn't change ican's statement one bit.


I don't believe that I said that it did.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 06:57 pm
I haven't defended the statement either as I wouldn't make such a statement except in a rhetorical context which is what Ican may or may not have done. He can defend himself there. I only objected to the statement being labeled racist when it isn't and being reworded to make it look like it says something that it doesn't.

Quote:
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
It was not advocating genocide of anybody. It was simply stating a reality as one member saw it.


Saying "The Palestinian Arabs will finally get some peace only after they exterminate all the Jews" is advocating genocide and racist.

Saying "The Israelis will finally get some peace only after they exterminate all the Palestinian Arabs" is advocating genocide and racist.


It may be "a reality as somebody sees it", but it is a point of view that includes the advocation of genocide and racism. Calling this a "statement of fact" is the equivalence of putting lipstick on a pig.


Both statements are statements of fact. Neither is a suggestion that it should be done or would be a good thing if it was done or should even be considered. Therefore neither advocates anything.

Other examples:

We can provide everybody with healthcare by doubling everybody's taxes.

We can eliminate the necessity for traffic enforcement by doing away with all traffic laws.

A few well placed nuclear bombs will take care of the Iranian nuke program.

We can eliminate poverty at least in the short term by sending everybody below a certain income to Mars.

Every one of these is a true statement and in no way advocates that any of these things would be a good thing to do or should even be ocnsidered.

The two statements re Palestinians and Israelis are extreme, yes, but racist? No. Advocacy? No. Accurate? Yes in the sense that they would be one solution albeit a bad one. No as per my previous point that I don't think that is the only way that peace can be achieved between the Palestinians and Israelis.

Quote:
Arguing that other people have said things about Israel that you don't like doesn't change ican's statement one bit.


I don't believe that I said that it did.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 07:55 pm
Please, they are statements of opinion, not fact.

I think that the Pal people want peace. However, they are influenced and ruled by war-pimp mullahs and politicians.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Jan, 2007 07:58 am
Advocate wrote:
Please, they are statements of opinion, not fact.

I think that the Pal people want peace. However, they are influenced and ruled by war-pimp mullahs and politicians.


But logically they are facts. If there are no Palestinians there is no contention between Israelis and Palestinians. If there are no Israelis, there is no contention between Palestinians and Israelis. Etc. etc. etc. re the other examples cited.

Stating a fact in an extreme manner still does not make it advocacy, however.

I agree that most Palestinians want peace. Most Israelis want peace. Palestinian leaders, however, give little or no indication that they want peace with Israel.

Again the reasonable solution is for the Palestinian leaders/government to officially declare a policy of peace with Israel, disavow all declarations that Israel should be destroyed/removed/exterminated, and do whatever has to be done to stop the kidnappings, rocket attacks, suicide bombers, etc. etc.

When that happens, I believe peace happens.

If Israel then initates attacks that are not provoked by deadly violence, I will join the others in condemning Israel for such attacks. If the peace holds for a reasonable time, and Israel still practices unacceptable discriminatory policies toward any Palestinian residents of Israel, I will join the others in condemning Israel for such policies.

And it may or may not be telling that Ican is condemned for stating the obvious and who did not advocate that Israel or Palestine be exterminated while there is little or no anger or criticism directed at Palestinian leaders who are on the record and have openly declared their intentions to wipe Israel off the face of the map.

At this time I cannot fault Israel for not rewarding terrorist murderers and for doing what it must to survive.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Jan, 2007 09:59 am
There has never been a problem relative to Israel's treatment of Pal Israelis. They are treated perfectly well, and are better off in general than Muslims in any other country.

Another reason that the conflict has persisted these many years is that virtually all the leaders of the other Arabs countries have acted to keep the Pals outside Israel at odds with Israel. For instance, from the outset, those leaders made sure that the Pals remained in festering refugee camps, and not allowed to settle and have equal rights in other Arab countries. Moreover, the leaders discouraged any efforts at concord between the parties.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Jan, 2007 05:04 pm
The Palestinian Arabs are not a race of people; they are a group of people. The Palestinian Jews (i.e., most Israelis) are not a race of people; they are a group of people.

