|
|
 |
|
Getting Out : Seeking Justice
From Israel with love! | from AndyH - Sunday, July 30, 2006
accessed 3368 times Please don't open this if you're squeamish at all, I don't want to be responsible for you losing sleep, or vomiting. I first considered putting this in "all my politics" but this is supposed to appeal beyond ones politics.
We've all seen the kosher footage, but it's hard to consider what happens when a densely populated city is randomly bombed. Imagine Seattle, or Portland, or New york, having ordinance dropped all over it. That's how you get the below. I've attached the message from the Lebanese girl that it came with. Also, to be fair to Anna, I got this from her. Original message: Before you click on the link below, it is important to know that the images you're about to see are quite disturbing. You can delete this right away or you can open it and see what my country has been going through for the past two weeks. I didn't want anyone to have to see this, but when I watched CNN making a huge deal out of "fearful Israelis" sunbathing on the beaches in Israel, I knew I had to show everyone what's been going on on the other side of the border!
I am urging you all to please, try to look for the humans behind those torn bodies, regardless of any political, religious or cultural beliefs and opinion you might have. Try to send it to people you know.
Here's the Link http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/index2.php
Hope to see you all soon.
Samantha |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from
Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 10:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.html
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from Rain Child
Friday, August 18, 2006 - 01:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Anyone hear about this?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAN20060807&articleId=2918
(reply to this comment)
| from Korpesco
Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 13:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
Perhaps a part of Israels reluctance in bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities lay in its fear of reprisals in the form of rockets from the Iranian proxy army, Hezbollah. Now that Israel has experienced what Hezbollah is capable of and how ineffective its missiles are I think the fear of Iranian reprisals has been removed. Iran has actually weakened its image through this conflict and I wouldnt be surprised if Israel goes and bombs the nuclear facilities Iraq style if Iran does not come to a diplomatic solution soon.
(reply to this comment)
| from Rain Child
Monday, August 14, 2006 - 15:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
The longer this whole thing plays out, Andy, the more I'm coming round to your way of thinking. With Israel calling truce, then chucking in one last bombing spree for good measure, well, that just disgusted me. Israel has been handling this whole thing with a reprehensible lack of value for human life. I still think we need to be aware of Islamic terrorist groups and try and stop them in any way possible, but I'm beginning to understand what they're fighting for.
(reply to this comment)
|  From Korpesco
Tuesday, August 15, 2006, 13:16
  (Agree/Disagree?)
...and what are they fighting for?
Israel is fighting for its survival. Muslims will never allow it to be. The palastinians had a chance of having their own state on good terms in 1948 but they chose instead to attack the fledgling, legitimately bought and formed nation of Israel instead. Other Islamic nations followed suit.
The Gaza strip which some denote as an "occupied territory" was actually formerly occupied by the nations of Egypt and Jordan and did not belong to palastinians at all. The prisoners Israel held were legitimately aquired through wars of self defence..they were not kidnapped.
This is not about land or deplacement, no matter how hard this may be for us westerners with our empirical outlook to understand. This is about Islam and religion and the Koran teaching Israelis are little satans controlling the west.
So we have another round of Israel trying to protect itself...this time from a terrorist state within a state under the payroll of the Islamic fundamentalist nations of Iran and Syria, aquiring a larger arsenal of weapons by the day.
If I was Israel I would jump on every pretext possible to eliminate this risk before it gets any larger. If Israel learned anything in its history it is to be vigilant against dogmatic ideologies wishing for its destruction.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Tuesday, August 15, 2006, 17:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Korpy, the more you say the more your utter ignorance shows through!
First of all, the existence of the State of Israel is hardly threatened in any significant way - apart from the rantings and random (and notably ineffective) attacks, there is no credible threat to the existence of a 'State of Israel'. Unbiased reports state that prior to the latest escalation of violence fully 95% of Hizbollah's rockets hit nothing of significance - and those that did were hitting predominantly military targets.
The Gaza Strip was NEVER occupied by Jordan - the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan was created under the British mandate and was initially 'accepted' to have included both what is modern Israel and Jordan, however this was later adjusted by the UN to be an enlarged version of what is now referred to as the West Bank and Jordan. Due to the Arab countries' refusal to accept the Israeli state, hostilities began as soon as the Brits left, leaving the Jordanians in control of the 'West Bank' and Egypt holding onto the Gaza Strip.
This was changed by the war of '67 - again initiated by the Arab states - through which Israel was able to advance to its current borders (excluding the Golan Heights). After which the Arabs began to recognise that they would have been better off accepting the original UN resolutions - an end they have since pursued.
Although Palestine has been used as the name of the area for some time now, the 'Palestinian' identity which we now have only came to its own in the 70's when King Hussein gave his (UN mandated) right to the West Bank over to the PLO. Prior to which they were simply known as the 'West Bankers' in recognition of the fact that they were from the western bank of the Jordan river from which the nation drew its name: Transjordan.
As I'm now getting bored with the history lesson, I will close by pointing out that by no stretch of the imagination can Syria be described as an 'Islamic fundamentalist' state - and even if by some stretch it were, there is as much of a chance that they would be collaborating at a religious level with Iran as there is of the Ulster Unionists suddenly joining the IRA in a Catholic crusade.
While both countries are clearly supporting Hizbollah in order to achieve their respective political aims in the region, no one with even the most basic grasp of the regional dynamics would suggest that those aims were even remotely supportive of the other.(reply to this comment) |
| | from mia1
Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 21:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have a question
I am addressing non arab peoples here by the way,
Had we not grown up in the family do you think we would look at the arab/israelie conflict in the same light???
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From steam
Monday, August 14, 2006, 06:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
The way one is raised always affects ones outlook. But most raised in "The Family" have rejected almost all aspects of the organisations worldview. The mideast region's "camps and conflicts" are one area that many have come to an opinion that some of what they heard growing up had validity. I personaly think if we had grown up in our environment with the evangelical Pro-Israel attitude (which The Family started out with by the way) many if not most would have rejected it during the re-examine everything time, after leaving. I think I have looked at the facts on the ground and based my conclusions on this subject on them.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Phoenixkidd
Wednesday, August 09, 2006 - 08:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
Andy, I completely agree with you. It's just so sad to see them take out whole blocks of resedential people. The people can't even escape, as Israel has issued a warning they will strike at any moving vehicle! They called their missions in southern lebanon as "quality undertakings" it doesn't seem like they are doing a very good job of keeping women and children out of their targets. Whole villages are destroyed and a million people are now homeless or displaced. All over 2 israeli military detainees? Imagine if we just started targeting Tehran during the iranian hostage crisis back in the late 70's?
It's an irony that people can accuse sympathizers of the lebanese people as anti-sem**** when all we are doing is sympathizing with humanity. I can't believe more Americans are not upset about the situation.
(reply to this comment)
| from Peter
Friday, August 04, 2006 - 06:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Why not send the fine young men and women serving in the IDF some pizza and soda? http://pizzaidf.org/
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Rain Child
Friday, August 04, 2006 - 04:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
After a steamy shower, a cup of tea, and settling into my warm, clean bed, my thoughts are with those who are in the middle of horror and fear tonight. I found myself sending a prayer for them, then scolding myself for such superstitious nonsense as to pray, one of my leftover automatic responses. But then I think, this act, not necessarily of religious observance, but of human compassion, this reaching out my soul to fellow humans who are suffering across the world, how can it be wasted or worthless? It's instinctive, it's the only tool that has ever been given me to deal with a hopeless or helpless situation. "God" might just be an energy force made of compassionate people across the world.
