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

We've got a civil war in Iraq. You want to start one in the UK now? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Tomzz Wrote:

Quote:

I would support the banning of the practice of Islam in the United States right now. Simply tell the people involved that they have sixty days to find another religion, or another country, their choice.

That's because you are a bigot, sir. And a short-sighted one at that.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

'US, Israel planned ME war'
13/08/2006 11:06 - (SA)

New York - The US government was closely involved in the planning of Israel's military operations against Islamic militant group Hezbollah even before the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue.

The kidnapping triggered a month-long Israeli operation in South Lebanon that is expected to come to an end on Monday.

But Pulitzer Prize-winning US journalist Seymour Hersh writes that President George W Bush and vice president Dick Cheney were convinced that a successful Israeli bombing campaign against Hezbollah could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential US pre-emptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations.

Citing an unnamed Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of the Israeli and US governments, Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah - and shared it with Bush administration officials - well before the July 12 kidnappings.

The expert added that the White House had several reasons for supporting a bombing campaign, the report said.

If there was to be a military option against Iran, it had to get rid of the weapons Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation against Israel, Hersh writes.

Citing a US government consultant with close ties to Israel, Hersh also reports that earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings, several Israeli officials visited Washington "to get a green light" for a bombing operation following a Hezbollah provocation, and "to find out how much the United States would bear".

"The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits," the magazine quotes the consultant as saying. "Why oppose it? We'll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran."

US government officials have denied the charges.

Nonetheless, Hersh writes, a former senior intelligence official says some officers serving with the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain deeply concerned that the administration will have a far more positive assessment of the air campaign than they should.

"There is no way that (defence secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this," the report quotes the former official as saying. "When the smoke clears, they'll say it was a success, and they'll draw reinforcement for their plan to attack Iran."
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Middle_East/0,,2-10-2075_1981865,00.html

0 Replies

Israel approves truce, continues barrage

Quote:

____

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Revel writes

Quote:
You see the difference foxfyre? One is a surrender to Allah and the other is a surrender to State. Muslim extemists (Islam is the religion, you call a person who follows Islam a Muslim) are not state run. Its that simple. Islamic States might be facist but then so might other states that are not run by Islam.

It does not matter to me what the basis for Facism is. Nobody can tell me that the Islamofacists care one whit what you or I or anybody else believes in matters of faith or religion. It only matters to them that have control and the ability to enforce it. You don't ever see them explaining their faith or trying to show anybody why it is good, right, or better. You do see them blugeoning, beheading, blowing up women and children, and effecting the maximum amount of punishment on anybody who dares to defy them.

Their religion is their excuse. Their behavior and methods are what makes them facist.

I believe you have selective comprehension problems. If the basis is wrong for the word then the word is wrongly used.

From what I can gather most Muslim extremist are fighting others not to force others into their religion but rather they fight against what they precieve as injustice towards Muslims. They also want to keep their followers from being influenced by westerners. I disagree with Muslim extremist who use violence or government to force religious choices. I also disagree with Christian extremist who try to force their beliefs into our government.

However to call it Islamfacist just causes divide with all Muslims which is something that we don't need right now.

0 Replies

Revel
Revel, I posted the entire Seymour Hersh New Yorker Magazine article on a new thread for everyone's information:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=80871&highlight=

BBB

0 Replies

Quote:

how does one attach any notion of 'facism' to modern Jews or the State of Israel? The Islamic facists fit every point of the definition. I fail to see how the Israelis do.

fox

That is what you said. It is fallacious in several ways which were just carefully layed out for you.

Once again, all that has just happened stems from you being taken to task for making a statement as unthoughtful as that statement is and then not having the integrity to SIMPLY CORRECT WHERE YOU ERRED.

Hopefully too, you'd reflect on why you got it this wrong. But you show the most meager evidence that you can manage either step very often.

None of us should let you get away with stuff like this. You impoverish your own thinking, your own arguments and the general discourse.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tomzz Wrote:

Quote:
I would support the banning of the practice of Islam in the United States right now. Simply tell the people involved that they have sixty days to find another religion, or another country, their choice.

That's because you are a bigot, sir. And a short-sighted one at that.

Cycloptichorn

Call it whatever you want. I have few if any problems dealing with blacks, who I've pretty much dealt with all my life, I can deal with hispanics easily enough, Chinese, Japanese, even demokkkrats, but I feel that I am entitled to one exception to the general rule. I positively resent the practice of I-slam being legal in the United States.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
how does one attach any notion of 'facism' to modern Jews or the State of Israel? The Islamic facists fit every point of the definition. I fail to see how the Israelis do.

fox

That is what you said. It is fallacious in several ways which were just carefully layed out for you.

Once again, all that has just happened stems from you being taken to task for making a statement as unthoughtful as that statement is and then not having the integrity to SIMPLY CORRECT WHERE YOU ERRED.

Hopefully too, you'd reflect on why you got it this wrong. But you show the most meager evidence that you can manage either step very often.

None of us should let you get away with stuff like this. You impoverish your own thinking, your own arguments and the general discourse.

Using the Merriam Webster dictionary definition, please explain in YOUR OWN WORDS

1) How are the Israelis facist?
2) How is Hezbollah not facist?

Unless you can answer those two questions you have done nothing but let out a whole lot of hot air in a dedicated criticism of another member. Not what the member says mind you. But the member herself. Take your time. I'll wait. Some of the world's greatest windbags at least give me credit for having a lot of patience.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
how does one attach any notion of 'facism' to modern Jews or the State of Israel? The Islamic facists fit every point of the definition. I fail to see how the Israelis do.

fox

That is what you said. It is fallacious in several ways which were just carefully layed out for you.