The extermination of either group of people would be a horrific crime.

Some spokepersons for the Palestinian Arabs advocate the extermination of Palestinian Jews.

Some spokepersons for the Palestinian Jews advocate the extermination of the Palestinian Arabs.

REALITY

The Palestinian Arabs won't get some peace until they exterminate the Palestinian Jews.

The Palestinian Jews won't get some peace until they exterminate the Palestinian Arabs.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

I do not advocate either extermination. I do not know what to advocate. Maybe we should wait and let passage of time solve the problem all by itself.

UNREALITY

There is something else the Palestinian Arabs can do, but won't do, to get some peace: stop murdering Palestinian Jews. Also, there is something else the Palestinian Jews can do, but won't do, to get some peace: leave Palestine.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 10:03 am
A large percentage of Pals advocate the extermination of all Jews in the area. Very, very, few Jews advocate the extermination of all Pals. That is the intractable problem in the region, which has so far eluded any solution.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 10:12 am
Advocate wrote:
A large percentage of Pals advocate the extermination of all Jews in the area. Very, very, few Jews advocate the extermination of all Pals. That is the intractable problem in the region, which has so far eluded any solution.


Can you back up your statement, Advocate, or are you just guessing?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 10:54 am
It is my view from what I have seen.

For instance, when Iraq hit Israel with missiles, there was wild celebration among the Pals in and out of Israel. This was quite an eye-opener to Israelis who thought they could work with the Pals. What does this say to you?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 11:01 am
Advocate wrote:
It is my view from what I have seen.

For instance, when Iraq hit Israel with missiles, there was wild celebration among the Pals in and out of Israel. This was quite an eye-opener to Israelis who thought they could work with the Pals. What does this say to you?


That the Palestinians feel like an oppressed people, and when they saw someone attacking those who they consider to be their oppressors, they cheered.

Hard to extrapolate that to 'wanting to see all Jews exterminated.' It is quite possible that many Palestinians don't have a personal problem with Jews at all, but are just caught up in a situation in which they feel there simply is no escape for their families or their people.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 01:52 pm
Iran Clock Is Ticking
By Robert Parry
Consortium News

Wednesday 31 January 2007

While congressional Democrats test how far they should go in challenging George W. Bush's war powers, the time may be running out to stop Bush from ordering a major escalation of the Middle East conflict by attacking Iran.

Military and intelligence sources continue to tell me that preparations are advancing for a war with Iran starting possibly as early as mid-to-late February. The sources offer some differences of opinion over whether Bush might cite a provocation from Iran or whether Israel will take the lead in launching air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.

But there is growing alarm among military and intelligence experts that Bush already has decided to attack and simply is waiting for a second aircraft carrier strike force to arrive in the region - and for a propaganda blitz to stir up some pro-war sentiment at home.

One well-informed U.S. military source called me in a fury after consulting with Pentagon associates and discovering how far along the war preparations are. He said the plans call for extensive aerial attacks on Iran, including use of powerful bunker-busting ordnance.

Another source with a pipeline into Israeli thinking said the Iran war plan has expanded over the past several weeks. Earlier thinking had been that Israeli warplanes would hit Iranian nuclear targets with U.S. forces in reserve in case of Iranian retaliation, but now the strategy anticipates a major U.S. military follow-up to an Israeli attack, the source said.

Both sources used the same word "crazy" in describing the plan to expand the war to Iran. The two sources, like others I have interviewed, said that attacking Iran could touch off a regional - and possibly global - conflagration.

"It will be like the TV show '24'," the American military source said, citing the likelihood of Islamic retaliation reaching directly into the United States.

Though Bush insists that no decision has been made on attacking Iran, he offered similar assurances of his commitment to peace in the months before invading Iraq in 2003. Yet leaked documents from London made clear that he had set a course for war nine months to a year before the Iraq invasion.

In other words, Bush's statements that he has no plans to "invade" Iran and that he's still committed to settle differences with Iran over its nuclear program diplomatically should be taken with a grain of salt.

