15
   

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

 
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 09:03 am
McGentrix

Quote:
Israel needs the support of the free countries to exist.


Why does the world need such a hell-hole of a country, an apartheid-racist-war-mongering-Jewish theocracy?

In my opinion, Israel has no right to exist.

---


Quote:
The present State of Israel was set up in 1948 by European bureaucrats in a misguided and very short sighted attempt to appease and somehow compensate European Jews or Hitler's atrocities.Rather than return these Jews to the cities and villages they were disposessed from by the Nazis,and compensate them for their losses - European Governments had a better idea - lets just ship them all off to Palestine where we'll "expropiate" the land from the indigenous Palestinians and call it the new "Jewish Homeland"! The European politicians liked it and so apparently did the Jews but the only hitch in the scheme was that the native Palestinians,who weren't allowed to have any say in the plan, didn't like having their "Homeland" expropiated by unilateral and heavy-handed European "Decree".

Israeli politicians declare that Israel is a "Jewish State" and that its "right to exist" in Palestine is "legitimized" by the magical "Hocus Pocus of the Old Testament bible.In that case Christians and especially the world's 600 million Catholics also have a right to create "Homelands" in Palestine (entire State of Israel) as it is the land and birthplace of Jesus. (Incidentially Jesus was a Semetic ARAB, just like like the founders of Judaism were!!!!)

How well does International Law recognize the "Old Testament" or Bethlehem as the "birthplace of Jesus" as being a "legitimate claim" by any "religious group" on the "ownership" of the land of Palestine?

In North America the Native Indians in Canada and the U.S. have brought to court their legitimate "Land Claims" and they have won their cases in court on the basis that "they were here first"! The Palestinians can make the same legitimate claim - they were in Palestine and all the areas now claimed by Israel tens of thousands of years before there was a Jewish or Christian or Muslim religion.The claim of the Israeli Govt. to the land of Palestine by any standards of law is illegitimate.

Not only that but the Israeli govt. is bringing in "Caucasian" Jews from Russia;Europe and North America to settle on Palestinian land while at the same time they're forcing the indigenous "Semetic" Palestinians out and are bulldozing their homes!

Theres an easy solution to the Israel-Palestinian debate to determine who really "historically" belongs there.Lets have all the people of Israel and the West Bank etc. have a simple "blood test".From this it can easily be determined by "DNA" analysis who are the pure blooded (Semetic Arab) natives who are historically "indigenous" to that desert region and who are not!

K.Hawley



"It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief,if I may so express it,that mental lying has produced in Society.When a man has so corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe,he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime!"
- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 09:52 am
freedom4free wrote:
a bunch of nonsense


Please do not address me, thanks.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 10:28 am
fox

Gingrich, regardless of what else he has said elsewhere, did say in the piece quoted earlier that "This is WW 3". That means what it means, not that we 'could end up there'. Perhaps he has tempered his claim since then, but it was this claim I addressed.

Second, in that original piece he did something really quite despicable. He described how using the language of 'this is WW 3' could be beneficial in the October elections by putting people in the position where they must operate or think within a false dilemma. Please re-read exactly what he said there. And please honestly consider what this is...the attempt to get the electorate to think illogically - for presumed vote gain.

Yes, this localized conflict could escalate. Many are concerned about this possibility. Some of us wish it won't happen but others are actively promoting escalation. They are pretty much the same voices who pushed for the Iraq project, most obviously and actively right now, Kristol and Woolsey.

If the administration follows this advice, then you've got your feared escalation.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 11:01 am
blatham wrote:
fox

Gingrich, regardless of what else he has said elsewhere, did say in the piece quoted earlier that "This is WW 3". That means what it means, not that we 'could end up there'. Perhaps he has tempered his claim since then, but it was this claim I addressed.

Second, in that original piece he did something really quite despicable. He described how using the language of 'this is WW 3' could be beneficial in the October elections by putting people in the position where they must operate or think within a false dilemma. Please re-read exactly what he said there. And please honestly consider what this is...the attempt to get the electorate to think illogically - for presumed vote gain.

