# Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land



## CanadaPhil (19 Jul 2006)

I wanted to pass along a link to a site I have come across while looking into debate on Middle Eastern television.

It is NOT ALL ONE SIDED as many of you (including myself) may think. I have found this site to be incredibly enlightening.

The main page of the MEMRI TV Project can be found here:

http://memritv.org/aboutus.asp


*** HERE ARE LINKS TO 2 CLIPS THAT JUST BLEW ME AWAY. I was awestruck by the utter conviction and bravery of this woman being interviewed by Al Jazeera.

http://www.memritv.org/view.asp?P1=1050

http://www.memritv.org/view.asp?P1=783


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jul 2006)

Here is a _New York Times_ article (2006-03-11) (reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act) about Dr. Wafa Sultan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/international/middleeast/11sultan.html?ex=1299733200&en=d13886daba5e586f&ei=5090&partner=rssus 


> For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats
> 
> By JOHN M. BRODER
> Published: March 11, 2006
> ...



She is not alone but she is part of a tiny, _enlightened_ minority within Islam which, correctly I think, see Huntington’s _Clash of Civilizations_ (in so far as it refers to the _West_ and the Arab/Persian-Islamic ‘world’) as being a _Clash of Eras: Medieval vs Modern_ or, in her words: a clash between civilization and barbarism. 

She is a forceful and effective advocate for _civilization_ but I fear for her life.


----------



## Trooper Hale (19 Jul 2006)

Thanks for posting that, i found it really interesting. She does have very good points and a really well thought out argument. The other chap in the last one seemed pretty keen to discuss Indians as though the Americans are still killing them. Its strange to hear them refer to the Crusades too. Bizarre to think that something that happened hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years ago is still relevent to Muslims.

That was really good. Thanks and i think Edward Campbell has a point. She must be a target for someone.


----------



## GAP (19 Jul 2006)

But the seed has been sown...now to see if it grows..


----------



## CanadaPhil (27 Jul 2006)

** UPDATE **

Here is a link to what Nazrallah, Hezbollah's leader said on Al Jazeera on July 21st. Its a little long but you can hear the other point of view directly from his mouth.

http://www.memritv.org/view.asp?P1=1200

** UPDATE ** (Again!)

There was also a Nazrallah interview just from yesterday I almost missed.

http://www.memritv.org/view.asp?P1=1203


=======================================================================


This one goes to a page showing multiple TV clips with debate on the Lebanon conflict:

http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S5&P1=166#


The first one on the list (just over 1 minute) is rather comical.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Aug 2006)

Of course MEMRI is merely the mouthpiece of the Zionist entity misrepresenting the peace loving Muslims.   :

At first they were criticized for their selection of pieces that were being translated, the critics claiming they were showing only one view, I noticed that they balanced them out a bit to show that there are in fact Muslims who will speak publicly about peace with the west and Israel, but they are few and far between sadly.

I read one piece on “Arab News” lambasting their translations, I sent the author an e-mail asking for examples to prove his point, never heard from him. That has been the only complaint I have seen about the quality of their translations.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Aug 2006)

Hale said:
			
		

> Its strange to hear them refer to the Crusades too. Bizarre to think that something that happened hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years ago is still relevent to Muslims.



Hmmm, Jesus,....born over 2000 years ago...somewhat relevant to Christians one might think.

..and if you need Christians caring about battles from "hundreds and hundreds of years ago", check out Ireland and the UK during marching season.  Seems like a double standard argument to me.


----------



## Trooper Hale (1 Aug 2006)

Marching down a road to celebrate old battles is a bit different to setting 200kg of explosive under a block of flats and claiming it was because of the Crusades of 1065. That seems disproportionate to me.
Thats what i meant in the post. Also, because I'm sure your thinking this. I'm yet to hear any Irish Republican or Ulster loyalist claim that they did a car bomb to get back at the other for the English invasion in 1170. They'll claim a reason or incident a tad more up to date.


----------



## armyvern (1 Aug 2006)

Hale said:
			
		

> Marching down a road to celebrate old battles is a bit different to setting 200kg of explosive under a block of flats and claiming it was because of the Crusades of 1065. That seems disproportionate to me.
> Thats what i meant in the post. Also, because I'm sure your thinking this. I'm yet to hear any Irish Republican or Ulster loyalist claim that they did a car bomb to get back at the other for the English invasion in 1170. They'll claim a reason or incident a tad more up to date.



No bombs have ever gone off in Ireland I guess. No religious fighting that has gone on for centuries? Sure they'll use a 'more recent' incident. But they'll also go back centuries for cannon fodder if you want them to.

As will there be current incidents used relating to goings on in the mid-eastern regions. Like fresh water, right of Palestinians to return to occupied territories, settlements, and reasons like grouping the few intollerants together with the masses of those Muslims who disagree with their extremist views. Happens all the time. 

Just as the Bosnians and the Serbs could refer back to battles of centuries gone by, so can, and do, every other religious entity in the world. 

Why is whats good for the goose not good for the gander here?


----------



## Trooper Hale (1 Aug 2006)

All i said was for me personally i find it in concievable that some can claim ancient history as a reason for killing others. In the second paragraph of my post i mentioned bombs going off in Northern Ireland. My family are from Ireland, my mum grew up there, when my grandfather was my age he was in the IRA. I was responding to Bruce mentioning "Marching season".
But what i'm saying is that i find it inconcievable to use ancient history to kill people. I dont care if its the Proddies or the Provos, Al-Quada or Hezbollah. It just doesnt seem like a reason to me in the same way it does for them. Thats what all i mean in the first post! Ireland wasnt involved in this topic so i didnt mention it.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 Aug 2006)

This particular clip is quite surprising:

http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S5&P1=166#

Strange that the president of Venezuela would have such a bone on against Israel.  Did it not occur to him that the guy sitting beside him thinks he is a degenerate infidel, and would like nothing better than to see him dead, and his country converted to the radical shia vision?  :clown:

***note*** That shortcut leads to the list of vids, not the specific one.  It is listed first, and has the two presidents dancing to  Up Where We Belong   in the thumbnail (I think  ;D).


----------



## CanadaPhil (3 Aug 2006)

** UPDATE **

Here is what the President of Yemen said on August 1 regarding the situation in Lebanon.

I cannot believe this lunatic is the PRESIDENT of a nation. Mind boggling. :


http://www.memritv.org/view.asp?P1=1217


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Aug 2006)

He has the same crazy eyes that some of the people I drag into the psych ward have.  
Time to renew your script, Mr. Saleh.


----------



## pbi (3 Aug 2006)

Interesting. Always very informative and important to get a look over the fence. 

 I found the secular Arab woman on MEMRI (the one debating the cleric...) to be generally quite good, but rather forgetful where the Israelis and terrorism are concerned. As we have discussed elsewhere, Jewish groups such as Irgun, Palmach, the Stern Gang, etc most defintely did use very vicious terrorist techniques in the late 1940's to secure the independence of Israel from Britain. The Arabs have no corner on the use of terror in the history of the Middle East. I also rather doubt that most important scientific inventions of the 19th and 20th centuries were the work of Jewish scientists (I could be wrong...). At least they certainly weren't Arabs, that's for sure.

The Secretary General of Hizbollah is also quite entertaining as he dances around the glaring fact that they obviously made a hideous miscalculation about the likely Israeli reaction. However, I suspect that he is quite right that as long as there is still one missile launcher, or one gunman, Hizbollah survives. How do you kill an idea, especially one that seems to appear to a large number of people?

Finally, while the President of Yemen may have funny eyes, most of what he says makes complete sense if you look at it from the particular Arab perspective that identifies Israel and the US as enemies, and regards Arab regimes that have made accomodations with Israel (or the US) as traitors. If I am not mistaken, this point of view is apparently held by large numbers of Arabs. I bet that his view of the proposed international force is quite widely held in the Arab world, too.