(reply to this comment)
| from AnnaH
Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 13:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hooray! Samantha evacuated with the Marines!
(reply to this comment)
| from Aniki
Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 07:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Casualties of war; thats what it is. It's sad but that's how this world is run. If we weren't the strongest military in the world it would probably be our borders and civilians being attacked. Your comfortable lifestyles wouldn't be so comfortable. So before you condemn what Israel does, who also happens to be our ally, remember that it could easily be the Arabs winning and websites posted of Israeli children dying.
And dumping Israel as an ally would have more strategic mistakes than you know. Now, I know someone is going to misread this and nitpick at my first sentence. Go ahead. I'm not heartless and I wish the world wasn't like this. However, it is how it is and just be glad you're on the winning side. It might not be like that forever.
(reply to this comment)
| From Nick
Thursday, August 03, 2006, 11:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
I know I am not going to be to popular for agreeing with you but fuck it, I do agree with you!
It breaks my heart every time I see a pic of those kids in agony and makes me feel so happy that I do not have to worry that my son is in that danger.
However what is going on over there is a war. A war that is being fought by TWO countries. I am tired of everyone claiming that this is some sort of unfair invasion where the Israel’s are deliberately bombing innocent kids because they are cold hearted killers. When I hear those allegations all it proves to me is that persons ignorance or their refusal to look at the whole picture.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Monday, August 07, 2006, 11:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
War fought by two countries you say? If your little boy happened to have a squirt gun and hit some bully twice his size, and then the bully just started wailing on him. Leaving your boy near death. Would you dismiss it as "just a fight between two kids" because the bully happened to get a bloody nose? This is massively assymetrical, not a fair fight. Sorry but ignorance and refusal to look at the big picture seems an apt description of one who dismisses the invasion of a country and mass destruction of the same in a manner so cavalier.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Aniki
Wednesday, August 09, 2006, 23:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think it's you who's failing to see the big picture. For one Israel is not bigger then it's neighbors and it doesn't bully them around. Since when is being stronger to protect your own nation the same as being a bully? Israeli's fear for their lives just as Arabs do. Maybe what the Islamic nation needs is more diplomatic lessons. And that analogy, you gotta be kiddin. If 2 American soldiers were captured what would you say be done? I'd say destroy the nation that took them. I bet you'd say take 2 of theirs and we're even. That would make you appear as a chicken and not strike fear into your enemy from ever doing that again. The Israeli and Arab conflict runs deeper then just this generation. The big picture would be to realize that that was the last straw. (reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Thursday, August 10, 2006, 06:34
 (Agree/Disagree?)
It would seem your view of the world is that might makes right. If you feel that the U.S should destroy a nation for taking two soldiers, please enlighten me on where your thought process is different then a terrorist. The U.S. invaded Panama because our pet Noriega no longer took orders, and dozens were killed. There was no military provocation by Panama (I completely agree Noriega was a bad guy, but the U.S was happy with him untill he stopped being a good boy and obeying the U.S). Would this give a Panamanian the right, if he got a hold of a nuclear weapon, to destroy millions of innocent American lives? Do you really think such responses strike fear into the hearts of our enemies? If our enemies were neatly defined nations with a power base to lose etc, this would make more sense. But such a response would help our enemies greatly seeing as they are often poverty stricken uneducated people highly susceptible to propoganda, being handed the greatest propoganda tool of all time for new recruits. Your comment that Islamic nations "need more diplomatic lessons" is stunningly arrogant, when next paragraph you proceed to recomend the U.S. destroy a hypothetical nation for taking two soldiers. Wow maybe you should teach them about diplomacy, if they took your lessons to heart we would likely add a couple hundred million new terrorist to the planet.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Aniki
Friday, August 04, 2006, 12:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Abuse of power? I see it as using our strengths to our advantages. All through US history, war is what helped our economy and employment. The struggle to remain #1 not just keeps us up there but provides countless jobs and possibilities. And I strongly disagree that most of the enemies we have now are new. They've been our enemy for a long time, just waiting silently and patiently. Making their hatred for us known was inevitable. No I don't believe Israel is safer now. But in the long run, if they achieve their goal, they will be. You really believe we can make peace with Muslim fanatics who live an uncivilized way? The worlds changed a lot in the last century and they just need to change with it or at least do a better job adapting. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Aniki
Wednesday, August 09, 2006, 23:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Since when is a serial killer civilised? Did I imply that war is good because it helps our economy or you trying to put words in my mouth because you'd rather have chilled bones. I simply stated a benefit of war. War is inevitable, just face it. Be glad you're not being bombed. And be glad that you need do nothing besides hide behind those that provide a safe country for you to live in.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From solemn
Friday, August 04, 2006, 13:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are sadly mistaken in your idea that war boosts the economy and provides jobs. It used to be the case when manufacturing and production was kept within the country, but with outsourcing, foreign contracts, machines replacing workers on assembly lines, and the enormous cost of modern technology, war no longer produces any effects on the economy other than increasing the national deficit and recession.
Yet another outdated Bergish concept.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From AndyH
Friday, August 04, 2006, 13:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
First, yes I do believe we can make peace.
Second, Muslim fanatics? As opposed to what? The open-minded, reasonable Christians and Jews? Don't make me laugh.
Yes, they need to change, so do we. We don't present a very desirable alternative to their lifestyle when all the see of us is US stencilled on a tank, or a missile. You can modernize a society by blowing it up. Freedom starts in the mind, not on the battle field. You need to read animal farm.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From conan
Saturday, August 05, 2006, 17:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't really want to get involved in this debate but feel that I must. Do you really think that the only horrific civilian casualties in this ongoing conflict are Lebanese. You'd have to be pretty dumb to think that. It's all a form of propaganda. Unfortunately for us Americans, we have no way at all to counter the brilliant propaganda efforts of the terrorist cells and nations.
You think that they get to watch TV or listen to international radio broadcasts in the majority of the Middle East? Of course they don't. The only way the common people in those regions hear about life in America is from their local governments. So how do you think we're portrayed? We're depicted as greedy, wicked, evil, war-mongering infadels. They absolutely use religion, Islam to be specific, to fan the flame of hatred against America. You think that there are that many uneducated muslims and other middle eastern races and religions that sort of all come to the same conclusion about America? Fuck no! They are taught to hate America and Americans from before they know how to crawl. You thought we were brainwashed in the Family? Well we were but so are countless thousands of people in that region.
Then, the propaganda spewing governments invade and ally of ours, we retaliate and the governments in the area say "See? we're right! Americans want our land and to wipe out our religion!" There's no way for us to convince the masses otherwise.
And for all you stupid twats out there who think that America is a bully and the terror of the world, wake up! If we didn't get involved in as many conflicts and insurgengies as we do, and didn't flex our military muscles, we'd have been invaded, attacked, and overrun a long time ago.
Ok, maybe there are nations in the world afraid of us, but that's because we're not afraid to shed some innocent blood to protect the interests of our nation as well as the freedoms that I'm so proud to call as my own.