Yes, this localized conflict could escalate. Many are concerned about this possibility. Some of us wish it won't happen but others are actively promoting escalation. They are pretty much the same voices who pushed for the Iraq project, most obviously and actively right now, Kristol and Woolsey.

If the administration follows this advice, then you've got your feared escalation.


I think you would have to put Gingrich's words within their true context rather than within the context a "journalist" wishes to protray them to know his intent. But even from the piece posted, Gingrich is quoted as

Quote:
There is a public relations value, too. Gingrich said that public opinion can change "the minute you use the language" of World War III. The message then, he said, is "'OK, if we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?"....


I did not take this as a 'false premise' or a 'political statement' in any way. I took it from what I know is Gingrich's conservative conviction that if you're going to fight a war, you fight it with a clear objective and to win it. In this statement I hear him saying that once you define the situation as WWIII, then you pick a side to support and fight to win it. So far as I know, in the some 20 odd years I have been somewhat following his career, he has never been one to adopt fuzzy, ambiguous goals or policy about anything.

In other conversations he defined his definition of WWIII as one that is not truly localized, but in which a much broader group of nations has a stake or dog in the fight. The side picked to win could have far reaching implications, and there is no value whatsoever in trying to ignore or deny that.

Do I agree with him? Not entirely; at least not yet. Do I think his view of it is politically motivated or despicable? No I do not, any more than I think your view of it, which I mostly disagree with, is politically motivated or despicable.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 11:04 am
Now I wonder which of us might or might not apply the term "despicable" to this quote from Freedom4Free?:

Quote:
Why does the world need such a hell-hole of a country, an apartheid-racist-war-mongering-Jewish theocracy?

In my opinion, Israel has no right to exist.
0 Replies
 
NWIslander
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 11:29 am
Israel Iran Syria
Freedom4Free, either you are a Muslim operative assigned to spread disinformation among the naive masses, or you are appallingly ignorant of world history.

Your posts indicate that you know nothing about the history of Israel, or the politics of that region today. Your "name" is an ironic joke. Israel must be defended because it is the one and only country in that region that does practice freedom and true democracy, and does not harbor terrorists eagerly trying to wipe out their next-door neighbor. Women are treated as equals, and people are not imprisoned (or worse!) for exercising normal, modern, Western-style civil rights.

Theocracy? Most Israelis are not even religious! It is the one glimmer of modern, Western thought in the entire region!

Israel is probably doomed due to the driving hatred of the Arabs surrounding it. Unfortunately, coupled with this unrelenting hatred is a penchant for slick propaganda, which you have obviously fallen for.

This tiny country wants nothing more than to live its life in peace, without terrorism. Every time it has made concessions to the neighboring countries and given back land that it took after Arab aggression (and it is ALWAYS started by the Arabs!) it has been rewarded for its decency and willingness to compromise by more aggression and terrorism.

Good grief, man, read the papers, and THINK about what you are reading!
0 Replies
 
Ellinas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 11:35 am
McGentrix wrote:
Ellinas wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Israel has the capacity to make Lebanon a smoking crater. That they have not done so would lead me to believe they are making an effort to avoid hitting civilians.


As it looks like, Israel's "capacity" is substandard without the involvement of the American goverment.

It would be better for you if you try to analyze things and create an opinion of your own about the whole situation, free from the brainwashing American-Zionist media.


And Hizbollah would be far less equiped without the backing of Iran and Syria. Israel needs the support of the free countries to exist. Otherwise, the Muslim extremeists might be successful in wiping them out.


Israel was violently placed in this area by the "free countries" and you should expect the Arabs wanting to wipe it out with violence. This is not the way to bring peace and give Israel the opportunity to exist. Every slaughter the Israelis commit this days makes more Islamic "terrorists" with fierce hate against them.