And as for references to redressing ancient historical wrongs: just what, then, is the vision of a Jewish homeland but a desire for a return to an ancient condition. Hasn't this desire kept the Jews going for centuries?

Cheers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Aug 2006)

I'm having trouble loading this vid.  What did he say about an international force?


----------



## CanadaPhil (4 Aug 2006)

For Quagmire....

Here is the transcript of the Yemeni President clip....

Yemenite President Ali Abdallah Saleh: I Hope Syria Will Join the War; The Jews May Leave the Middle East; Arab Countries Should Allow Transfer of Weapons, People to Lebanon and Palestine 

Following are excerpts from an interview with President of Yemen Ali Abdallah Saleh, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on August 1, 2006.

Interviewer: Do you expect the war to expand?

Ali Abdallah Saleh: Yes.

Interviewer: to include Syria?

Ali Abdallah Saleh: I would certainly hope that it expands. I would hope so, but the Israelis would not dare. They are frustrated in South Lebanon, so how could they expand the war? All Israeli cities would be within the range of the Syrian missiles. Syria is armed, and is ready for anything. It would be foolish, even more than foolish... I say in all honesty that the Israeli government is defeated. The Israeli army is also defeated by any standard. The Israeli government will fall. It will fall soon because it misjudged things. Israeli strategy is based on brief wars, on swift strikes. By now it has been 19 days, and the equation has changed. If Israel were to act foolishly and wage war against Syria, I expect Israel would find itself in an extremely difficult situation. Perhaps they would even leave the region, because their society is a mixture [of identities], full of contradictions.

[...]

Interviewer: Do you call upon the Syrian president to enter this war?

Ali Abdallah Saleh: No, I do not call upon Syria to enter the war. But if war is imposed upon it, Syria has the right to defend itself.

Interviewer: Regarding international forces...

Ali Abdallah Saleh: Why shouldn't we involve Syria?

Interviewer: I am asking because you said you were hoping for this. 

Ali Abdallah Saleh: I hope that all the countries bordering with Israel, not just Syria, would enter the war. I meant the countries bordering with Israel. We will not enter the war officially, but we will open the borders to the fighters. We will allow the transfer of money and equipment, to support the Lebanese resistance and the Palestinian resistance in Gaza.

[...]

This war has become a duty incumbent upon us. Every Muslim has the individual duty to fight on this front.

Interviewer: Mr. President, do you support what has been said about incorporating Arab forces in the international force [in Lebanon]?

Ali Abdallah Saleh: I haven't heard this, but it is forbidden. I haven't heard about this, but international forces must not serve as a buffer between the Israeli enemy and the resistance. It's forbidden. 

[...]

Ali Abdallah Saleh: I completely reject becoming a police force protecting the security of Israel. Even the agreements between Israel and its neighboring Arab regimes were signed under certain circumstances and have greatly restricted us. Some of these agreements include restrictions. Restrictions that apply to the regimes - keep them, but let the people, the masses, act. Let the people donate money, equipment, weapons, and young men who will join the resistance.

Interviewer: Do you think that today...

Ali Abdallah Saleh: Wait just a minute... Just as we helped Afghanistan to fight the Communist occupation back then - why not help our brothers in Palestine and in Lebanon, who have Arab blood, with mujahideen, with fighters. Why don't we help them, and send send money and missiles, like we sent to Afghanistan in order to fight the Communists? This is my opinion, and I present it to the Arab public. This is what we must do. If we do not enter [the war] as regimes, and if we say Hizbullah is dragging us into a war of its choosing - a war that we, the regimes, did not choose... In such a case, we will not enter the war as regimes, as regular armies, with our air forces and our missiles, but we should allow people to volunteer.

[...]

Interviewer: The secretary-general of Hizbullah said that this is a battle of the nation. Do you agree with him?

Ali Abdallah Saleh: Yes, I believe this is a battle for the Islamic nation, not the Arab nation.

Interviewer: Shimon Peres said this was a matter of life and death for Israel.

Ali Abdallah Saleh: That's his opinion. Shimon Peres is a senile old man. All he cares about is being in power. He makes coalitions with whoever reaches power. He is a power se


----------



## CanadaPhil (4 Aug 2006)

pbi said:
			
		

> I also rather doubt that most important scientific inventions of the 19th and 20th centuries were the work of Jewish scientists (I could be wrong...). At least they certainly weren't Arabs, that's for sure.



For a simple confirmation, we can just look at the number of Jewish Nobel laureates since its inception. There are over 150. 

In contrast, there are 7 Muslims. 1 for Chemistry, 1 for Literature, 1 for Physics and rather ironically, 4 FOR PEACE.  :


http://www.science.co.il/Nobel.asp


----------



## CanadaPhil (4 Aug 2006)

** UPDATE **

This is a five minute clip of what Nazrallah said yesterday. (August 3rd)

I find it a little disturbing in the sense that he is now blaming the entire war on the US and Bush. 

Its almost as if he is laying the initial groundwork for the justification of Hezbollah terror attacks against Americans on US soil.


http://www.memritv.org/view.asp?P1=1219


----------



## pbi (4 Aug 2006)

CanadaPhil said:
			
		

> For a simple confirmation, we can just look at the number of Jewish Nobel laureates since its inception. There are over 150.
> 
> In contrast, there are 7 Muslims. 1 for Chemistry, 1 for Literature, 1 for Physics and rather ironically, 4 FOR PEACE.  :
> 
> ...



 I am talking about the claim she makes in the video about the Jews being responsible for most major scientific discoveries/inventions: I don't think that is true. (It actually may not matter...). If you are talking about the Nobel peace prize (which this Israeli website you posted appears to discuss), I don't believe that is restricted to scientific  invention: it covers all types of activities that benefit the human condition. 

I wonder, though: how do you know that seven Nobel Laureates were Muslim? Is religion a criteria for nomination? Or is it just that seven Laureates have Arabic names, or come from Arab countries? I don't see non-Jewish Nobel Laureates listed on this site. And, why would it be surprising that Muslims might work for peace, any more than it would be surprising for Jews, Christians or Confucuians?

Cheers


----------



## CanadaPhil (4 Aug 2006)

This subject has actually been looked at by many others before. There are plenty of sources for this info. 

All I was doing was giving you just one source where it had the Jewish Nobel laureates listed. The major categories are Physics, Chemisty & Biomedical. It was a simple attempt to answer your question which sounded like you were questioning that ANY Jews were responsible for MANY of the major advances in modern times.

Here is another simple example.... Albert Einstein (luckily he was able to escape the Nazis before it was too late)

Also, look into the Manhattan project and look closely into the actual people involved in splitting the atom.  

Ms. Sultan was simply making a point about how a scattered race of 15 million earned the respect of the world with their great contributions in the advancement of modern science & technology, and on that point she is quite correct.


----------



## Rey (8 Aug 2006)

Hi all,

Sorry for the long delay, work was really busy, then it was the long weekend.



			
				CanadaPhil said:
			
		

> Ahemmm.....NO NEED to start another thread.
> 
> ITS FALSE.




What part of my statement was false? If you're going to rebut my statement, please cite your evidence.






			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> This fight has been being fought for thousands of years.  Maybe there will always be dissidents, but a decisive victor needs to emerge.  In that Israel has been putting up with horrifying crap for decades speaks to the restraint they have shown in trying to appease the world opinion.
> 
> Okay, so we agree on that.  So what is the point of smashing up against the wall that you know will not be going anywhere. These countries need to grab a big slice of "get over it" and get on with the business of living.  Or don't complain about the business of killing.  If they are being seduced by the lure of hatred by Iran, then that brings us back to "why are we holding a torch for these people".




Actually, this particular fight has been going on since 1948. Israel has been dishing out horrifying crap for decades, its all a matter of perspective. 

