Jump to content

Israel Lebanon Conflict Thread


Malicious Intent

Recommended Posts

One could morally justify each other's position, but that will not stop the bloodletting of innocent people and both sides are equally responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Iranian Leader Speaks To Mike Wallace

Exclusive Interview Will Air On '60 Minutes' Sunday At 7 P.M. ET/PT

NEW YORK, Aug. 9, 2006

Mike Wallace interviews Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the Presidential Palace in Tehran on Tuesday, August 8. (CBS)

Quote

"Well, please look at the makeup of the American administration, the behavior of the American administration. See how they talk down to my nation."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Go To Comments

(CBS) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sat down with Mike Wallace in Tehran on Tuesday in a rare, exclusive interview with a Western reporter.

In the wide-ranging interview, the Iranian leader comments on President Bush's foreign policy, the lack of relations between Iran and the United States, Hezbollah, Lebanon and Iraq.

Speaking about President Bush's failure to answer his 18-page letter that criticized U.S. foreign policy, Ahmadinejad said, "Well, (with the letter) I wanted to open a window towards the light for the president so that he can see that one can look on the world through a different perspective. … We are all free to choose. But please give him this message, sir: Those who refuse to accept an invitation will not have a good ending or fate. You see that his approval rating is dropping every day. Hatred vis-à-vis the president is increasing every day around the world. For a ruler, this is the worst message that he could receive. Rulers and heads of government at the end of their office must leave the office holding their heads high."

On what the "conducive conditions" would be for Iran to establish relations with the U.S., the president said, "Well, please look at the makeup of the American administration, the behavior of the American administration. See how they talk down to my nation. And this recent resolution passed about the nuclear issue, look at the wording. They have given us — presented us with a package which we are studying right now. We even gave them a date for our response. Ignoring that, they passed a resolution. They want to build an empire. And they don't want to live side-by-side in peace with other nations. The American government, sir, it is very clear to me they have to change their behavior and everything will be resolved. (George W. Bush) believes that his power emanates from his nuclear warhead arsenals. The time of the bomb is in the past, it's behind us. Today is the era of thoughts, dialogue and cultural exchanges."

Source: CBS News

post-9-1155185458.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful Method, the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. That Galloway guy might be trouble. I'm open to accepting the US and British implications in the world tyrants coming to power, but he goes the other way and becomes friends with these people.

I only like the way he illustrates the first half of that. He is definately not a saint. No saint could raise through the political system as he has.

both sides are equally responsible.

I went into this very neutrally. I had no idea what was really going on in that part of the world.

I have been absolutely shocked at how Israel behaves. Occupying land against international law - and then america gives them arms and another $3.5 billion a year to spend on american arms to defend that illegally held land?? WTF?

People are living in a foriegn military dictatorship and then people question how stuff like this comes about. The UN and charity agencies regularly call Israel's actions war crimes and now the south of Lebanon is being ethnically cleansed.

People will of course fight back against this and when they do, we can expect a bunch more headlines about how Israel is defending herself against the terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Israel overreacts. On the other hand, I had a Jewish friend who asked me how I would like it if there were 3000 rockets pointed at me from Malibu - which is equivalent in distance between Israel and the Hezbellah. Make no mistake about it - the anti-Isael folks would bury Israel in a minute if they could... When someone brings olive branches instead of warheads, then maybe I will change my pov. But until then, everyone involved in this mess has the hands bloodied

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fabulous vid mate...ian galloway holds his own well doesn`t he.....a very brave man.....what a fucking mutt that interviewer was..the west against the rest eh.....and we know why...proximity to OIL supplies....and the opening up of consumer markets by whatever means possible for western corporations.....the problem is that the west has been interfering in middle eastern geopolitical and economic affairs for that long that they (the west) can`t get their heads around the fact that they are no longer wanted over there....it`s a case of arrogance and denial on a massive scale...... :glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UK politician quits over Blair's Middle East policy.......

A junior member of the British government resigned today in protest at Prime Minister Tony Blair's policies in the Middle East.

Jim Sheridan said he was standing down as parliamentary private secretary to the government's defence team in anger at the decision to allow US planes carrying munitions to Israel to refuel in Scotland.

The post is governmental but is below that of a minister.

Sheridan said he was dismayed Blair had aped the stance of US President George W Bush since the war between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas erupted four weeks ago.

"There's been little if any public evidence that the Americans are serious about an early end to this conflict (and) I think we are guilty by association," he told Sky TV news.

"It's on that basis that I can no longer support the government's close relationship with America."

The member of parliament for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said that while he supported Blair's domestic policies, "I cannot say that about our foreign policy".

"I'm somewhat concerned about the Americans' objectives for the Middle East," he said. "I shudder to think what President Bush would be like if Tony Blair were not there offering his support and advice."

Sheridan said he was angered by the government's decision to allow US aircraft carrying munitions to Israel to refuel at Prestwick airport near Glasgow.

The US flights came to light on July 26 when Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said the government would make a formal complaint to Washington over the way it used Prestwick for ferrying bombs to Israel.

