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

Poor thing...wonder why he didn't stick around for the jihad.

Excerpt:

Banned cleric in evacuee bid

EXILED radical Islamic preacher Omar Bakri has begged the Royal Navy to rescue him from war-torn Beirut, according to reports.

The Muslim cleric, who left Britain for Lebanon abruptly in August last year, tried to board a British ship today (Friday, 21 July), the Sun newspaper reported.

He also reportedly wrote to the British embassy asking to be allowed to back on "humanitarian grounds".

However, a spokeswoman for the Foreign Office could not confirm the report, saying: "We are certainly not aware of any contact between him and British officials."

The Sun reported Mr Bakri as saying: "What concerns me now is my safety. My family are very concerned.

"They want to see their father and they aren't being allowed to.

"I'd be happy with just a month's visa but when I turned up this morning they told me couldn't because I'm not a British citizen any more."

Mr Bakri, who founded the nowdisbanded radical Islamic group al- Muhajiroun during his 20 years in Britain, was barred from Britain for good by then Home Secretary Charles Clarke days after he left.

Source

0 Replies

America Held Hostage
It's day 10 - and Israel is still threatening the lives of 25,000 Americans in Lebanon http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9371

0 Replies

Depressing link, blueflame, but thanks.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Since Clinton was president in 2000 it is not a wrong conclusion to jump to.

So we can't criticize anything that happened in 2000 without criticizing him? Does that hold true for all the years since 2000? Anything bad that happens is automatically Bush's fault? Geez. And some call the Conservatives extreme.

0 Replies

Revel, you are clearly offended by Israel's actions. But were you similarly offended when Hezbollah's suicide bombers blew up Israeli market places, pizza parlors, etc., or when they kidnapped and murdered Americans.

I wonder what the USA would do were she faced with a similar situation. For instance, if Mexicans accused us of stealing the northern half of Mexico and occupying this, and were rocketing the border area in the USA, guess what our actions would be.

0 Replies

The UN sent 2000 peace keepers to Lebanon to enforce the resolution. These peace keepers had no authority, however, to carry firearms, make arrests, do inspections, or enforce the resolution in any way. One wonders what, if anything, they have been doing all this time. Now Kofi is suggesting they double the number of peace keepers who will have the exact same authority as the original group.

And, they're going to expect the USA to pay for most of that.

But, what else is new?

0 Replies

Fox, do you have a supporting link on this UN thing? I find it hard to believe that a newly-constituted UN force would be unarmed, etc.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

America Held Hostage
It's day 10 - and Israel is still threatening the lives of 25,000 Americans in Lebanon http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9371

A lot of conjecture in that piece.

Imagine if Americans had been the first evacuated....oh the bitching and moaning that would have been thrust.

As usual America is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Fox, do you have a supporting link on this UN thing? I find it hard to believe that a newly-constituted UN force would be unarmed, etc.

I'm getting my information from TV and radio, but I'll see what I can find.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The UN sent 2000 peace keepers to Lebanon to enforce the resolution.

Who said that they were there to enforce the resolution? Any source I could find - as well as I believed until now - there have been only UN-observers, the "UN Disengagement Observer Force"

Quote:

UNIFIL is tasked with achieving the following objectives:

Confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon;
Restore international peace and security;
Assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.
Additionally, the 2006 mandate extension required assisting the Lebanese government in establishing a "monopoly" on military action, adding impetus to disarm Hizbullah guerillas.

Its activities have centred around monitoring military activity between Hezbollah and the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) with the aim of reducing tensions and allaying continuing low-level armed conflict. UNIFIL has also played an important role in clearing landmines, assisting displaced persons, and providing humanitarian assistance in this underdeveloped region.

Lebanon - UNIFIL - Mandate

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Revel, you are clearly offended by Israel's actions. But were you similarly offended when Hezbollah's suicide bombers blew up Israeli market places, pizza parlors, etc., or when they kidnapped and murdered Americans.

I wonder what the USA would do were she faced with a similar situation. For instance, if Mexicans accused us of stealing the northern half of Mexico and occupying this, and were rocketing the border area in the USA, guess what our actions would be.

Hizbullah is a radical Shia militia Israel is supposedly a civilized nation that don't go around killing civilians. When you bomb in urban areas knowing there are tons of innocent civilians in the area then you are intentially killing civilians which is against international war laws.

<foxfrye, I haven't ignored your post, will get to you in a while as best I can>

0 Replies

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060720/cam.gif

0 Replies

From The Guardian, 21.07.2006, page 4:

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/3900/zwischenablage01qo9.jpg

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The UN sent 2000 peace keepers to Lebanon to enforce the resolution.