Once again, all that has just happened stems from you being taken to task for making a statement as unthoughtful as that statement is and then not having the integrity to SIMPLY CORRECT WHERE YOU ERRED.

Hopefully too, you'd reflect on why you got it this wrong. But you show the most meager evidence that you can manage either step very often.

None of us should let you get away with stuff like this. You impoverish your own thinking, your own arguments and the general discourse.

You appear to repeatedly object to what Foxfyre names those-people who have repeatedly declared and acted on their intention to murder or remove all non-Muslims including, but not limited to, the jews in Israel. But you do not appear to repeatedly object to what those-people actually have done or are doing.

Why is that?

My name for those-people is eitm (i.e., evil inhuman terrorist malignancy).

eitm = evil inhuman terrorist malignancy = those-people =
those who murder non-eitm but do not murder eitm +
those who abet the murder of non-eitm but do not abet the murder of eitm +
those who advocate the murder of non-eitm but do not advocate the murder of eitm +
those who are silent witnesses to the murder of non-eitm but are not silent witnesses to the murder of eitm +
those who allow the murderers of non-eitm sanctuary but do not allow the murderers of eitm sanctuary.

Whatever one chooses to call those-people is far less important to the welfare of humanity than what one does to stop those-people from doing what they are doing. What do you suggest be done to stop those-people from doing what they are doing? Or, do you think we ought not try to stop those-people from doing what they are doing?

0 Replies

evil inhuman terrorist malignancy,
very interesting, I suppose it's only coincidence that this phrase is exactly the same phrase I use for republicans.

0 Replies

Ican posted before I could edit my post. I wished to add a third question for Blatham:

3) Please explain how the Merriam Webster Dictionary definitionfor fascims is wrong.
(This since he obviously believes that it is even though he left the opening paragraph that mostly agreed with it out of the longer defintiion that he posted.)

0 Replies

Blotham wrote:

fox

That is what you said. It is fallacious in several ways which were just carefully layed out for you.

Once again, all that has just happened stems from you being taken to task for making a statement as unthoughtful as that statement is and then not having the integrity to SIMPLY CORRECT WHERE YOU ERRED.

Hopefully too, you'd reflect on why you got it this wrong. But you show the most meager evidence that you can manage either step very often.

None of us should let you get away with stuff like this. You impoverish your own thinking, your own arguments and the general discourse.

end of quote.

Blatham reveals the source of his misery.He says: "just carefully LAYED out for you".

My teacher told me to beware of the thinking processes of anyone who had any difficulty with lay, laid or layed. Since "layed" means " to deposit as a wager", it is quite clear that Blotham does not possess the clarity of mind necessary to distinguish between "terrorists" and ordinary persons.

I pray to God that it will never happen but if there were to be another "terrorist" attack on Manhattan, Blatham would be the first one calling for vengence--especially if a large piece of plaster were to fall on his head!!!!

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

evil inhuman terrorist malignancy,
very interesting, I suppose it's only coincidence that this phrase is exactly the same phrase I use for republicans.

Interesting, the name I use for people who use evil inhuman terrorist malignancy as their name for republicans is some-people.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
evil inhuman terrorist malignancy,
very interesting, I suppose it's only coincidence that this phrase is exactly the same phrase I use for republicans.

Interesting, the name I use for people who use evil inhuman terrorist malignancy as their name for republicans is some-people.

0 Replies

New Yorker article

""The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits," the magazine quotes the consultant as saying. "Why oppose it? We'll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran."

US government officials have denied the charges. "

Shades of the Luftwaffe helping Franco bomb Guernica.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Ican posted before I could edit my post. I wished to add a third question for Blatham:

3) Please explain how the Merriam Webster Dictionary definitionfor fascims is wrong.
(This since he obviously believes that it is even though he left the opening paragraph that mostly agreed with it out of the longer defintiion that he posted.)

For goodness sakes.

Take a small pocket dictionary and grab a definition from it. Then get a large MW or American Heritage or World Book or Oxford and compare entries. They won't be the same. Will the pocket definition be wrong? Or will it be something else? What? Shallow? Insufficient? Incomplete? Choose your preferred term.

That you would restrict discussion to a single limited definition of your choosing doesn't really encourage any notion that what you are doing here is not simply avoiding reflection.

I'm not going to play this game with you foxfyre. You've too much invested in defending yourself. You will expend all your effort and too much of my time resisting backing down from your absolute derogation of Hezbollah and your absolute defence of Israeli policy characteristics. And I can't count on you to even read carefully.

0 Replies

Oh, for goodness sakes, Blatham,

Just a straight forward answer from you of,

"I don't know the answer to your question, Foxfyre, how the
Merriam Webster Dictionary definition for fascism is wrong,"

would have sufficed.

Why all your time consuming verbal posturing when that two-line answer would have been the correct one, the most efficient one, and the most honest one?

0 Replies

Oh sweet Jesus, Ican complaining about time consuming verbal posturing

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Oh, for goodness sakes, Blatham,

Just a straight forward answer from you of,

"I don't know the answer to your question, Foxfyre, how the
Merriam Webster Dictionary definition for fascism is wrong,"

would have sufficed.

Why all your time consuming verbal posturing when that two-line answer would have been the correct one, the most efficient one, and the most honest one?

When verbal posturing is all one has, you gotta expect there will be verbal posturing. No, he won't answer a direct question because he will either a) condemn his own posturing or b) look like an idiot. With such choices, one engages in a lot of verbal posturing I think. He lost the debate when he wouldn't accept a Merriam Webster dictionary definition. Heck, he couldn't even use the definition he came up with after I insisted he use all of it. So he won't play. That's cool Smile

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know