Beckett said it appeared the Americans had not followed correct procedures. The Americans at first denied this but Bush later apologised to Blair.

Since then, at least two more US planes carrying unspecified "dangerous goods" to Israel have refuelled in Britain with official permission.

Sheridan is the first member of Blair's government to resign since the conflict began. Many members of Blair's Labour party have urged the prime minister to recall parliament to debate the conflict and Britain's policy on it.

source:REUTERS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honesty about the Middle East.......in 2002

A dozen years ago, during the debate over war with Iraq, Patrick Buchanan caused a storm by observing that the chief advocates of war were the Israelis and “their amen corner in this country.” Nobody really denied this; at least nobody could deny that there was such an “amen corner” and that it was pushing for war. But you weren’t supposed to talk about it. It was a sort of unwritten law.

This time Buchanan’s remark would be truer than it was then. Hardly anyone is eager for war who is not also a supporter of Israel and the harsh rule of Ariel Sharon. Can you think of anyone who opposes American support for Israel who also wants the United States to attack Iraq? Or anyone who favors American support for Israel who also opposes war on Iraq?

The chief difference between 1990 and this year is that the Amen Corner now probably numbers more Christian fundamentalists than Jews. And they are guided more by the Old Testament than the New. If Sharon were to massacre Israel’s entire Palestinian population, most of them would find good Scriptural precedent to justify it. For people of this mindset, it’s enough that the Bible says God once gave the Holy Land to the Israelites, ordering them not to spare the inhabitants, man, woman, child, or beast. That’s all we really have to know about the Middle East.

Of course foreign policy is made by people with worldlier purposes. It looks suspiciously as if a war on Iraq would be aimed at achieving American hegemony over the region. We are hearing that every country in the region that has huge oil reserves also has, by interesting coincidence, an intolerably corrupt and despotic government. This, we are told, merits “regime change.” The United States must overthrow all dictatorships that have a lot of oil.

As the Church Lady used to say, how convenient! Our duty perfectly coincides with our interest! We must promote democracy around the world, but especially in oppressed lands that also happen to be petroleum-rich. No longer are we targeting an Axis of Evil that includes North Korea. The current target is the Axis of Oil. This may even embrace Saudi Arabia, a long-time U.S. ally now being denounced as a treacherous enemy.

And Israel? Israel is safe from American bombs and regime changers. It has no oil and, its apologists insist, it “shares our democratic values.” If so, it shares them in a curious way. Israel’s “democracy” is based on a direct denial of the “self-evident truths” of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, the implementation of those truths would mean the end of Israel as we know it.

According to the Declaration, “all men are created equal.” Israel is based on the understanding that Jews are, in George Orwell’s phrase, “more equal than others.” If Palestinian Arabs were accorded the same rights as Jews, they would flood into their homeland and become the voting majority. Jewish supremacy would soon end, and the country would soon cease to be a “Jewish state.”

Israel is actually the only “democracy” that can’t afford equality. That is why it refuses to allow a “right of return” for expelled Arabs, even though it affirms a “right of return” for Jews everywhere, even those who have never lived in the Holy Land. Its Jewish majority is an artificial creation that must be maintained by endless racial discrimination against people who lack Jewish ancestry. Think of that. A “democracy” based on racial discrimination!

This is so obvious that it’s amazing that the Palestinians and their sympathizers so seldom point it out. Most of them speak as if the solution to the Israeli-Palestianian struggle would be a separate Palestinian state, with no reform in Israel itself. Why don’t they simply demand equality before the law in Israel? Is that out of the question?

Honest Zionists have always acknowledged, even insisted, that Israel can’t be both Jewish and democratic. They have been called extremists for saying so, but their logic is impeccable and, now, unavoidable.

Israeli propaganda depends heavily on the claim that Israel is “democratic.” Don’t expect a retraction of this claim in the near future. But Americans looking for excuses for attacking Israel’s oil-rich neighbors should be forced to face the truth...

post-193-1155203464_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no question that Israel is part of the problem - but they are not the whole problem. If they laid down their arms and pulled out of territories, they would eventually be attacked by insurgents, etc. So in my mind, its futile to blame just one side or the other.

The Arab world is another conundrum. They're always fighting each other. Remove Israel and they would continue to have war...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely wrong. The arabs fight each othermuch less than non-arabs fight each other. Saying that about the arabs looks racist and we all know you don't mean it that way.

BTW the only war I can remember in recent history between 2 arab nations is Iran-Iraq

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the Iraq-Kuwait war? The Lebanon civil war? The Iran-Iraq war? The sunnis vs shi'ites in Iraq now. I can go on and on if you like...but for the sake of argument, here is a fuller list of Middle East conflicts, many of which are between Arab countries, or civil wars based upon religion or internal political/military strife: Wikipedia

You can take back the racist accusation now, thank you - it's not an acceptable term to fling around here. And let me remind you, I had Arab tennants in my house when I was growing up and we got along just fine - later I had Jewish roommates - no problem there either. Can you say the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

most of those are a few days conflicts or just tensions eg.Finland and Russia have been at it forever but I don't consider that a war or Greece and Turkey or... or.... All over the globe it's happening.