And if you want to argue about America abusing the freedoms of its people, (and yes there are instances of that all the time but that's another topic entirely) why is America still the number one country in the world for residence visa applications as well as the final destination for so many refugees fleeing for their freedoms? Think about that for a minute before you jump to accuse America of being intolerant or anything else(reply to this comment) |
| | From AndyH
Monday, August 07, 2006, 11:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
Is this comment addressed to me? If so, you are putting a lot of words in my mouth.
"Do you really think that the only horrific civilian casualties in this ongoing conflict are Lebanese?"
Did I say that? I am aware that there have been Isreali casualties as well. Less, far less, but they are there.
"You think that they get to watch TV or listen to international radio broadcasts in the majority of the Middle East?"
Did I say that? For the record, just about half the houses I entered in Iraq, had satellite TV, it's very cheap there as they only have to pay once, not recurring monthly payments.
"before you jump to accuse America of being intolerant or anything else"
Did I say that? I don't see how imigration rates are an issue, and I appreciate the freedoms we have in america. That doesn't mean that we should swallow every pill the government feeds us.
One other thing I really don't understand about your comment. "Unfortunately for us Americans, we have no way at all to counter the brilliant propaganda efforts of the terrorist cells and nations?"
Is this a joke? Are you suggesting that we are subject to more pro-terrorist propaganda than other veiwpoints? That's absurd. No way to counter it? Hello! FOX News?
Anyway, I accept that I may be mistaking a lot of what you said, maybe you need to be more clear, or maybe I'm a dumbass.
That said, I know I started this debate, but I'm quite done with it. It was amusing at first, but neither of us are going to convince the other, and I just haven't the energy. You can take that as a victory if you like, and you're more than welcome to the last word.
CHeers!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Aniki
Thursday, August 03, 2006, 11:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hiding behind anonymity? Perhaps you should wake up to reality and realize that reality is rarely based on right or wrong. Power struggles have always been and always will be happening. I'm far from blind. I just happen to appreciate the luxuries and freedoms of being an American. Like I said, although I feel the pain the innocent suffer, I'd much rather be on the winning side. (reply to this comment) |
| | From ElRusoLatino
Thursday, August 03, 2006, 16:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
Official: Iraqi Trash Men Waging Jihad
BAGHDAD (el ruso latino) - Iraqi waste disposal professionals are letting huge amounts of trash fester in the blazing Iraqi summer to undermine American policy in the war on terror, a senior U.S. military official said, calling the acts a "jihad" against the United States.
"The garbage collectors view this as a struggle. They view this as a jihad... They're trying to figure out ways that they can continue the fight," said Marine General Henley Monblanc, the commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. "They do that by leaving large piles of waste uncollected for weeks at a time, by failing to conform to basic sanitary norms, by abusing American-donated trash handling machinery, and by using abandoned lots for dumping."
According to the general, the large amount of rotting, fetid meat and other decomposing organic material is intended to negatively affect American soldiers' morale. "Those people were born in trash and don't mind living neck deep in it, but it's really a downer for our boys," he said.
"I think it is less about their low salary, the risk of being kidnapped and executed, or that many trash piles are wired with IEDs and it's more that they hate freedom and the American way of life," Monblanc told reporters. He added that America did not negotiate with terrorists and would not be scared into withdrawing from Iraq because of the garbage situation.
Soon after his comments, Russian waste-rights activists charged that the general lacked cultural sensitivity in waste-processing issues. "Just because America handles its garbage in one manner doesn't give them the right to impose their system on the rest of the world," said activist Ludmilla Zolotnytskaya of Moscow. "Many Russian cities have the same approach to garbage as our Iraqi brothers. Does General Monblanc think we're waging jihad against America as well?"
She pointed to new forms of bacteria discovered in a dacha area outside of Saratov as proof that trash is natural.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from onewhoknows
Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 20:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Good job for Israel rooting out the terrorists. They are doing the job for the US and they deserve our thanks. Unfortunately there are some civilian casualties, but that is war. So any civilian is automatically going to feel sorry when they see some children get killed. When the terrorists are mingled around the civilians and are shooting rockets near children what can you expect.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | From Samuel
Thursday, August 10, 2006, 12:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
Honestly Andy, I shouldn't have to read the dictionary for you, but here goes:
The American Heritage College Dictionary says:
terrorist: (noun)One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
So scroll up one word, and you find "terrorism"
terrorism: (noun) The unlawful use of threatened force or violence to intimidate or coerce societies or government, often for ideological or political reasons.
unlawful: (adj) 1. Not lawful, illegal. 2. Contrary to accepted morality or convention; illicit.
War, and acts of war, are lawful only by legitimate nations. You may not agree with this, but that's what the UN says. I wasn't even alive when they came up with the "Laws of War", so don't blame me for that.
Hezbollah needs to accept that they, not the Israelis, are responsible for this war and the civilian casualties that ensued. The Israeli government is doing it's job, which is to defend Israelis and their homeland from attack by other nations, and especially by terrorists.
"It is much easier to be critical than to be correct."
(reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Friday, August 11, 2006, 07:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Your mention of the "laws of war" got me curious. I looked it up in Wikipedia whith many links to Geneva and Hague convetions etc. The violations of these "laws" by Israel are to numerous to count (also violations by Hezbollah). It would take a long time to list them all here with the backup of the convetions articles, but if you wish me to do so I will it is fascinating. However lets get to your attempt to use technicality to make the case that Hezbollah fits the dictionary definition of terrorism (which it does) while Israel does not (soryy it does to). If Hezbollah is not a government (which they aren't) then if they kidnap two soldiers and Israel attacks Lebanon and the Lebanese government. That would make the invasion would an entirely unprovocked act of war by Israel. Seeing as they weren't attacked by "Lebanon". If you want to cut it technical: Israel attacked Lebanon unprovocked and fit the dictionary definition of terrorism to a "t".. I do know that the reality is more complex, but it seems you wanted to found an argument on technicalities and doing so hurts your point tremendously. In addition I don't know how to quantify "accepted morality or convention" (from your dictionary definition), but I can tell you that the vast majority of the world would list the actions of Israel as "use of threatened force or violence to intimidate or coerce societies or government, often for ideological or political reasons." which according to your dictionary is terrorist if the force is "contrary to accepted morality or convention". The majority of the world might be a good standard for "accepted morality and convention". What do you think?
(reply to this comment) |
| | From TheExile
Thursday, August 10, 2006, 14:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hezbollah Appologizes
BEIRUT (element) -- Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah yesterday announced that he was "sorry" after admitting that his militia was "not fighting fair."
"I feel really, really bad and embarassed," Nasrallah said in a statement on Hezbollah television. "I mean, why can't we just fight fair against the Israelis? How can we face the girls during recess if we refuse to fight the Israeli forces face-to-face, and instead continue to fight in this sneaky way."
He called for a broad change in tactics in the war against Israel, after conceding that "the rules" clearly showed that bombing from an air force is "totally fair," while firing Katyusha rockets is "not fair."
"From now on, when the Israeli tanks and jets come at us, we'll make sure we're not anywhere near women or children, because it's not fair. Give the jets their best shot, then we'll take our best shot," said Nasrallah. "If it means our complete destruction, well, then that's fair."
He also called on Iraqi insurgents to "fight fair." "No more IEDs, no more suicide bombs," he said. "From now on, fight the Americans in formation on an open battlefield. After all, it's only fair."(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Samuel
Sunday, August 13, 2006, 14:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
I do not recall you trying to have an intelligent conversation with me. Calling me a retard and an idiot is not trying to have an intelligent conversation. Trash talking Fox News, Hal Lindsay, and most of my other sources is not trying to have an intelligent conversation. The article posted was confusing, as the poster not only neglected to mention that it was satire, but also forgot to write where they found it.