How is a decisive victor going to be found by military force? Bombing the sh*t out of everyone isn't going to help, in fact with every bit of "collateral damage" you create more insurgents. At this point it seems that many Lebanese of different religions are now supporting action against Israel. With Israel now making moves to occupy southern Lebanon, these numbers will only increase - unless Israel somehow comes up with a plan to win over the population.

Aug 3, 2006
Nasrallah and the three Lebanons
By Sami Moubayed 
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH03Ak01.html

And currently there are no countries in direct conflict with Israel, excepting Lebanon. And yes, Syria and Iran both support Hezbollah, but that is not too different than Israels support for the SLA. Their actions could be called terrorism.
Iran has not seduced hatred of Israel in other nations, they put their rhetoric out there and see what it can grow. The Israeli actions plant the seeds of hatred. The Palestinian issue is the lynch pin issue in the mideast, if this issue is resolved successfully, it will go a long way to defusing many conflicts.

This has been and continues to be a major powder keg among Muslims and Arabs.




			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> So they can still help with intelligence info.  Surely they could make a phone call, or post a note on an internet site?  If there was a steady stream of information about Hezbollah weapon locations and movements, the people there might get a bit more of a nod, for no other reason than you don't want to blow up your intelligence network.  I am fairly confident that some of the strikes we are seeing in the urban areas are as a result of intel developed by contacts that are there.  Guided munitions are expensive, and if for no other reason it does not make military sense to bomb out a place that is just some random living tenement.
> 
> It isn't a case of guilt.  It is a case of complicity.  If 60% of the country is against Hezbollah, then it doesn't make sense that they should be running the show.  If it is a case of fear of taking action, why should that be an issue for Israel.  There will be hundreds of tragic stories out of this, but routing out Hezbollah needs to happen.  Nobody else is getting it done.
> 
> I think everyone agrees that the whole area is a tangled web of interests, history and ideology.  However, I would compare it to when your kid gets gum in their hair.  You might try to get it out gently, but ultimately you know you are going to need to take scissors and hack the whole thing out.




Again read the above article. Why would someone from southern Lebanon turn in Hezbollah, what is their incentive? 
Think of the Black Panther movement in the 60's with a similar concept of social and militant wing. Why didn't more blacks turn in Black Panther members, after all they had a militant wing.
Along with their social programs, many Shia see Hezbollah as there only defense against perceived Israeli aggression. Every airspace violation drives that point home.

At that point 60% of the population did not support Hezbollah, though after a few weeks of bombing this has changed. I don't know the percentage that was actively against Hezbollah.
Hezbollah was not running the country. Politically, as elected representatives along with other Shia party members they tried to represent their constituents. There was negotiation between the govt and Hezbollah to disarm (I can't find the article). 

The Lebanese govt **cannot** force Hezbollah to disarm, their military budget as of 2004 was $540 million American 
( https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/le.html ). No offence to any Lebanese, but, Hezbollah seems to be far better armed. In fact compared to the IDF, given how hard a time they have trying to rout out Hezbollah with a military budget of 9.5 billion 
( https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html ), how effective would the Lebanese military be.

The thing that affects the Lebanese govt is fear of another civil war. As far as I can see, they are trying to balance the various forces in the population and rebuild their country.

It seems to me that you are saying, for a minor action by a militant group, a foreign country has the right to destroy the country that the militant group was based in. I wish to point out in advance that Hezbollah responded with rockets **after** the bombing attacks in Lebanon. ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/middleeast-crisis/index.html )

Lets throw some quick numbers out there. Lebanon has a population of 3.9 million people, of which 40% is Shia. Of this 40%, 80% voted for Hezbollah in the elections according to the Beirut Daily Star. According to you, this would make 1.2 million people at least complicit, if not guilty, in the actions of Hezbollah. How do you plan to rout Hezbollah out of the population, and at which point does that become ethnic cleansing?




			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> First off, anyone who CHOSE to stay behind in New Orleans kind of made their bed then got to sleep in it.  Yes, potentially getting your stuff looted is unfortunate, but again that is not a consideration to be weighed.  Ones life should take precedence over ones personal belongings.  As for at home or on the road, of course the road is the way to go.  Perhaps don't travel in a Hezbollah convoy or drive near
> missile batteries.



My original point in the New Orleans example was to compare the logistics involved in moving a large group of people. But yes there are other issues in evacuating a population. 

In New Orleans, not everyone stayed behind due to choice. As in Lebanon, some were left behind because they had **no** means of getting out. These reasons can vary.

My line was whether to take a chance of getting killed on the road or in the home. Again, not much of a choice.

But your response of "don't travel in a Hezbollah convoy or drive near missile batteries" is interesting. Explain to me, exactly, how a Hezbollah convoy is identified? As to the issue of driving past rocket launchers, can't a helicopter or jet hold missile fire until the vehicles have finished driving past a launcher?  In fact, isn't that the moral decision to make?

OK. Here I'll respond to a number of points brought up in response to the articles I cited. I'll respond to them as a whole without quoting them.

Yes, the IDF said that they were responding to rocket launches from the tyre area. However, there was no indication of how close to the vehicles that launchers were to the vehicles hit. In fact, at no point in the article was there a mention of a launcher near or among the wreckage

In two instances you implied that Hezbollah is using white flags and civilian vehicles. While this may be true, what is your proof? Are you now indicating **any** civilian vehicle is a target? 

I don't know why you quoted back the price gouging, unless you are trying to imply something about the Arab population. 
Unfortunately any extreme situation will bring out profiteers in many cultures and countries.

In regard to the Nasrallah quote, would you have accepted an apology and that they were collateral damage? I can't see one line being any better than the other.

The points (if I remember correctly) you seem to have made are:
If you stay in southern Lebanon, you are Hezbollah.
If you travel in an ambulance, you are Hezbollah.
If you fly a white flag, you are Hezbollah.
If you drive a van, you are Hezbollah.
If you voted Hezbollah, you are Hezbollah.
Am I correct on that?




			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> All of those articles have compelling, heart wrenching stories.  There is no happy face to paint on a shooting war, and no good will come of a cowardly enemy that uses civilian human shields.  Unfortunately for those folks, Israel has had it with the unprovoked attacks on it's civilian population.
> 
> But what else are they supposed to do?  Hezbollah will never stop coming at them.  If Israel pulls out now, certainly it will take them a while to regroup and bomb up.  But none the less, they will be back.  The ball is rolling.  This has to play out.
> 
> ...




I have always seen line such as "civilian human shields" referring to many groups, but always used to explain collateral damage. I'm sure it does happen, and I'm aware that an insurgent without a gun can suddenly become a civilian. But it is also used to explain an attack on a civilian location. Recent reports indicate that no rockets had been launched from Qana in the 24 hrs before the building was hit but was claimed that a launcher was near the building. An insurgent is home with his family, and a 1 tonne bomb is dropped on his home, and he is considered to be hiding behind civilians. Cars, vans, trucks, ambulances are all hit with no proof that they are actually carrying weapons or insurgents. 

This current action in Lebanon was started by an action on **military** personnel. Israel made the first attack on civilian areas with collateral damage.

Hezbollah has said that if Israel withdraws from Sheba Farms they will become a "purely a defensive role", a position supported by the Lebanese govt. 

http://www.dawn.com/2005/05/25/int14.htm
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/742228.html

If you don't try to win the "hearts and minds" of the occupied population, you are going to feed a growing insurgency. The only way to create a "peace" in such a situation is by clearing out the insurgents and supporting population. Again, at what point does that become ethnic cleansing? And once you have destabilized a country enough to colapse, how are you going to deal with the chaos. Install your own govt, and create a civil war? This is not going to create peace in the area.




			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Guh.  The drawn out reply-from-hell.



Ditto 

Sorry if this was somewhat disjointed, I wrote it up over 3 days. As I said, it's been busy here.


----------



## paracowboy (8 Aug 2006)

Rey said:
			
		

> Sorry if this was somewhat disjointed, I wrote it up over 3 days.