Lebanon war was between Christians and Muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also you know I would never call you racist. I said what you just said sounded racist and we all know you didn't mean it to sound like that

true - just making sure you wiere awake :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israeli PM Has Accepted Cease-Fire Deal

Israeli army troops prepare to advance into southern Israel at the Lebanese border in northern Israel Friday, Aug. 11, 2006. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert decided Friday to launch an expanded ground offensive in southern Lebanon, after expressing dissatisfaction over an emerging cease-fire deal, government officials said.

Source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lebanon, Israel stop fighting Monday......

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said on Saturday the prime ministers of Lebanon and Israel had agreed to stop fighting at 0500 GMT on Monday, Aug. 14.

"I am very happy to announce that the two leaders have agreed that the cessation of hostilities and the end of the fighting will enter into force on 14 August, at 0500 hours GMT," Annan said in a statement.

"Preferably, the fighting should stop now to respect the spirit and intent of the Council decision, the object of which was to save civilian lives, to spare the pain and suffering that the civilians on both sides are living through," Annan said.

He urged both sides to halt the fighting immediately, and assured them that the United Nations force on the ground would work with them to monitor compliance of the Security Council resolution approved Friday to stop the hostilities.

Source: Reuters

post-193-1155431308_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ceasefire broken in less than four hours.....

A CEASEFIRE to end a month of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah lasted less than four hours yesterday before shooting broke out in the town of Hadata, in southern Lebanon.

A spokesman for the Israeli Army said soldiers had shot and killed a Hezbollah militant. The spokesman said the soldiers opened fire at a group of militants who approached a patrol about 11am.

"The Israeli Defence Forces identified a cell of armed gunmen a few metres away who were approaching and threatening the force," the spokesman said. "To defend themselves, the soldiers identified the gunmen and shot at them. The soldiers shot first. I stress that we are committed to the UN decision but we will continue to defend our soldiers in southern Lebanon."

An Israeli Army spokeswoman said troops deployed in Faroun, elsewhere in southern Lebanon, shot another Hezbollah guerrilla who had approached them and aimed his gun at them. It was not known whether he survived.

Israel has maintained its air and sea blockade of Lebanon and has warned it will renew attacks if Hezbollah does not honour the ceasefire. The army said the blockade would continue until the Lebanese Government was able to prevent arms transfers to Hezbollah.

Seven Israeli solders were killed and 25 injured as the army continued its advance in southern Lebanon on Sunday, the last full day of the war.

The Israeli Government declared victory yesterday and began trumpeting the benefits of the truce amid public criticism of its handling of the campaign.

"We now have a framework for building a better Lebanon and for establishing better relations with Lebanon," said an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev.

"We have come out of this stronger, and destroyed Hezbollah's state within a state."

The Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, was due to explain the United Nations resolution to the Knesset, but was expected to face criticism from the Opposition Leader, Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Minister for Defence, Amir Peretz, has acknowledged the war would be followed by questions about intelligence failures and the home front's lack of readiness for the barrages of rockets fired by Hezbollah.

One minister, Shaul Mofaz, abstained during the cabinet's 24-0 vote to accept the UN ceasefire. Mr Mofaz said the ceasefire should have demanded the return of kidnapped Israeli soldiers and was unlikely to be honoured by Hezbollah.

At 8am, as the wails from the air-raid sirens died out, residents in northern Israel waited to see if the silence would endure.

Judith Jakab, who dared to keep her 24-year-old Haifa cafe open throughout the fighting, said she would wait another day before removing signs directing customers to a bomb shelter.

"I don't like having the signs there," she said. "It worries people. I think I'll take them down tomorrow."

About a third of the 1 million people in the north of the country have fled to the south. Few were expected to return yesterday.

In Gaza, Palestinian militants fired missiles at the coastal city of Ashkelon. There were no injuries. Reuters reported that an Israeli air strike killed three Palestinians in the Gaza Strip shortly afterwards.

source:reuters

image:AP:Relieved … Israeli soldiers cross into Israel from southern Lebanon after the UN-brokered ceasefire came into effect yesterday.

post-193-1155598008_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • Wait, Burning Man is going online-only? What does that even look like?
      You could have been forgiven for missing the announcement that actual physical Burning Man has been canceled for this year, if not next. Firstly, the nonprofit Burning Man organization, known affectionately to insiders as the Borg, posted it after 5 p.m. PT Friday. That, even in the COVID-19 era, is the traditional time to push out news when you don't want much media attention. 
      But secondly, you may have missed its cancellation because the Borg is being careful not to use the C-word. The announcement was neutrally titled "The Burning Man Multiverse in 2020." Even as it offers refunds to early ticket buyers, considers layoffs and other belt-tightening measures, and can't even commit to a physical event in 2021, the Borg is making lemonade by focusing on an online-only version of Black Rock City this coming August.    Read more...
      More about Burning Man, Tech, Web Culture, and Live EventsView the full article
      • 0 replies
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?
    • Post in What Are You Listening To?
      Post in What Are You Listening To?

×
×
  • Create New...