Please note that from what I have heard and read it is normal for Arab leaders to say one thing in Arabic and another thing in English for the European press. By the way, if you call me an idiot for agreeing with the now debunked article, than it can be safely assumed that you disagree with it. Do you think it would be wrong for Hezbollah to start "fighting fair"? Do you think IED's are a good thing? Please make up your mind.(reply to this comment) |
| | From AnnaH
Monday, August 14, 2006, 11:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well actually, I was the one who posted it and I put the Exile(the name of the paper) as the name of the commentor. I'm sorry I neglected to think of the other more intellectually challenged readers of this site who lack basic perception skills necessary to discern between the truth and an obvious joke, and didn't issue a satire warning. Henceforth, I will clearly spell out the name of my sources when I post an article and will also tell you if it's true, sarcastic, satire, farce, etc.... If you like, I can also tell you the main points of the articles so you don't waste precious hours trying to discern them for yourself.
BTW, I'm being sarcastic. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Monday, August 14, 2006, 17:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Seeing as how:
1. Most people have their nicknames in that space and...
2. The Exile sounded like a cool nickname...
I'm hoping you understand why that could have been confusing.
Only God knows what certain papers in the Middle East won't write for a good story. All they need is an Islamic leader that is willing to lie in English.
God Bless America,
Samuel Mercuri(reply to this comment) |
| | From AnnaH
Monday, August 14, 2006, 11:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well actually, I was the one who posted it and I put the Exile(the name of the paper) as the name of the commentor. I'm sorry I neglected to think of the other more intellectually challenged readers of this site who lack basic perception skills necessary to discern between the truth and an obvious joke, and didn't issue a satire warning. Henceforth, I will clearly spell out the name of my sources when I post an article and will also tell you if it's true, sarcastic, satire, farce, etc.... If you like, I can also tell you the main points of the articles so you don't waste precious hours trying to discern them for yourself.
BTW, I'm being sarcastic. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From AnnaH
Friday, August 04, 2006, 16:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
So because Israel is stronger than the puny little country's whose ass it's kicking right now, we should be on it's side? This isn't a prize fight. Innocent people are getting killed. You are heartless, thirsting for blood and saying, "Well sorry, but that's war." You don't give a fuck, don't act like you have a sympathetic bone in your body. You're just so blinded by your idiotic patriotism that you don't even see those children or those mothers or those bodies. All you see is the US is winning and you're on their side. Whoop-dee-fucking-doo.
I don't give a shit if Hezbollah started it, it's ending with innocent Lebanese people dead. There has to be a better way to do this. Besides, how the hell are you gonna wipe out terrorists by bombing the shit of their homes and countrymen? The survivors are just gonna grow up with even more resentment towards the Israelis, and who do you think the next Hezbollah recruits will be? Maybe you should stop looking at terrorists as crazed Muslim fanatics and look at them as people who have one hell of a fucking grudge. They have lost their homes, their loved ones, their rights. Underestimating your opponent is a huge mistake.
BTW, maybe you should look at the casualty list for both sides and see who's bearing the brunt of this war.
Israel-Civilians: 31 dead, over 600 wounded.
Israel-Military: 44 dead, 136 wounded.
Lebanon-Civilians: 477-833 dead. 2,145-3,200 wounded. Over 100,000 displaced.
Lebanon-Military: 27 dead, 70 wounded.
Hezbollah: 30-50 dead, confirmed by Hezbollah. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Korpesco
Thursday, August 10, 2006, 16:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes so Lebanon is bearing the brunt of it...but what is Israel supposed to do? They have a terrorist organisation on their border gaining a larger arsenal of rockets by the day from nations whos stated aim is to wipe Israel of the map. You can bet Israel was looking for a pretext to go in there and neutralize the threat before it got any larger.
Its easy to say "there has got to be a better way". But what if you were living in Israel watching the menace grow..would you be willing to wait to discover this "other way"...and what of the risks? Waiting is losing.
What is giving terrorism impetus is certain westerners self-hating which gives muslims a victim culture. Rather than looking inward they place all the blame on the west..since the west does it themselves..look on BBC these days..there are 3 interviews for the Lebanese side for every one Jew. The west never triumphed against other cultures and ideologies through appeasement be it Hitler, Communism or Islam.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Friday, August 04, 2006, 17:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ha Ha! You think you're funny don't you? You could try checking the date posted next to the video title, which says it's over a bit over a year old.
By the way, I'm very concerned about the genocide in Darfur. I wish something could be done about it. We're kinda busy with Iraq and Afghanistan though. Anyone wanna take this one? France? Germany? South Africa?(reply to this comment) |
| | From AnnaH
Saturday, August 05, 2006, 09:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, actually the situation in Darfur has been going on longer than a year. But no matter. You know why no one is gonna take that? Five words: "What's in it for us?" That's our foreign policy. You think the US does this shit out of charity? Fuck no. If that were the case then why didn't they do anything about Rwanda? Shit like this happens all over the world. We only get involved when it's in our best interests. The US isn't the Great Savior it likes to pretend it is. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Korpesco
Thursday, August 03, 2006, 11:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Omg lets bring in some half a millenium year old Iberian history in support of muslim tolerance in a time when religious extremism reigned in Europe. Look how moderate muslims are in comparison to the inquisition.
Do you know what the Koran says?
"God's curse be upon the infidels!" (2:89).
"They have incurred God's most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits [them]" (2:90).
"God is the enemy of the unbelievers" (2:98).
"The unbelievers among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], and the pagans, resent that any blessing should have been sent down to you from your Lord" (2:105).
"They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter" (2:114).
"Those to whom We [God] have given the Book, and who read it as it ought to be read, truly believe in it; those that deny it shall assuredly be lost" (2:122).
"[We] shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate" (2:126).
"The East and the West are God's. He guides whom He will to a straight path" (2:142).
"Do not say that those slain in the cause of God are dead. They are alive, but you are not aware of them" (2:154).
"But the infidels who die unbelievers shall incur the curse of God, the angels, and all men. Under it they shall remain for ever; their punishment shall not be lightened, nor shall they be reprieved" (2:162).
"They shall sigh with remorse, but shall never come out of the Fire" (2:168).
"The unbelievers are like beasts which, call out to them as one may, can hear nothing but a shout and a cry. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they understand nothing" (2:172).
"Theirs shall be a woeful punishment" (2:175).
"How steadfastly they seek the Fire! That is because God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about it are in extreme schism" (2:176).
"Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . [I]f they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers"(2:190–93).
"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not" (2:216).
I mean read the Koran...in almost any other verse you get the above. How is a good muslim supposed to be tolerant in light of the above?