And I would suggest you not to mention Iran. You goverment were the ones who were supplying Saddam and all the other "Islamic terrorist organisations" against Iran after the fall of Pahlavi. Now that their relation with them is not good, they are trying to place Iran together with the Arab "terrorists". The opossite thing happened with Qadafee.
0 Replies
 
Ellinas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 11:53 am
One more question for you:

Why your (placed by the God as he says) "peacemaker" president Bush has so good relation with the dictatorial regimes of Musharaff, Mubarak and Qadafee while he wants to "free" Iran from democratically elected Ahmadinejad?
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 12:29 pm
Re: Israel Iran Syria
NWIslander wrote:
Freedom4Free, either you are a Muslim operative assigned to spread disinformation among the naive masses, or you are appallingly ignorant of world history.

Your posts indicate that you know nothing about the history of Israel, or the politics of that region today. Your "name" is an ironic joke. Israel must be defended because it is the one and only country in that region that does practice freedom and true democracy, and does not harbor terrorists eagerly trying to wipe out their next-door neighbor. Women are treated as equals, and people are not imprisoned (or worse!) for exercising normal, modern, Western-style civil rights.

Theocracy? Most Israelis are not even religious! It is the one glimmer of modern, Western thought in the entire region!

Israel is probably doomed due to the driving hatred of the Arabs surrounding it. Unfortunately, coupled with this unrelenting hatred is a penchant for slick propaganda, which you have obviously fallen for.

This tiny country wants nothing more than to live its life in peace, without terrorism. Every time it has made concessions to the neighboring countries and given back land that it took after Arab aggression (and it is ALWAYS started by the Arabs!) it has been rewarded for its decency and willingness to compromise by more aggression and terrorism.

Good grief, man, read the papers, and THINK about what you are reading!


I've never hated any people, because of race, religion, colour or whatever, and i've always thought that people who generalise and say they dislike someone because of those reasons are stupid - you get good and bad people everywhere.

so its a bit shocking to me that israel's actions are making me feel hatred and anger that i've never felt before.

don't get me wrong, i'm not saying i hate all jewish people - just those evil zionist bastards and anyone who lends legitimacy or supports that evil ******* regime.

if the jews thought they had a problem with anti semitism before, they've let themselves in for a world of sh!t now ...

Quote:
Israel must be defended because it is the one and only country in that region that does practice freedom and true democracy


IS ISRAEL A DEMOCRACY?

Can any country that refuses to give the vote to three million people
living within its borders, be called a democracy?

Israel has refused to give the three million Palestinians living within its borders, the right to vote.

Israel has refused to give these people the vote, even though they have been living under
Israeli occupation and within Israel's borders for over 34 years.

Israel is NOT a democracy in any Western sense.

Oh, and do you only watch FOX J/News ?

http://www.tamariskfarm.com/originalimages/general/171_7111.jpg
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 12:40 pm
Some might find the following interesting:

Quote:
The key steps to ending the violence in Lebanon first requires recognizing that Hezbollah in its military form must be eliminated, that the 100-plus Iranian guard in southern Lebanon must be removed and that the allowing of the Syrian and Iranian dictatorships to supply, train and equip the terrorists must be stopped.

To do that, the United States should offer to help strengthen the Lebanese government so that it has the ability to re-establish itself in all of Lebanon and defeat the military wing of Hezbollah. We should encourage the Israelis to work with the Lebanese government to eliminate the thousands of missiles within its borders that threaten Israel. Finally, Iran and Syria must be forced to cease their support of Hezbollah and Hamas by the United States communicating to them such dire consequences that they could not sustain the relationships. And then we should be prepared, if necessary, to impose those consequences.

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 12:47 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Some might find the following interesting:

Quote:
The key steps to ending the violence in Lebanon first requires recognizing that Hezbollah in its military form must be eliminated, that the 100-plus Iranian guard in southern Lebanon must be removed and that the allowing of the Syrian and Iranian dictatorships to supply, train and equip the terrorists must be stopped.

To do that, the United States should offer to help strengthen the Lebanese government so that it has the ability to re-establish itself in all of Lebanon and defeat the military wing of Hezbollah. We should encourage the Israelis to work with the Lebanese government to eliminate the thousands of missiles within its borders that threaten Israel. Finally, Iran and Syria must be forced to cease their support of Hezbollah and Hamas by the United States communicating to them such dire consequences that they could not sustain the relationships. And then we should be prepared, if necessary, to impose those consequences.