"disjointed". That's one way of putting it, I suppose.


----------



## couchcommander (8 Aug 2006)

> I have always seen line such as "civilian human shields" referring to many groups, but always used to explain collateral damage. I'm sure it does happen, and I'm aware that an insurgent without a gun can suddenly become a civilian. But it is also used to explain an attack on a civilian location. Recent reports indicate that no rockets had been launched from Qana in the 24 hrs before the building was hit but was claimed that a launcher was near the building. An insurgent is home with his family, and a 1 tonne bomb is dropped on his home, and he is considered to be hiding behind civilians. Cars, vans, trucks, ambulances are all hit with no proof that they are actually carrying weapons or insurgents.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYXyKTsSXQg&mode=related&search=

Where are you getting your news from exactly?

The Israeli's don't publish every video from every sortie for various reasons... this one, however, since it is such a big deal, should give you an idea of why there are so many civilian casualties.

As Sen. McCain put it, Israel is going after terrorists, and they do their best to try and limit civilian casualties, but sometimes they happen. 

*Hezballah, on the other hand, is launching HUNDREDS of rockets a day SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of KILLING CIVLLIANS. * 

In his words, "THERE IS NO EQUIVALENCY HERE".


----------



## Jay4th (8 Aug 2006)

An" insurgent"  outside a building firing rockets then goes inside to have dinner with his family IS using civilians as a human shield.
Voting Hezbolla  means you are Hezbolla.
If a van is driving by the target building NO one is going to ask a pilot to risk his aircraft and crew to go around again.  That crap is for the movies.
Just my opinion, and I am a bit hard lined and cynical but I have the experiences to justify my beliefs.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Aug 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The French-US resolution has fallen apart as the French have decided to change direction and side with the arab position. Not a big surprise I suppose. The French are back to their old tricks.



Hell, they couldn't control Arab violence in their own country, they might as well surrender to them too.  If only the French could see how much the French suck.


----------



## tamouh (8 Aug 2006)

> Nobody hates war more than a merchant. Which, incidentally, is why the morons on the world stage who accuse the U.S. of being war-mongering are, in fact, morons. The U.S. is the ultimate businessman.



These morons know when to wage wars and when not. They've also colonized America and most of the world before and they know exactly what it means to wage wars. The US military in my humble opinion and opinion of alot of people have not achieved ANY clear victory since WW-II. The US military does a half job on everything, they're never able to complete it. This type of  businessman is a loose canon.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Aug 2006)

In one respect I might agree with you regarding the US military doing half the job. I would much rather see alot less restraint in the application of US power. I want our enemies to accuse us of using too much power. That said I have to say the US military does a great job given the constraints we operate in.


----------



## paracowboy (8 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> These morons know when to wage wars and when not. They've also colonized America and most of the world before and they know exactly what it means to wage wars. The US military in my humble opinion and opinion of alot of people have not achieved ANY clear victory since WW-II. The US military does a half job on everything, they're never able to complete it. This type of  businessman is a loose canon.


you've got an awful lot of whines, but very few solutions. You grow tiresome, my friend. What are you, *YOU*, doing to make things better? What are your solutions, and how do you plan to carry them out? Are you willing to pick up a rifle and man a post? Are you willing to go into harm's way and fight for what you believe to be right? Are you planning to enter the mouth of Hell and bring food to the hungry, medicine to the sick, clothes to the naked, and comfort to the despondent?

If not, perhaps it's time you shut up, and let those of who are, do so.


----------



## tamouh (8 Aug 2006)

> you've got an awful lot of whines, but very few solutions. You grow tiresome, my friend. What are you, YOU, doing to make things better? What are your solutions, and how do you plan to carry them out? Are you willing to pick up a rifle and man a post? Are you willing to go into harm's way and fight for what you believe to be right? Are you planning to enter the mouth of Hell and bring food to the hungry, medicine to the sick, clothes to the naked, and comfort to the despondent?
> 
> If not, perhaps it's time you shut up, and let those of who are, do so.



We're all in this together, don't think your wars will not affect our lives. What goes around comes around my friend. I do good deeds to what I can within my capacity, no one is forced to do more than what they're capable of. 



> I'm very serious. Their only interest is in what is good for trade. And peace is good for trade. War disrupts commerce.



There is one type of commerce that never gets disrupted with wars....selling arms, quite lucrative too, and guess who is the dominant arm dealer in the World ? USA , Russia and Israel (In fact Israel in 1986 sold weaponary to Iran) **. USA 1992-2001 had sold over 142 Billion worth of weaponary, mostly to developing countries who can barely feed their own people.

** Corrected the Year of sale, sources listed two posts below


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Aug 2006)

> (In fact Israel in 1997 sold weaponary to Iran)



Have a source for that to back up that claim?


----------



## paracowboy (8 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> We're all in this together, don't think your wars will not affect our lives. What goes around comes around my friend.


they're not MY wars, you pompous poltroon. They are wars your betters fight on YOUR behalf. Nobody hates a war more than the man who has to fight it. One more insult aimed at soldiers, on this site, of all places, will result in your expulsion.



> There is one type of commerce that never gets disrupted with wars....selling arms, quite lucrative too, and guess who is the dominant arm dealer in the World ? USA , Russia and Israel (In fact Israel in 1997 sold weaponary to Iran). USA 1992-2001 had sold over 142 Billion worth of weaponary, mostly to developing countries who can barely feed their own people.


nice try, but arms dealing is not, in the long run lucrative. Do some research and get back to me when you find out why. But then, that's entirely contradictory to your style, isn't it?


----------



## Infanteer (8 Aug 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Have a source for that to back up that claim?



Funny, just read the same thing today, except it was in the '80s.  Israel supplied weapons to Iran during the Iran/Iraq war as Saddam was a bigger threat at the time.


----------



## tamouh (8 Aug 2006)

> (In fact Israel in 1997 sold weaponary to Iran)
> 
> Have a source for that to back up that claim?



Not only once, but on different occasions Israel and the US had attempted military cooperation with Iran...dig more and u'll find more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Israel_relations

Additional for those hate wikis: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/army.htm




> they're not MY wars, you pompous poltroon. They are wars your betters fight on YOUR behalf. Nobody hates a war more than the man who has to fight it. One more insult aimed at soldiers, on this site, of all places, will result in your expulsion.



You'll continue with the personal attacks and I'll just ignore your 'requests' for answer. 

Don't twist what I said as you usually do. I've stated many times that I don't want my army to be involved in the Middle East conflict. You're not fighting on my behalf , I'm sorry.....this is your perception of fighting. I've the right to object to any war. I've full respect for all soldiers doing their job anywhere on the planet. They're fighting for what they've been told to do. To complete their mission and achieve success. Don't attempt to politicize the Army. The Army is ran by civilian administration and all my objections on the political front are directly pointed to those running the strings.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Aug 2006)

Nowhere does it say in your links that Israel sold Iran weapons in 1997 though. Iran-Contra was back in the 80s....  

Ah...I see Infanteer already replied


----------



## tamouh (9 Aug 2006)

Corrected my post....thx!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> You'll continue with the personal attacks and I'll just ignore your 'requests' for answer.



You normally ignore everyone's request for an answer anyway, why should things change all of a sudden.



			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> Don't twist what I said as you usually do.



As opposed to you deflecting the statement and creating another tangent.


----------



## tamouh (9 Aug 2006)

> You normally ignore everyone's request for an answer anyway, why should things change all of a sudden.



I've sent you this in a PM before, I'll not respond to questions that have no value and will not bring any intelligence to the conversation. I'll not respond to questions (what would you do if you were officer......what you want......do you donate to hezbollah......do you support this guy or that guy). 



> As opposed to you deflecting the statement and creating another tangent.



For everyone their style, just don't put words in my mouth. I answer as much as the question is concerned, you ask a not so smart question, expect a not so smart answer !!