As for the crusades...the muslims, in 100 years had conquered over two thirds of formerly christian lands. The crusades were a desperate and largely unsuccessful attempt at self defence. The survival of European and Christian culture hung in the balances. Paranoia was largely justified in light of the sweeping islamic empire which at its height controlled Spain and threatened Vienna.(reply to this comment) |
| | From dan
Tuesday, August 08, 2006, 03:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
you are so hopelessly uninformed i am not even going to deal with a tenth of the swill you are putting out. the crusades a self defence? for the love of history. and as for the Koran have you ever read a little book called the bible? basically the story of a nation ethnically cleansing its way across a land till it started to kill each other. piles of toes, every man among them slain, and what about that little thing called the inquisition? leave history where it is and look at the world today.
get some real history in you and read all of the religious texts you are going to quote from. try to have a objective opinion based on something other than OMG. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Korpesco
Thursday, August 10, 2006, 16:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
By calling me uninformed as an argument you commit an ad hominem logical fallacy and add nothing worthwhile to the debate. Don't know why you bring the Bible and inquisition into the debate. Most of the west has long since secularised and separated church and state. That europe was religious and fanatical 400 years ago has little to no bearing on the present. Unless you want to excuse current islamic religious extremism because the west was religiously extreme half a century ago?
Plus what does the crusades have to do with the inquisition? Just cause I say the crusades were a cultural self defence it doesnt mean I endorse the inquisition.
Finally if you want to argue Bible vs Koran I would dare you to find me Koranic verses which teach you to "love your enemies and do good to those that hate you" or provide a base for separating church and state such as "render unto ceasar what is ceasars and to God what is God".
Mentioning Old Testament attrocities does not represent New Testement derrived Christianity.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Friday, August 11, 2006, 07:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
A few of your statements: "By calling me uninformed as an argument you commit an ad hominem logical fallacy and add nothing worthwhile to the debate." If that were all he did you might have a point. However he started with a statement which he proceeded to back up, (somewhat although without going in to each item very thouroughly). If you called Hezbollah terrorist and then backed it up with facts would it be legit for someone to only use the initial statement that they are terrorists and say this is only emotional labeling and "ad hominem logical fallacy?" No, if you back it up it's perfectly proper. Now on to: "Don't know why you bring the Bible and inquisition into the debate. Most of the west has long since secularised and separated church and state. That europe was religious and fanatical 400 years ago has little to no bearing on the present". If history is irrelevant then don't bring up the crusades from even longer ago. You ask "Plus what does the crusades have to do with the inquisition?" The crusades have something to do with the inquisition in that they were both instigated and controlled by the same fanatical Christian church that represented extreme hatred of any who disagreed with them theologicaly. Are you incapable of making that simple obvious connection? The statement of you being uninformed might be accurate, or you may not understand how to process information you do have, but your statements show that at least one of these conclusions has some validity.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Korpesco
Friday, August 11, 2006, 10:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
Um steam what statement did Dan give that he later proceeded to back up? No," --you are so hopelessly uninformed i am not even going to deal with a tenth of the swill you are putting out. the crusades a self defence--" doesnt count because what facts or arguments does that statement have other than add hominem? My bringing up the crusades was in direct response to AnnaH saying with historical authority that..."muslims have always been the whipping boy of the west"...a statement I felt was not accurate. My mentioning the Koran and giving Koranic verses was in direct response to someone (I think it was you) saying the Koran preaches peace or something to that effect. Mentioning the Bible has nothing to do with the fact that I tried to show that current muslims can be influenced into terrorism by the Koran. I mean how does the argument of "just read the Bible" stand as an argument against that?
Sure the crusades and inquisition were both instigated by the catholic church but this is completely out of context and is irrelevant to the argument that the crusades were a move of cultural self defence because mentioning the inquisition does not tell how the crusades were not an act of self defence. It is also irrelevant to the argument of Muslims being influenced negatively by the Koran because mentioning the inquisition doesnt negate that either.
You have no logical progression so discussing with you wont go anywhere.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From AnnaH
Thursday, August 03, 2006, 12:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
First of all, could you please put those quotes into some context because in about half of them I don't who "they" are. I'm assuming they're non-believers, but are we talking about the difference between a non-believing Christian or a non-believing Hindu? I was under the impression, and I received this impression because a Muslim friend of mine told me this, that Muslims, while they probably don't think Christians will go to heaven, respect them because they are believers in the previous prophet of God, Jesus. They believe that was Jesus was God's prophet for that time, and now Mohammed is the prophet for our time. However, as far as Hindus go, they have almost no tolerance whatsoever.
Second, you'll find the same hatred and violence against non-believers in the Bible. There is a big discrepancy between what is preached and what is practiced(or do we still stone women to death for adultery or for working on the Sabbath?). What is practiced varies from region to region, country to country. Lebanon has a large Christian population, and since the Civil War has been relatively peaceful with their Muslim neighbors. Keep in mind, just like Christianity, in Islam there are fanatical Muslims (that follow every letter of the law--at least the ones that suit them) and there are modern Muslims. And modern Muslims know that some rules are simply out of date.
Third, none of all that really matters, this isn't about religion, it's about politics. The leaders know what these politics are, but the problem is a lot of the underlings don't(or the leaders don't want them to know). So how do they get young Muslims to give their lives fighting for them? They preach to them a bunch of bullshit about God and Jihad and how it is their Muslim duty. Just like America is telling us that's what it's about because they don't want us to know the real reason is because of our shitty foreign policy and history of fucking them over. As you may have noticed religion is strongest in the poorest(and dumbest) areas(Compare fanaticism in Iran to the United Arab Emirates). But most of them aren't informed about the greater powers at work.
Lastly, if this was about freedoms then why are we targeted? There are countries in Europe a lot more "free" than we are. Why don't they attack Amsterdam, or Germany? Spain wasn't bombed until it decided to enter into this stupid Iraq war and they have round the clock prostitution, and alcohol available almost everywhere. Obviously we're missing something here. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Korpesco
Thursday, August 03, 2006, 14:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
The Koran verses were in context of your question "do you even know the Koran" or something like that. I mean anyone who has read the Koran and cannot see any connection between what is contained therein and Islamic extremism needs to visit a neurologist.
Dont know why you bring up the Bible..most of the europe I live in is secular. Regardless, the comparison between the Mosaic law and the Koran doesnt touch on western christian culture. Christianity overrode or at least gave an alternative viewpoint with messages such as "love your enemies". Plus the Bible never claimed to be sacred so its not really as responsible for dictating a lifestyle as the Koran is. No Andy I am not a christian.
Finally, Germany does not have a large muslim population like France or Holland or Spain does. Turkey is the most secular muslim nation so Germany does not have all that much of a problem with the Turkish immigrants. Holland had its share of murder with politicians and prominent citizens being murdered in the streets for upholding their civil liberties and values and trying to extend that to muslims in order to empower women and such. Thailand has bombs going off in the south... its not just about America.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From AnnaH
Thursday, August 03, 2006, 15:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
I stand by my original comment "Do you even know what the Koran says?" Because even though you do (and I really am impressed-I'm not being sarcastic)I doubt Samuel does and I doubt a lot of americans do. All they know is the word Jihad: holy war. All they know is what Fox News tells them.