Who said that they were there to enforce the resolution? Any source I could find - as well as I believed until now - there have been only UN-observers, the "UN Disengagement Observer Force"

Quote:
UNIFIL is tasked with achieving the following objectives:

Confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon;
Restore international peace and security;
Assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.
Additionally, the 2006 mandate extension required assisting the Lebanese government in establishing a "monopoly" on military action, adding impetus to disarm Hizbullah guerillas.

Its activities have centred around monitoring military activity between Hezbollah and the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) with the aim of reducing tensions and allaying continuing low-level armed conflict. UNIFIL has also played an important role in clearing landmines, assisting displaced persons, and providing humanitarian assistance in this underdeveloped region.

Lebanon - UNIFIL - Mandate

Well, I've probably got some dates wrong, but here's what I found in answer to Advocate's question:

Press Release Re UN Resolution 1559
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8181.doc.htm

Wikipedia's version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1559
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Interim_Force_In_Lebanon

New York Times talks about UN peace keepers
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/world/middleeast/19lebanon.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Lengthy but interesting essay on UN peacekeeping in general
http://www.issafrica.org/Pubs/ASR/6No1/Malan.html

BBC news article on the installation of the UN peace keepers in 2000
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/759867.stm

I haven't been able to find anything on the Web, however, indicating how these people are equipped or whether or not they are armed.

0 Replies

Those brave Israeli soldiers

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/Israeli_soldier1.jpg

http://www.williambowles.info/mideast/images/israel-boy-tank.jpg

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I haven't been able to find anything on the Web, however, indicating how these people are equipped or whether or not they are armed.

That's more than astonishing.

A question aside: you don't trust the infos from the UN websites?

0 Replies

Quote:

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?"....

foxfyre said: 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.

fox

You've just morphed my indictment of manipulation of language (regardless of who might do that) to present to the public a complex set of issues/options as an either/or, pick a side proposition into a partisan screed suggesting that purposeful and dilligent prosecution of a war is somehow a 'conservative' characteristic.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I haven't been able to find anything on the Web, however, indicating how these people are equipped or whether or not they are armed.

That's more than astonishing.

A question aside: you don't trust the infos from the UN websites?

How could you possibly draw that conclusion from anything I've said?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
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?"....

foxfyre said: 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.

fox

You've just morphed my indictment of manipulation of language (regardless of who might do that) to present to the public a complex set of issues/options as an either/or, pick a side proposition into a partisan screed suggesting that purposeful and dilligent prosecution of a war is somehow a 'conservative' characteristic.

Would you care to translate this into English? Smile

:

Quote:

You've just morphed my indictment of manipulation of language (regardless of who might do that) to present to the public a complex set of issues/options as an either/or, pick a side proposition into a partisan screed suggesting that purposeful and dilligent prosecution of a war is somehow a 'conservative' characteristic.

Insert "Chomsky" or "Hillary" or "Kerry" for "Gingrich" in the phrase being discussed and put that phrase within the whole context of the article in which it was quoted.

Then you might see that (whomever) could very well be a statement of process, not politics. If you get people to take your side in a war, that war becomes infinitely easier to win. Since neither of us are privy to Gingrich's whole comments in their full context, I think my interpretation of what he said is far more plausible (and far less a partisan screed) than yours.

Further. of I assign my opinion that a certain value is 'conservative', that does not necessarily mean that it is not shared by other ideologies. Or perhaps you think that if a liberal thinks or believes something, a conservative cannot think or believe the same thing?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

revel wrote:
Since Clinton was president in 2000 it is not a wrong conclusion to jump to.

So we can't criticize anything that happened in 2000 without criticizing him? Does that hold true for all the years since 2000? Anything bad that happens is automatically Bush's fault? Geez. And some call the Conservatives extreme.

I just assumed that Clinton was involved since he was involved so much in everything in the Middle East, but I search for a good while and I couldn't find anything directly saying anything that says anything about Clinton being involved in any the negotiations.

However, this administration does have a completely different ideology than Clinton and kind of looks in disdain on the way he did things among them was his peace brokering missions.

Quote:

With only a few exceptions, the Bush administration has been loath to delve into the minutiae of Middle East peacebrokering favored by former president Bill Clinton, for instance.

Some experts question whether Rice should risk her own prestige, given the long odds of pulling off a success, especially given the US refusal to talk to Iran and Syria, which it accuses of masterminding Hezbollah's action.

source

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know