----------



## George Wallace (9 Aug 2006)

Rather arrogant of you.  You can spout all you want, but when questioned on it, you avoid answering.  Even when you respond as in the above post, you have avoided everything asked of you, and still have answered nothing.  Contribute to the discussion, other that with other's propaganda, or leave the site.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Aug 2006)

Rey said:
			
		

> Actually, this particular fight has been going on since 1948. Israel has been dishing out horrifying crap for decades, its all a matter of perspective.



Look, people have to face reality.  Israel is not going anywhere.  They will either be annihilated, or will endure.  Don't think that they will just say "well, it was a cool gig for a while" pack up their kids and crap and leave.  "Horrifying" is a pretty subjective term, and from what I have seen it generally applies to the other side.  And for Christ sake, don't pick apart that statement.  It is my opinion, it won't change in a hundred posts or links and there is already to much blah blah blah on the subject.  



			
				Rey said:
			
		

> How is a decisive victor going to be found by military force? Bombing the sh*t out of everyone isn't going to help, in fact with every bit of "collateral damage" you create more insurgents. At this point it seems that many Lebanese of different religions are now supporting action against Israel. With Israel now making moves to occupy southern Lebanon, these numbers will only increase - unless Israel somehow comes up with a plan to win over the population.



There is a difference between "decisive" and "lasting".  I believe that Israel knows that it will forever be fighting some sort of war against it's existence, however instead of leaving the other guy with a black eye, they intend to leave him with a gapping head wound, along with his team and the car that drove him to the fight.  



			
				Rey said:
			
		

> And currently there are no countries in direct conflict with Israel, excepting Lebanon. And yes, Syria and Iran both support Hezbollah, but that is not too different than Israels support for the SLA. Their actions could be called terrorism.
> Iran has not seduced hatred of Israel in other nations, they put their rhetoric out there and see what it can grow. The Israeli actions plant the seeds of hatred. The Palestinian issue is the lynch pin issue in the mideast, if this issue is resolved successfully, it will go a long way to defusing many conflicts.
> This has been and continues to be a major powder keg among Muslims and Arabs.



What have you been smoking in your shisha?  "Iran has not seduced hatred of Israel in other nations"?   :rofl:
Every time Israel concedes anything and gets a peace process going, the terrorist organizations torpedo the talks/agreements and evoke a retaliatory strike from Israel.  It is not in the interest of Hezbollah or Hamas or any of their ilk to have a lasting peace, because their purse strings FROM Iran will be cut.  



			
				Rey said:
			
		

> Again read the above article. Why would someone from southern Lebanon turn in Hezbollah, what is their incentive?
> Think of the Black Panther movement in the 60's with a similar concept of social and militant wing. Why didn't more blacks turn in Black Panther members, after all they had a militant wing.
> Along with their social programs, many Shia see Hezbollah as there only defense against perceived Israeli aggression. Every airspace violation drives that point home.
> At that point 60% of the population did not support Hezbollah, though after a few weeks of bombing this has changed. I don't know the percentage that was actively against Hezbollah.
> ...



Black Panthers.  Horrible comparison.  Yes, I'm sure we can all see the massive advantages the Black community has enjoyed by turning inwards and celebrating rap culture that degrades women, encourages lawlessness and rewards violent bravado.  Hey, wait a minute....?  
As for why they wouldn't cooperate?  BECAUSE THEY WANT ISRAEL DEAD TOO!!!  And given that concept, why would the IDF give a rat's arse who gets blown up?  Harsh--yes.  Pragmatic--unfortunately.  If the "normal" part of Lebanon really wanted to join the 19th century, they would mobilize their army and create a surprise front to attack Hezbollah themselves.  Imagine the implications for Lebanon then.  Sure, Iran and Syria would be pissed off, but they would suddenly be the darlings of the middle east.  Then they could invite every western nation to camp out and set up bases, and turn themselves into an honest-to-god first world nation.  But I'm sure your way is better.



			
				Rey said:
			
		

> In New Orleans, not everyone stayed behind due to choice. As in Lebanon, some were left behind because they had **no** means of getting out. These reasons can vary.
> My line was whether to take a chance of getting killed on the road or in the home. Again, not much of a choice.



And no doubt all of the children at Qana were there being tended to by a bunch of elderly trapped in iron lungs and electric wheel chairs with dead batteries.  Here's a thought:  what able bodied adult left them there?  What was it, Qana Sundowners Daycare and Missile Battery?  I'm sure my kids daycare doesn't have an active radar on top of it.   :



			
				Rey said:
			
		

> But your response of "don't travel in a Hezbollah convoy or drive near missile batteries" is interesting. Explain to me, exactly, how a Hezbollah convoy is identified? As to the issue of driving past rocket launchers, can't a helicopter or jet hold missile fire until the vehicles have finished driving past a launcher?  In fact, isn't that the moral decision to make?



Civilian response.  As already mentioned, to hold of engaging a target just because of who is in the area is not a viable option.  The pilot has to go home too.  Bad day to be a traveller.  You also forget the nature of thermal targeting systems.  They pick up on a difference in temperature.  If long metal tubes with pointy tops are lying in a row in a m/v, then it will likely be engaged.  If you are a Sonotube tm salesman in Lebanon, well...tough break.  



			
				Rey said:
			
		

> Yes, the IDF said that they were responding to rocket launches from the tyre area. However, there was no indication of how close to the vehicles that launchers were to the vehicles hit. In fact, at no point in the article was there a mention of a launcher near or among the wreckage



Gee, with crooked reporters filing photoshopped pictures, and Hezbollah orchestrated picture ops, I can't believe they don't have any pictures.  You obviously chose to ignore the photo's of AA batteries and civilian dressed Hezbollah fighters that had to be smuggled out of the area.  



			
				Rey said:
			
		

> In two instances you implied that Hezbollah is using white flags and civilian vehicles. While this may be true, what is your proof? Are you now indicating **any** civilian vehicle is a target?



Proof wise, I got that from someone elses post link from earlier.  Find it yourself.  As for **any** civilian m/v, I imagine the ones that have weapons or are scrambling from the Hezbollah strongholds can expect a Hellfire massage.   



			
				Rey said:
			
		

> I don't know why you quoted back the price gouging, unless you are trying to imply something about the Arab population.
> Unfortunately any extreme situation will bring out profiteers in many cultures and countries.


  

I'm implying that if their own country men don't care enough about assisting in a time of crisis, why are they being painted as such victims.  



			
				Rey said:
			
		

> The points (if I remember correctly) you seem to have made are:
> If you stay in southern Lebanon, you are Hezbollah.


  

At this point, yeah.  Any able bodied male that isn't piggy backing an elderly person or child north is pretty likely in the "game".  If said male is holding an AK, then it should be pretty obvious.



			
				Rey said:
			
		

> If you travel in an ambulance, you are Hezbollah.


  

Only if the patient in the ambulance is named Katusha



			
				Rey said:
			
		

> If you fly a white flag, you are Hezbollah.


  

Only if the flag is flying off of the radome of a missile battery.



			
				Rey said:
			
		

> If you drive a van, you are Hezbollah.


  

No, you are a defeated suburbanite with kids and a mortgage.  



			
				Rey said:
			
		

> If you voted Hezbollah, you are Hezbollah.


  

Umm, yeah.  If you voted for them, you burn with them.  



			
				Rey said:
			
		

> I have always seen line such as "civilian human shields" referring to many groups, but always used to explain collateral damage.




Totally different concepts.  Collateral damage is the unfortunate killing of innocents.  Human shields are when an amoral enemy intentionally puts civilians in an area that they know will be targeted, with the hopes that either a) the attack will not happen because of sympathy for the innocents or b) the great photo op after all the innocents are killed.  