When I said put those into context, I meant who are they referring to in the verses? Not what did those have to do with anything. Of course Islamic extremism is backed by the Koran, that wasn't my point. The fact that those verses were incredibly vague just shows how you can twist so-called sacred texts to fit your agenda. Any Imam can say that Americans are the infidels it is referring to, or any Sunni can say it's the Shiites it's referring to, and all of a sudden it's sanctioned by the prophet! My point was that Muslims don't equal fanatics. I referenced Christianity to show that anyone can take the Bible or the Koran or the Talmud too far. Yes, these were once the rules. Yes, Christians are theoretically supposed to be following them(And sorry, but a lot of these fanatics don't realize that Jesus ratified the former rules and still see them as valid). But how many fanatical christians do you see? We see some, but we also see that the majority of christians are just slightly annoying do-gooders or self-righteous morons who don't cause any real harm. They are just trying to live by the Bible and yes, they probably want everyone else to believe like them and are resentful to those that don't, but they're not about to go out and start slaughtering people or waging war on them. The same thing goes for many Muslims. Most of them are just out there trying to live good lives. We see a lot of fanatical muslims right now, because there are a lot of problems going on in the world. And where there is strife, there is religion. Islam is the world's second largest religion, and what a coincidence, it happens to be in a lot of third world countries. What we are seeing is not the fault of religion, rather religion is being used to divert from the real issues, and is used as an excuse for atrocities committed. How do you appeal to the masses who have no other understanding of what is going on in their country? Blame it on the Christians, Blame it on Allah, Blame it on the Infidels. Anything the masses will understand.
I never had to study the bible like most kids in the family did, so I can't really refute your claim that the bible never claimed to be sacred(I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, that it is meant to govern society or to just be a suggestion?). But the bible was the governing point of many Christian societies until the 20th century. The pope was higher than the king until the kings realized who had the real power. While they may not have claimed to be a theocracy, a law would not have been passed if not in accordance with the bible, or accordance with the Christian rulers.
As for the issues with Europe, I stand corrected. I really don't know that much about the issue in Europe. It seems they are facing some assaults from muslims. I just assume since the US has grossly inflated the threat of terrorism in our country, it must not exist in others.
Forgive me if I'm unclear, these are relatively new ideas for me and I haven't quite worked them out in my head. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Friday, August 04, 2006, 06:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
I know quite a bit about the Koran, thank you very much. Thanks to a book by Hal Lindsay called " The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad ".
Hal Lindsay quoted heavily from the Koran and other historians, not distrortians. Hey, I just made up a new word!
You probably don't like Hal Lindsay, but that alone doesn't make him a bigot. The New York Times seemed to like him, they named him the best selling author in the world for the decade in the 1970's.
Samuel Mercuri
(reply to this comment) |
| | From dan
Tuesday, August 08, 2006, 04:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
YOU DIDN'T???you did. you read a book called the everlasting hatred???? there's a unbiased and objective opinion. you are a idiot and should not have the right to think as you never do. best selling to anyone that has read the Koran?ahhhhh why is individual thought such a enigma in our society. lots of idiots have best sellers. Karl and some Austrian guy both wrote immensely popular books of academic and sociological importance that they are still studied and taught and studied over today.
do yourself a favor and read something from both sides and try and learn what the other sides feels about it. why do they hate us? ask that question. ask a lot of questions. any time you have such clear and concise opinions and have it all figured out... then you will know that you are wrong and can start the hunt again.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From AndyH
Friday, August 04, 2006, 09:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ok RETARD, naming someone 'bestselling author of a decade' is down to statistics and is not a criticism or endorsement of the given individual's opinions or theories? And also, you make all your judgements based on what the New York Times says? Do you wake up in the morning, turn on fox news and say "I wonder what my opinion will be today"? Must be nice to have it all figured out for you. (reply to this comment) |
| | From moonbeam
Saturday, August 05, 2006, 09:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Order from- http://www.outfoxed.org/
About Outfoxed
"Outfoxed" examines how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, have been running a "race to the bottom" in television news. This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public's right to know.
The film explores Murdoch's burgeoning kingdom and the impact on society when a broad swath of media is controlled by one person.
Media experts, including Jeff Cohen (FAIR) Bob McChesney (Free Press), Chellie Pingree (Common Cause), Jeff Chester (Center for Digital Democracy) and David Brock (Media Matters) provide context and guidance for the story of Fox News and its effect on society.
This documentary also reveals the secrets of Former Fox news producers, reporters, bookers and writers who expose what it's like to work for Fox News. These former Fox employees talk about how they were forced to push a "right-wing" point of view or risk their jobs. Some have even chosen to remain anonymous in order to protect their current livelihoods. As one employee said "There's no sense of integrity as far as having a line that can't be crossed."
Director/Producer Robert Greenwald has produced and/or directed 53 television movies, miniseries and features. He is the director of Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, Uncovered: The Iraq War and the Executive Producer of the UN series - Unprecedented, Uncovered and Unconstitutional.
Running Time: 77 minutes
Great documentery.
see also The Corperation
http://www.thecorporation.com/
SYNOPSIS
THE CORPORATION explores the nature and spectacular rise of the dominant institution of our time. Footage from pop culture, advertising, TV news, and corporate propaganda, illuminates the corporation's grip on our lives. Taking its legal status as a "person" to its logical conclusion, the film puts the corporation on the psychiatrist's couch to ask "What kind of person is it?" Provoking, witty, sweepingly informative, The Corporation includes forty interviews with corporate insiders and critics - including Milton Friedman, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and Michael Moore - plus true confessions, case studies and strategies for change.
Winner of 24 INTERNATIONAL AWARDS, 10 of them AUDIENCE CHOICE AWARDS including the AUDIENCE AWARD for DOCUMENTARY in WORLD CINEMA at the 2004 SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL. The long-awaited DVD, available now in Australia and coming in March to North America, contains over 8 hour of additional footage.
The film is based on the book The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power by Joel Bakan.
Another well worth seeing is The Control Room
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002X8U4I/103-7000449-1940636?v=glance&n=130
Humour-The end of the world cartoon clip
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php
DARK COMEDY clip
http://itzjonesy.com/controlarms.html
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Friday, August 04, 2006, 17:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
Where are you getting YOUR information from, Andy H? First of all, I'm not a retard and unless you're a psychiatrist, you have no business calling anyone a retard.
I get most of my news from MSN.com. I also read the paper, if it's available at work. I like entertainment magazines like People and US Weekly. I usually watch a mixture of MSNBC and Fox News . I like Fox not for the news, but for the debates. I don't always agree with the news anchors. I'm not much different from you, you probably don't agree with the anchors all the time either. If you watch CNN, I'm under the impression you probably don't agree much with their anchor for the 10:00 slot, Glenn Beck.
Did you read anything on the site you just posted a link to, or did you just do that to give the impression that you had read it? I think you'd enjoy the front article about Qana, I know I did. Hal, by the way, is no dummy. He earned a degree from University of Houston, served in the Coast Guard during the Korean War, and went back to school at Dalles Theological Seminary for a graduate degree majoring in both New Testament and early Greek literature.
There is really nothing to afraid of. Unless you still have that pesky little persecution complex we all were ingrained with in The Family.
Good night!
Samuel Mercuri
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Fish
Friday, August 04, 2006, 04:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Circular reasoning. We are there to protect them; therefore they become a "strategic ally". Its only relatively recently that the Islamic world has become a treat to the west. For the greater part of the 20th century the Arab world was our ally.
As for their "sizable military", it for the most part was given to them by us, yet they still flout our orders. I would like to see them fight another "6 day war", this time without any western support.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Aniki
Friday, August 04, 2006, 12:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Japan is an important ally of ours. And extremely important strategically in Asia. And we're there to protect them. Your point was?