SOURCE

I find it interesting that the US of A (george bush) has done nothing but de-strenghten the Lebonanse govenment and may well cause the total collapse of the current Lebonanese govenerment resulting in more chaos for the mid-east. This, in my opinon, is the worst fukup of the Bush Administration. But i am not so wise as to this geo-politcial plan as foxfyre as I only lived there and not doubt she has better knowledge having been a bible-school teacher.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 01:55 pm
If a member decided to post purely for the purpose of a backhanded ad hominem attack on another member, the member would at least find something legitimate to use for ammunition. I don't believe in my entire somewhat lengthy life that I have ever been nor have claimed to have been a Bible School teacher.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 02:00 pm
From today's NY Times. (Read quick - these articles are quickly archived)

Quote:

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 02:23 pm
This is all a bit confusing:

- yesterday, Tony Blair said in Parliament: "Hezbollah is supported by Iran and Syria, by the former in weapons, weapons incidentally very similar, if not identical, to those used against British troops in Basra."

- today, however, the (UK) Department of Defence spokeperson confirmed that British troops in Basra came under fire from short-ramge rocket grenades and Russian Katyusha rockets.

Whom to believe?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 02:37 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
This is all a bit confusing:

- yesterday, Tony Blair said in Parliament: "Hezbollah is supported by Iran and Syria, by the former in weapons, weapons incidentally very similar, if not identical, to those used against British troops in Basra."

- today, however, the (UK) Department of Defence spokeperson confirmed that British troops in Basra came under fire from short-ramge rocket grenades and Russian Katyusha rockets.

Whom to believe?


If Tony Blair is like most national leaders, I' m going to guess his Department of Defense knows more about the specific characteristics of weaponry than he does and can most likely describe them more accurately.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 02:45 pm
Hmm, the evening press compared it already to the misled of the public about the weapons in Iraq:

http://i2.tinypic.com/20h12md.jpg
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 03:42 pm
From today's Opinion Journal (e-mail version so I don't have a link):

"This crisis represents a rare, perhaps irreproducible, opportunity.

Every important party in the region and in the world, except the radical Islamists in Tehran and their clients in Damascus, wants Hezbollah disarmed and removed from south Lebanon so that it is no longer able to destabilize the peace of both Lebanon and the broader Middle East. . . .

Everyone agrees it must be done. But who to do it? No one. The Lebanese are too weak. The Europeans don't invade anyone. After its bitter experience of 20 years ago, the United States has a Lebanon allergy. And Israel could not act out of the blue because it would immediately have been branded the aggressor and forced to retreat.

Hence the golden, unprecedented opportunity. Hezbollah makes a fatal mistake. It crosses the U.N.-delineated international frontier to attack Israel, kill soldiers and take hostages. . . .

The road to a solution is therefore clear: Israel liberates south Lebanon and gives it back to the Lebanese. "--Charles Krauthammer

The WSJ commented that it agreed with the Krauthammer plan.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 04:04 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
If a member decided to post purely for the purpose of a backhanded ad hominem attack on another member, the member would at least find something legitimate to use for ammunition. I don't believe in my entire somewhat lengthy life that I have ever been nor have claimed to have been a Bible School teacher.
Yeah, right.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 04:19 pm
Freedom, you are either quite ignorant or a bigot. The Arab-Israelis not only vote, but hold seats in the Knesset.

Israel's claim on the land goes back 5,000 years. When the UN created the state of Israel, there was no other country at that location. It was part of the British Mandate, and, before that, part of the Ottoman Empire.

Regarding Lebanon, Hezbollah hides among the people, even shooting rockets from urban areas as a sort of protection. Its offices are on the ground floors of apartment houses. Israel has been living with the rockets from them for 20 years and decided that it has to stop the organization once and for all. Hez doesn't recognize the state of Israel, but calls it occupied territory.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 04:23 pm
Interesting take on history advocate, unusual but interesting. I would have to guess you are either a bigot or quite ignorant.
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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 04:13:10