			
				Rey said:
			
		

> I'm sure it does happen, and I'm aware that an insurgent without a gun can suddenly become a civilian. But it is also used to explain an attack on a civilian location. Recent reports indicate that no rockets had been launched from Qana in the 24 hrs before the building was hit but was claimed that a launcher was near the building. An insurgent is home with his family, and a 1 tonne bomb is dropped on his home, and he is considered to be hiding behind civilians. Cars, vans, trucks, ambulances are all hit with no proof that they are actually carrying weapons or insurgents.


  

As mentioned, refer to the link.  Again, you are being ridiculous to think that after a missile attack has been launched and the bad guys are still in there that it shouldn't be attacked.  And it has already been shown that there was some historical reason to get Qana bombed to upset the locals.  



			
				Rey said:
			
		

> This current action in Lebanon was started by an action on **military** personnel. Israel made the first attack on civilian areas with collateral damage.



Again, because the coward Hezbollah choose to hide in populated areas.  Smart, but cowardly.  



			
				Rey said:
			
		

> Hezbollah has said that if Israel withdraws from Sheba Farms they will become a "purely a defensive role", a position supported by the Lebanese govt.
> 
> http://www.dawn.com/2005/05/25/int14.htm
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/742228.html



 :rofl: And the cheque is in the mail, and I won't.....  Surely you cannot be so naive?  If anything, that should encourage the IDF that Hezbollah is trying to get a breather.  



			
				Rey said:
			
		

> If you don't try to win the "hearts and minds" of the occupied population, you are going to feed a growing insurgency. The only way to create a "peace" in such a situation is by clearing out the insurgents and supporting population. Again, at what point does that become ethnic cleansing? And once you have destabilized a country enough to colapse, how are you going to deal with the chaos. Install your own govt, and create a civil war? This is not going to create peace in the area.



Again, I fully believe that Israel doesn't think it will ever have the hearts and minds.  So in the absence of love and stuffed grape leaves, a burned out buffer zone that will seriously have to think twice before it lets rockets be stored in it's garden sheds any time soon.


----------



## armyvern (9 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> Don't twist what I said as you usually do. I've stated many times that I don't want my army to be involved in the Middle East conflict. You're not fighting on my behalf , I'm sorry.....this is your perception of fighting. I've the right to object to any war. I've full respect for all soldiers doing their job anywhere on the planet. They're fighting for what they've been told to do. To complete their mission and achieve success. Don't attempt to politicize the Army. The Army is ran by civilian administration and all my objections on the political front are directly pointed to those running the strings.



This is my perception of democracy:

This *IS* Canada's war as our democraticly elected parliment sent us there. That means it's YOUR war whether you like it or not. That civilian administration running the Army NOW happens to have beat the party I think you voted for in the last election ( you know.. the Party that sent us there in the first place). Be an objector all you want...but the voters spoke and here we are. Protest all you want too, apparently not enough protested with your ballots the last election. Isn't democracy grand?


----------



## tamouh (9 Aug 2006)

> Rather arrogant of you.  You can spout all you want, but when questioned on it, you avoid answering.  Even when you respond as in the above post, you have avoided everything, asked and still have answered nothing.  Contribute to the discussion, other that with others propaganda, or leave the site.



That is your opinion and its fine with me. I'm responding as much as I can in an honest and unbiased way. I don't have any agenda nor any preference for any side of any conflict (also stated this many times before),yet, I'll respond always to 'twisted facts' , 'agenda driven posts' or items that touch me in a personal way. 

You want to make a real argument, allow both sides to present what they believe. Instead, what happens anyone disagreeing with your views gets bashed , called names and threatened. If you can't handle the pressure of an intelligent argument, you shouldn't participate (this goes to myself too). Admitting a mistake will not hurt anybody, we're here to exchange thoughts and ideas. We'll disagree always since we seem to have different point of views over things, however, each side should be allowed to present its argument in full while respecting the other side of the argument.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Aug 2006)

Shit or get off the pot.  If the ME don't want Israel there then maybe they should combine their military might and smite their mortal enemy.  If they can't get their shit together by now I doubt they every will.  

Or except the fact that they are here to stay and work towards an end.


----------



## paracowboy (9 Aug 2006)

I twist words around? I was the first, in fact, the ONLY, person to defend you. Don't pretend to assume some sort of intellectual/moral superiority here. You have contributed nothing positive to this site.

You have been warned about your posting/trolling style several times previously. Modify it, or face consequences. Full stop.

And you will not speak slightingly of Canadian, or Canadian-allied soldiers again.


----------



## tamouh (9 Aug 2006)

> This is my perception of democracy:
> 
> This IS Canada's war as our democraticly elected parliment sent us there. That means it's YOUR war whether you like it or not. That civilian administration running the Army NOW happens to have beat the party I think you voted for in the last election ( you know.. the Party that sent us there in the first place). Be an objector all you want...but the voters spoke and here we are. Protest all you want too, apparently not enough protested with your ballots the last election. Isn't democracy grand?



It is a grand and who run it are grandee ! You misunderstood my point, I'm not against the war in Afghanistan (in fact, I'm not even much for it....but since we're there lets finish the job instead of doing 1/2 a job).  My mention is to drag Canada into a war in the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Syria...etc) .I didn't vote for any of those two parties. But what you said is correct, however, doesn't mean I shouldn't voice my concern , disapproval, comments on the way the government runs things. We all criticize the government, and it NOT un-Patriotic to criticize the government in a time of war. What is un-Patriotic is to stand against your country in its war.


----------



## Bo (9 Aug 2006)

An excellent documentary describing the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It's a bit lengthy (80 minutes) but well worth it. Something to watch late at night when your bored of cruising army.ca  

Even the reviews at Rotten Tomatoes are favorable. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/peace_propaganda_and_the_promised_land_us_media_and_the_israeli_palestinian_conflict/



http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696&q=peace+propaganda



Mods, let me know if this should be placed in Radio Chatter. I noticed several members starting threads pointing to videos here so I figured it would be ok.


----------



## tamouh (9 Aug 2006)

> I twist words around? I was the first, in fact, the ONLY, person to defend you. Don't pretend to assume some sort of intellectual/moral superiority here. You have contributed nothing positive to this site.
> 
> You have been warned about your posting/trolling style several times previously. Modify it, or face consequences. Full stop.
> 
> And you will not speak slightingly of Canadian, or Canadian-allied soldiers again.



Yes, you did for a moment.....I never forgot that on the 17 terrorist plot thread. 

My contributions in your opinion are not positive, while to others have been informative and enlightening. I on the other hand acknowledge some posts from other members here have been interesting and informative (no matter whether I agree or disagree with them).

Last, again.....I've never insulted at any time or place a Canadian soldier, its against my conscious as a past member of the CF and against my morals. I know soldiers fight the wars they are told to fight whether they agree or disagree with it. Nevertheless, let me be clear I'll not stand by those soldiers convicted of war crimes, illegal or immoral actions. The CF doesn't tolerate such behaviour, nor I will.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Aug 2006)

Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land.

What a grand title for the thread I'm designating for everyone to tell everyone else about who's screwing who over in the ME.

Keep this stuff off the other threads, they are for discussing the actual tactical situation on the ground, not who you think caused the Hurricanes to win the Stanley Cup.


----------



## paracowboy (9 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> My contributions in your opinion are not positive,


hardly my opinions alone. And this is not a discussion. You are being taken to task. Contribute in a productive manner, leave, or get thrown. Take heed.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> Last, again.....I've never insulted at any time or place a Canadian soldier, its against my conscious as a past member of the CF and against my morals. I know soldiers fight the wars they are told to fight whether they agree or disagree with it. Nevertheless, let me be clear I'll not stand by those soldiers convicted of war crimes, illegal or immoral actions. The CF doesn't tolerate such behaviour, nor I will.



I find this a rather unusual statement.  None of us would condone the committing of War Crimes.  Why, though, have you brought it up?  It sounds like you are anti-military and making a comment that some Birkenstockwearinglonghairedfeminist Protester would spew out of ignorance of what is going on in the world.