The Islamic world was only our ally because they had no way to stand against us. Sometimes they needed our help to fight a neighbouring islamic country. Islamic fanatics won't be happy until they rule the world and everyone is converted to their outdated beliefs.(reply to this comment) |
| | From conan
Saturday, August 05, 2006, 22:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
As unfortunate as the stereotype is, the rapid spread of Islam in it's earliest days was assistaded greatly by the promise of no taxes if you convert, or the point of a sword. Death is a powerful motivator and it caused hundreds of thousands of conversions worldwide. Now despite the fact that the majority of Muslims today don't believe in this method of prostelytizing or conversion process, the fanatics clearly still adhere to these dated, demented doctrines and believe strongly in propogating said methods and acts of violence as their means to the end of world diversity and the unification under the banner of their god.
Yeah, religion blows!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Fish
Friday, August 04, 2006, 23:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Fool. Your example is relevant to the middle east how?
We are certainly not in Japan to protect them. We were there as conquerors, and now we are there simply to protect American interests in south east Asia. America could care less if Japan crashed and burned. And Japan would not be overly saddened to see us gone.
None of these factors are applicable to Israel. So just do us a favor and take a sledge hamer to your PC.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Fish
Friday, August 04, 2006, 04:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Lets sing: "I may never march in the infantry, ride in the cavalry, shoot the artilery, I may never fliiiiiiiy over the enemy, but Im in the LORDs army, YES SIR!!!"
"Im in the LORDs army, YES SIR!!! Im in the LORDs army, YES SIR!!!"
(Repeat as lead)
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From smashingrrl
Tuesday, August 01, 2006, 21:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Okay, thanks. Thanks Israel for further radicalizing the region. Thanks for making sure there will be no moderates left. Thanks Bush for making sure every Arab child grows up not just hearing of, but actually seeing how bad the "great satan" truly is. How else would you interpret it as a child? As long as our foreign policy is on par with "Fat Bastard", we're not making any friends. Wars don't create peace. That's like all those idiots who teach their children not to hit by beating them. Diplomacy creates peace. For diplomacy to work, BOTH sides have to give a little or give a lot. But before they can even give; they have to stop bombing and start talking. America used to be considered an honest broker in the region. We had pull. In '97 the same shit could have happened, it almost did. Hezbollah started massing on the border and bombing Israel. Guess what though? We had a President who was willing to talk to those who didn't agree with him. We had a President who was willing to engage not just hold press conferences dictating what he thinks ought to be done. Clinton called Syria. Albright went to the region and actually stayed longer than an hour and spoke to both sides. And whodathunkit; Hezbollah backed down. What a difference a few years and several thousand brain cells makes. What good is being right when your children are dead and you've helped perpetuate hatred by confirming for the next generation what the Mullahs are telling them?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Nick
Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 15:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is a interesting article. http://www.break.com/index/what_really_happens_pallywood.html
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from AndyH
Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 14:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
I've been waiting to hear what the War Nerd had to say about all this, here it is. Please don't assume I agree with everything he says.
http://www.exile.ru/2006-July-28/a_hezbollah_upon_all_of_thee.html
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Rain Child
Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 02:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
I looked at it. It made me very sad. I don't think it's biased. On the news they said the majority of the victims are children. It's not biased because all the photos are real. They're not saying anything, just showing us the photos. I signed the petition.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from steam
Monday, July 31, 2006 - 14:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
I can't understand people refering to the kidnapping of two soldiers as starting a war. (War kind of obscures the reality as it is a onesided bombarment of almost exclusively civilians and civilian infrastructure targets). By that kind of logic almost any nation is justified in almost any atrocity on almost any other nation. Name any two nations on the planet and odds are with a bit of research I could find a provocation that rises to this level, thus justifying an indiscrimanite (terrorist, by almost any definition one can imagine) campaign on this scale.
(reply to this comment)
| From Korpesco
Friday, August 11, 2006, 10:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
The kidnapping of the two soldiers is a perfect opportunity and as good a pretext as any for negating a national threat. In this case there was a terrorist organisation (not a nation) aquiring more Israel- threatening rockets by the day from antagonistic nations who wish to see Israel off the map. Tell me what should Israel do? Lebanon did not have the power to neutralise Hezbollah...the UN would have taken ages...an amount of time I wouldnt have tolerated as a threatened Israeli civilian.
This is not a war against nations but against religious facism. Appeasement wont work...it never worked for any other ideology from Hitler to Communism. (reply to this comment) |
| | From AndyH
Friday, August 11, 2006, 10:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is a war between Iran and Israel, fought in Lebanon. It's actually quite clever on Iran's behalf. Duke it out with the infidels, and take no collateral damage in your own country. Of course we don't care that we're mass punishing the wrong nation, because they're all brown so fuck it.
Also, no Christian has the right to call Muslims fascist, or fanatic, even if you have cleaned up your act (a little) you still celebrate and respect your horrible legacy of genocide. Fuck all you quarrelling Judaic-monotheists. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
"You're religion is wrong because you worship a pink elephant, when we all know the elephant is blue."(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Nick
Monday, July 31, 2006 - 13:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
While those pictures are nothing short of heart wrenching, I do not think that people are getting the whole picture.
Hezbollah is just as much to blame for this war as the Israelis of not more so!
If they would have just returned the 2 Israel hostages this war would have never started!
Then you go and blame the Israelis for bombing civilian areas in Lebanon. You wanna know why? You have Hezbollah firing rockets from an apartment complex right onto Israel, so what do you expect them to do? They are gonna return fire directly where they received that fire from.
Again, I am not trying to belittle the pain and terror that these people are going through. I mean every little kid I see hurt on the news reminds me of my own son. However I think people need to step back from the sensationalism of those dramatic pic’s and realize those people are bringing this war on themselves and should be just as much to blame for these deaths as the ones that fired the rockets in the 1st place.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | From cheeks
Tuesday, August 01, 2006, 16:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree Isreal was looking for a reason and the soldiers gave them one. Two wrongs don't make a right. We can sit here and blame the terrrorists all day but the reality is Isreal is no better right now. Imagine Canada or Mexico bombing us because some white supremacy group or some gang kidnaped two of the border patrol. The very idea is idiocy. Why does Isreal think it is any better than the terrorists are?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From smashingrrl
Monday, July 31, 2006, 14:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
I was with you until the last sentence. Hezbollah and the Lebanese people are not interchangeable. Hezbollah doesn't give a shit about the Lebanese. The people who are dying on both sides of this stupid fight are mostly civilians. The Lebanese people didn't ask for this shit. Hezbollah picked the fight, there's no question about that. But Lebanon is a Democracy with a shockingly progressive government. Forty percent of the Beirut population is actually Christian. Do you think they support Hezballah? Yes Hezbollah is purposely setting up in civilian areas in order to protect themselves or in lieu of protection, get some beautiful PR due to civilian casualties. But the Israelies have all the technology we do yet they're using cluster bombs which only increase collateral damage. This isn't about Lebanon. This is a power grab by the Shiites of Iran. We just made them even more powerful by attacking Iraq and turning it from a dictatorship to an Islamic Theocracy alligned with Iran. (reply to this comment) |
| | from loch
Monday, July 31, 2006 - 10:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
I physically gagged. Thank you for posting this guys. We need to find more stuff like this. I wish with all my heart that I could get over there and take those pictures myself. Although the need is more along the lines of finding someone to actually publish these photographs for the public to see.
(reply to this comment)
| from AnnaH
Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 12:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hmm...the link doesn't seem to be working. I hope the host wasn't bombed. Try back later. It is pretty disgusting.