There is, of course, the possibility that the war preparations are a game of chicken to pressure Iran to accept outside controls on its nuclear program and to trim back its regional ambitions. But sometimes such high-stakes gambles lead to miscalculations or set in motion dynamics that can't be controlled.

"You Will Die"

The rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq is seen as another factor pressing on Bush to act quickly against Iran.

Other sources with first-hand knowledge of conditions in Iraq have told me that the U.S. position is even more precarious than generally understood. Westerners can't even move around Baghdad and many other Iraqi cities except in armed convoys.

"In some countries, if you want to get out of the car and go to the market, they'll tell you that it might be dangerous," one experienced American cameraman told me. "In Iraq, you will be killed. Not that you might be killed, but you will be killed. The first Iraqi with a gun will shoot you, and if no one has a gun, they'll stone you."

While U.S. war correspondents http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020107C.shtml
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 02:57 pm
Bush did say he's a "war president." He's planning for his lord to appear in the sky.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 12:43 am
http://i17.tinypic.com/2vxggwj.jpg

The Guardian: Israel planned for Lebanon war months in advance, PM says:

Quote:
Preparations for Israel's war in Lebanon last summer were drawn up at least four months before two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hizbullah in July, Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, has admitted.
His submission to a commission of inquiry, leaked yesterday, contradicted the impression at the time that Israel was provoked into a battle for which it was ill-prepared. Mr Olmert told the Winograd commission, a panel of judges charged with investigating Israel's perceived defeat in the 34-day war, that he first discussed the possibility of war in January and asked to see military plans in March.



Haaretz: PM: War in Lebanon was planned months in advance:


Quote:
Olmert has told the Winograd Commission that his decision to respond to the abduction of soldiers with a broad military operation was made as early as March 2006, four months before last summer's Lebanon war broke out.

The commission has transferred, at the request of one of the witnesses, the text of his testimony. Aside from that exception, the investigative materials will not be given to any outside sources.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 10:44 am
Is the implication that Israel would have planned an invasion of Lebanon whether or not Hamas abducted Israeli soldiers? Or is it a plan for an orderly retaliation when terrorist attacks are committed?

I am guessing that the USA has some kind of plan on the books for initial retaliation against every continent/region/area/country/US state in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if most countries don't have such plans. You know that the need for 99% of them is quite remote, but it is considered imprudent to plan for war AFTER the war has started.

For Israel not to have thought through a strategy/plan for dealing with attacks from hostile neighbors would be suicidal. And the neighbor in this case had been hostile for a long time in a very material way.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 11:01 am
I don't know. And nothing more from the Winograd commission seems to be leaked that that what is reported in the Israelian and international media (the latter referring to Israelian sources).

Here on this thread, but especially by the Israelian government (and here Olmert, see above quotes), it was said that the war started as response to those two soldiers being kidnapped.

Obviously that wasn't the fact.

Besides that (see above quotes and today's & yesterday's Haaretz and Jerusalem Post)) the military didn't know anything (they say) and were uninformed (they say).
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 11:29 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I don't know. And nothing more from the Winograd commission seems to be leaked that that what is reported in the Israelian and international media (the latter referring to Israelian sources).

Here on this thread, but especially by the Israelian government (and here Olmert, see above quotes), it was said that the war started as response to those two soldiers being kidnapped.

Of course, this was true. The Israelis did not invade Lebanon until the two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped and two others were killed by Hezbollah.

Obviously that wasn't the fact.

Obviously that was the fact.

Besides that (see above quotes and today's & yesterday's Haaretz and Jerusalem Post)) the military didn't know anything (they say) and were uninformed (they say).

While I doubt the military did not know anything, they apparently were greatly limited in their knowledge of where the hell the Hezbollah rockets aimed at Israel were actually located.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 11:37 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Here on this thread, but especially by the Israelian government (and here Olmert, see above quotes), it was said that the war started as response to those two soldiers being kidnapped.

Obviously that wasn't the fact.


Shocked

I don't see how you have come to this conclusion Walter.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 01/12/2025 at 11:13:06