Are you a Thief?  Are you a Leech on Canadian Society?  Canadians have fought and died so that you can have the Freedoms you are enjoying today, yet you sit here and spit on their graves with comments like that.  Are you stealing the Freedoms that others have Sacrificed so much for?  Are you a Leech on our Free and Democratic Society, contributing nothing, but taking all?


----------



## tamouh (9 Aug 2006)

> I find this a rather unusual statement.  None of us would condone the committing of War Crimes.  Why, though, have you brought it up?  It sounds like you are anti-military and making a comment that some Birkenstockwearinglonghairedfeminist Protester would spew out of ignorance of what is going on in the world.



Not at all, I just have different vision of when to go to war and when to give politics a chance. My comments are in line with CF policies and there is nothing wrong with them.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Aug 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land.
> 
> What a grand title for the thread I'm designating for everyone to tell everyone else about who's screwing who over in the ME.



No doubt with the gathered forces we will have a peace proposal hammered out by next Sunday.   :
And everyone will respect everyone elses opinions.   8)

 :argument:


----------



## George Wallace (9 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> Not at all, I just have different vision of when to go to war and when to give politics a chance. My comments are in line with CF policies and there is nothing wrong with them.





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I find this a rather unusual statement.  None of us would condone the committing of War Crimes.  Why, though, have you brought it up?  It sounds like you are anti-military and making a comment that some Birkenstockwearinglonghairedfeminist Protester would spew out of ignorance of what is going on in the world.



Did I say they weren't?  I just said it was odd that you should make that statement in this discussion.  It seems to be out of place.  It also seems to say something between the lines, that may not be complimentary, if you catch what I am saying.  It seemed 'derogatory' in its presentation.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> Not at all, I just have different vision of when to go to war and when to give politics a chance. My comments are in line with CF policies and there is nothing wrong with them.



Okay, Mr. Enlightened Insider Speaks-for-Arab Street, what diplomatic avenue should Israel have taken for this specific event, being the kidnapping of their soldiers?  Presto-Poof!  You are the PM of Israel on July 12.  So what should have happened?  Please don't be so pedantic as to outline what you would not have done.  I would love to hear what the non-military solution would be.  Here is your chance to actually answer a question without paper tigers and misdirection.  Are you up to the task?


----------



## tamouh (9 Aug 2006)

> Keep this stuff off the other threads, they are for discussing the actual tactical situation on the ground, not who you think caused the Hurricanes to win the Stanley Cup.



ME is a situation that has no end. All parties want one thing....the same piece of land and all are willing to sacrifice everything at their disposal to reach that goal. Anyone involves themselves with it will be burnt in one way or another.


----------



## tamouh (9 Aug 2006)

> Okay, Mr. Enlightened Insider Speaks-for-Arab Street, what diplomatic avenue should Israel have taken for this specific event, being the kindnapping of their soldiers?  Presto-Poof!  You are the PM of Israel on July 12.  So what should have happened?  Please don't be so pedantic as to outline what you would not have done.  I would love to hear what the non-military solution would be.  Here is your chance to actually answer a question without paper tigers and misdirection.  Are you up to the task?



Someone with an ego and military might will think lets crush them (just like Ariel Sharon thought will crush the PLO). Someone with a little bit more brain will seek a UN reoslution condemning Hezbollah attack, pressure the Lebanese government (threaten if necessary) to control its borders. Lebanon is a major ally to the US after the Syrians have withdrawn, this would have given a great opportunity to strengthen the US/Lebanese relationship, at the end swap prisoners with Lebanon (which will eventually happen).

Look guys, I'm not here to insult anyone's knowledge or intelligence, and I claim not to know more than you do. But I know about the ME more than many of you do because I've lived there and seen how this conflict has progressed. You want to be serious and open-minded to learn what the middle east, I'll do my best. But if we're here to make sarcastic remarks on each others then we shouldn't bother asking the questions..

Briefly, In the ME nothing changes....everything moves in a circle. Therefore, your best bet to know the future is to know the true history of events and guaranteed you'll see them repeat themselves many times over. When Hezbollah attacked the Israeli post, though I was hoping for peaceful solution, judging by the actions of previous Israeli governments, it was guaranteed that Israel would attack. Hezbollah I'm sure knew that off hand.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Aug 2006)

If we keep the decks clear, will you answer the questions?

What diplomatic avenue should Israel have taken for this specific event, being the kidnapping of their soldiers?  

If you were the PM of Israel on July 12, what should have happened?  

What do you think the non-military solution would be? 




Again.   Here is your chance to actually answer a question without paper tigers and misdirection.  Are you up to the task?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Aug 2006)

Quote,
_(threaten if necessary)_

Well since making threats is the height of stupidity if you would not back them up I must then assume from your answer that you would have done the same thing Israel did when Hezbollah said no.....


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> Someone with an ego and military might will think lets crush them (just like Ariel Sharon thought will crush the PLO). Someone with a little bit more brain will seek a UN reoslution condemning Hezbollah attack, pressure the Lebanese government (threaten if necessary) to control its borders. Lebanon is a major ally to the US after the Syrians have withdrawn, this would have given a great opportunity to strengthen the US/Lebanese relationship, at the end swap prisoners with Lebanon (which will eventually happen).



UN.   :rofl:
But seriously, if Lebanon was such a friend to the US, then why didn't they make loud and aggressive appeals for help to dig out the Hezbollah militants running a good part of their country?  And why couldn't they do that now?  



			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> Look guys, I'm not here to insult anyone's knowledge or intelligence, and I claim not to know more than you do. But I know about the ME more than many of you do because I've lived there and seen how this conflict has progressed. You want to be serious and open-minded to learn what the middle east, I'll do my best. But if we're here to make sarcastic remarks on each others then we shouldn't bother asking the questions..



Technically, there are a bunch of people here that know a lot more than we do.  Would you entertain the idea that because you are a product of that region (Jordan wasn't it?) you may have a bit of a cultural bias, and are a bit too close to the issue to be objective?  Not an accusation, just a thought.  



			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> Briefly, In the ME nothing changes....everything moves in a circle. Therefore, your best bet to know the future is to know the true history of events and guaranteed you'll see them repeat themselves many times over. When Hezbollah attacked the Israeli post, though I was hoping for peaceful solution, judging by the actions of previous Israeli governments, it was guaranteed that Israel would attack. Hezbollah I'm sure knew that off hand.



Jeez, that's kind of a bleak attitude.  Nothing ever gets better?  Well then why not leave the war going and let them fight to the last one standing?  Perhaps Israel is sick of nothing getting better or changing, and are acting accordingly.  I agree that Hezbollah probably kicked the wasps nest with the full knowledge that a retaliatory strike would occur.  However, the political mouthpiece for Hezbollah has already stated that he didn't expect this reaction from Israel.  So one must wonder, who was really ready for this fight?  Seems to me Israel has been written off and presumed dead a few times in recent history when engaged in battles for their survival.  And then, lo and behold!  A stunning and decisive victory.  Egypt might have a comment or two on that idea.  
This fight has been a long time coming, and I don't think the IDF are going to blow it.  IMO they have a plan.

Edit:  Sorry, just saw the  "clear decks" comment from George.  I'll shut 'er down and stand by to be illuminated.


----------



## tamouh (9 Aug 2006)

> What do you think the non-military solution would be?



I said that earlier post, not sure if this is after you read it or not:

- Seek UN security council resolution condemning Hezbollah (easily will pass)
- Put pressure on Lebanon to secure its border, US can play major role in this as well since Lebanon government became a major US ally after the Syrian withdrawal
- Pursue avenue of swapping prisoners between Lebanon and Israel - official (not between Hezbollah and Israel).
- Lebanese army integrate Hezbollah within its ranks and deploy soldiers to the south on the border.
- The whole process in my opinion would have taken a month until the time to swap prisoners, and under the right pressure the army would have been deployed in about 3 months time.