Bias Warning: Samantha is Lebanese so naturally she's gonna be a little subjective with this whole thing going on. They make a lot of digs against the Israelis on the webiste, and of course assume that everyone is on Israel's side, which is not the case, but from her point of view(she's in Lebanon right now, her town was bombed) it probably seems that way.
Here's another website that has a lot of the same images and more, without the opinions of the US and Israel from the Lebanese:
http://stopdestroyinglebanon.com/WarOnLebanon/nfblog/?page_id=3
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Sunday, July 30, 2006, 19:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
How is using poor helpless women and children as human shields justified? I'm sure Hezbollah has a way of justifying it, it just would be nice if they'd admit it pubicly.
But that of course won't do anything for them when they have to face judgement day.
I have seen the pictures. What Hezbollah is doing is the worst of all human rights violations because they are hurting both their own citizens, and the Israeli soldiers. And I'm afraid the UN is too timid to do anything about it. All this because they don't want to turn over soldiers, who are probably dead by now, and let their government set up a border watch to prevent further harrassment, terrorist attacks, and other illegal activity.
Hopefully that judgement day will come sooner than later.
Samuel Mercuri
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From AndyH
Sunday, July 30, 2006, 22:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Samuel, the IRA had cells in Dublin. Were they using the Dubliners as human shields? Would the British have been justified in bombing Dublin? You've seen the photos? Dense downtown high rise buildings indiscriminately bombed.
You have very strong feelings, but you really need to get your facts straight. Hezbollah doesn't give 2 shits about the Lebanese, and the Lebanese are powerless to stop them. The Lebanese army is outnumbered by Hezbollah, the Lebanese people are not responsible for the kidnappings or the missile launches, or any of that shit. They are just innocent people feeling the shotgun blast.
Using gross excessive overkill measures, and blaming the enemy for the body count, is a cowardly cop-out. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From steam
Tuesday, August 01, 2006, 14:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
The IRA most definetely did want to drive the British "into the sea". If that is the term you mean for removing them completely from a territory. As far as annihilating them, if the Israeli's were to abandon their territory completely, that is really what is being sought. (This is not something I think would be right or fair, only that the differences pointed out were not accurate). As far as rockets in civilian areas along the border, the reason they did not have them was because it was beyond their capabilities, not because of restraint. I am pretty convinced if they did, the British would not have used this response. What is irritating me in this thread is that when someone states that civilian locations are being attacked only because they were a launch base, it seems to be accepted as fact. Reality is that massive bombing is occuring in Beirut, way out of potential reach of Isreal by Hezbollah rockets. Please stop pretending that the Israelis are somehow carefully targeting only such locations, it is waaaayyy out of line with the reality on the ground.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Korpesco
Tuesday, August 01, 2006, 16:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dont know why you insist on trying to defend a faulty, overly simplistic analogy which has been overused on many forums. You say "the IRA definitely did want to drive the British into the see"...please show me where this was the IRAs stated aim? Nor did the IRA want to remove England as a nation or people. The IRA had undercover cells fighting covertly for independence of a limited and specific area. They did not openly control a whole border stretch with thousands of troops and tens of thousands of rockets under the support of a England-hostile nation intent on fighting a proxy war through it. The situation was completely different so the British response was different. I mean there is almost no way to compare the two.
Plus im not pretending Israel is only targeting military targets..I never even mentioned anything on this. I can say I do not know the "reality on the ground" and unless you believe you do arguing over how Israel conducts the war and trying to attach pure or impure motives is complete speculation.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Tuesday, August 01, 2006, 23:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
One point on this not knowing the "reality on the ground". The fact Beirut is being attacked is 100% accepted by all of the world. The fact that it is farther from the border than Jerusalem from the Lebanese border, and Hezbollah has never been able to lob a rocket even near to Jerusalem shows clearly it is out of range of being a Hezbollah launch site. If seeing such actions does not allow you to attach pure or impure motives, than you may want to try a career as a defense lawyer for child rapists and murderers as you would not be able to attach any motives to any actions. Maybe the reason you said this, is because you feel you don't know the "reality on the ground". However if this issue has any effect in your life, you may want to consider just a little digging. Clicking on the pictures will give you just as much "reality on the ground" as looking at footage of 911 will for that reality.(reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Tuesday, August 01, 2006, 23:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree the analogy is overly simplistic. Unfortunately your response was also simplistic and somewhat innacurate. Did you read my comment? Drive them into the sea is the same thing as saying drive them off the island (surrounded by what?) As far as removing Enland as a nation that has to do with the fact England also had territory elsewhere, what do you want to bet if Israel had a section of Canada, Hezbollah's stated aim would be to "send them back to their own land where they belong". The same as the IRA. But I do agree there are many differences as well.(reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Tuesday, August 01, 2006, 23:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree the analogy is overly simplistic. Unfortunately your response was also simplistic and somewhat innacurate. Did you read my comment? Drive them into the sea is the same thing as saying drive them off the island (surrounded by what?) As far as removing Enland as a nation that has to do with the fact England also had territory elsewhere, what do you want to bet if Israel had a section of Canada, Hezbollah's stated aim would be to "send them back to their own land where they belong". The same as the IRA. But I do agree there are many diferences as well.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Nick
Monday, July 31, 2006, 14:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
There is a HUGE difference between the satiation in Ireland and what the Hezbollah are doing.
The IRA are not sitting in appt complexes firing rockets into the UK. The Israelis are not sitting there saying “Oh, lets send in a rocket to that house over there and hope we can kill some kids.” They are firing a rocket into that house because someone just used that house as a launch pad for their rockets.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Monday, July 31, 2006, 14:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nick, the very fact that Israel has been giving warnings of their attacks is evidence that they either don't have an effective strategy, or don't believe in it themselves. Take a minute to think about it logically, who are going to be the most able - or inclined - to up-&-leave an endangered area? The residents whose families, homes and possessions are there, or the terrorist cell using them as a 'human shield'?
While there are significant differences between the IRA and Hezbollah their strategy is not that dissimilar - and is bog-standard terrorist strategy - strike and hide. Their aim is not to participate in an all-out battle, which would play far more to the strengths of their enemy than their own. And as for "firing a rocket into that house because someone just used that house as a launch pad for their rockets" - that may account for some of the border targets, but when it comes to bombing Qana, Beirut and other cities, that simply doesn't apply.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From AndyH
Monday, July 31, 2006, 11:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
What does that even mean? Put them in their homes?
Look Samuel, I know plenty of conservative republican types, that I have respect for, usually because they can admit fault at appropriate times. I respect your political position, but if you're just going to be a blind idiot then I'm not going to argue with you.
You need to get together with Ne Oublie, he can actually make a point from time time. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Monday, July 31, 2006, 14:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Is that my name I see being used in vain? Unfortunately Samuel's not going to find much of an ally in me on this count, while I can understand the sense of 'justice' which is driving the Israeli response, I think that it is quite simply a flawed strategy.
Leave aside the moral questions regarding collective punishment and bombing civilian populations in order to root out alleged terrorist cells - the fact of the matter is that it doesn't work! In fact, far from destroying Hezbullah - or indeed Hamas through their strategy in the Palestinian areas - they are instead strengthening them, by creating a generation which has even more of a grudge against them, and with good reason too.
So while I don't blame the Israeli government for wanting to take military action, the fact that they have done so has diminished my respect for their grasp of strategy or simply the reality of the enemy they face.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]