> Well since making threats is the height of stupidity if you would not back them up I must then assume from your answer that you would have done the same thing Israel did when Hezbollah said no.....



The political savvy option would be to ignore Hezbollah and deal with Lebanese government alone...Israel should have not paid any attention to Hezbollah , which would further illegitimate the organization within Lebanon. There were already strong calls against Hezbollah in the weeks leading to the attack.

It takes a compromise to make peaceful solution.... Israeli compromise would have been to ignore Hezbollah until the Lebanese are fedup with its aggressions. No one doubt Israel can launch attacks and cause massive havoc, however, knowing they had that option and choose not to use it will prove further to the Lebanese government and people there is nothing to fear from Israel.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Aug 2006)

So I take it that your answers are as follows:
If we keep the decks clear, will you answer the questions?  No.

What diplomatic avenue should Israel have taken for this specific event, being the kidnapping of their soldiers?  Threaten if necessary

If you were the PM of Israel on July 12, what should have happened?  Attack.

What do you think the non-military solution would be?  Seek UN security council resolution condemning Hezbollah (easily will pass)
- Put pressure on Lebanon to secure its border, US can play major role in this as well since Lebanon government became a major US ally after the Syrian withdrawal
- Pursue avenue of swapping prisoners between Lebanon and Israel - official (not between Hezbollah and Israel).
- Lebanese army integrate Hezbollah within its ranks and deploy soldiers to the south on the border.
- The whole process in my opinion would have taken a month until the time to swap prisoners, and under the right pressure the army would have been deployed in about 3 months time.






Again.   Here is your chance to actually answer a question without paper tigers and misdirection.  Are you up to the task?
No.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Aug 2006)

Tapdancing at its best...again you totally avoided the question and spouted....nothing.

Hey, I'm nuetral in this whole thing, my wish is that the whole area blow off into space tonight, but you refuse to answer ANYTHING and it is ruining any of the good points you do put forward.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> - Lebanese army integrate Hezbollah within its ranks .



Say what ?


----------



## tamouh (9 Aug 2006)

> But seriously, if Lebanon was such a friend to the US, then why didn't they make loud and aggressive appeals for help to dig out the Hezbollah militants running a good part of their country?  And why couldn't they do that now?



Lebanon is in so much debt it can't afford anything right now. It couldn't afford another civil war, it can't afford even to pay for current repairs of destroyed infrastructure. Any foreign force (or even lebanese army) fighting against Hezbollah would have lead to civil war for sure. The only and only option will be available is to integrate Hezbollah within the army. That is the only option really, even after the Israeli invasion, that will remain the only option to resolve the Hezbollah issue.



> Technically, there are a bunch of people here that know a lot more than we do.  Would you entertain the idea that because you are a product of that region (Jordan wasn't it?) you may have a bit of a cultural bias, and are a bit too close to the issue to be objective?  Not an accusation, just a thought.



I'm the product of that region, i'm close to the issues, I try to be neutral by evaluating everything based on both sides point of view.



> Well then why not leave the war going and let them fight to the last one standing?



I actually have no problem leaving the war and let them do whatever they want to each others. Wasn't that the reason we left our home land in the first place ??!  But what I hate is seeing my new adopted country dragged into this conflict whether on the government level, the protesters (both sides), the army and our loss in that area.


----------



## tamouh (9 Aug 2006)

> but you refuse to answer ANYTHING and it is ruining any of the good points you do put forward.



What points I didn't answer ?  You've asked me what should have resolved this conflict peacefully, and I answered you. Some will disagree this will resolve it and that is fine. From what I know, this would have resolved it. 

If you disagree, why the plan I've put forward will not work ?

What other actions will work ? And how these would progress on the short terms and long term ?

Additionally, considering what happened in the past in that area, what should you be expecting to happen again now ?


----------



## Bo (9 Aug 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So I take it that your answers are as follows:
> If we keep the decks clear, will you answer the questions?  No.
> 
> What diplomatic avenue should Israel have taken for this specific event, being the kidnapping of their soldiers?  Threaten if necessary
> ...



George, all 3 of your questions ask the same thing: What is the solution to the current problem?

Tamouh answered them, as well as everyone elses questions so what's the problem?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> I don't think you understand the issue. Peace in the ME means Jerusalem for the Palestinians. No Jerusalem means no Palestinians, means no peace for nobody since everyone in that region in one way or another connected to this issue. In fact, the whole world is connected to that issue by now. Since everyone has an interest in either side of the conflict. Israel is unwilling to give up Jerusalem, so the peace you're talking about will never happen , a fact you should begin to grasp and understand. Even if Israel draws back to 1968 line, the Arabs will continue asking for Jerusalem and that issue will still not be resolved.



But today, according to you, a peaceful solution could have been reached?   Funny that......


----------



## George Wallace (9 Aug 2006)

Did he answer them, or just dance around and give off CO2?  We assume that he would attack Hezbollah if he were the Israeli PM, but he really didn't say that.  He suggested in a way, "threaten if necessary" (Bruce's words).  He did come up with some "Well, we will let the UN try to settle it", but still avoided the direct questions.  People are getting tired of this avoiding directly answering the questions with a lot of CO2.  We have names for people like that.  Saying that someone else can come up with the solutions is not what we asked.  We asked what his solutions would be.


----------



## tamouh (9 Aug 2006)

> But today, according to you, a peaceful solution could have been reached?   Funny that......



Again, this is what had been asked:

((( What diplomatic avenue should Israel have taken for this specific event, being the kidnapping of their soldiers? )))

I've answered specifically to that question and my answer is very clear. What you're bringing from other threads was regarding the whole ME issue though can be linked, it is not the questions presented and not the question I was answering, read the question again above.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> Lebanon is in so much debt it can't afford anything right now. It couldn't afford another civil war, it can't afford even to pay for current repairs of destroyed infrastructure. Any foreign force (or even lebanese army) fighting against Hezbollah would have lead to civil war for sure.



Have you not noticed the Western tendency to blow things up, then pay to rebuild them (see Kuwait, Iraq etc) All Lebanon would have to do is put two bumpties in a Ferret scout car and have them say "Gee, could we get some help here?" and if it was a legitimate offer, IMO the NATO troops would be there at their own expense.  



			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> The only and only option will be available is to integrate Hezbollah within the army. That is the only option really, even after the Israeli invasion, that will remain the only option to resolve the Hezbollah issue.



......................................umm.  Hoo.  I can agree that it would be a decisive act, since once they were in, Hezbollah would likely co opt the entire military, and then take the whole country.  Reminds me of some sort of hen house metaphor...



			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> I'm the product of that region, i'm close to the issues, I try to be neutral by evaluating everything based on both sides point of view.



Thus far you have appeared to be wholly against Israel, and sympathetic to Lebanon and Palestine.  Maybe I have it wrong, but you really don't come off as neutral.  



			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> I actually have no problem leaving the war and let them do whatever they want to each others. Wasn't that the reason we left our home land in the first place ??!  But what I hate is seeing my new adopted country dragged into this conflict whether on the government level, the protesters (both sides), the army and our loss in that area.



I don't recall seeing Canadian troops being deployed to the Middle East  ???  Maybe I need to read the paper more often.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> Again, this is what had been asked:
> 
> ((( What diplomatic avenue should Israel have taken for this specific event, being the kidnapping of their soldiers? )))
> 
> I've answered specifically to that question and my answer is very clear. What you're bringing from other threads was regarding the whole ME issue though can be linked, it is not the questions presented and not the question I was answering, read the question again above.



That one is my fault.  I should have said "What diplomatic avenue should Israel have taken for this specific event, being the kidnapping of their soldiers that realistically would have led to their return alive".  Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part.


----------



## tamouh (9 Aug 2006)

> Did he answer them, or just dance around and give off CO2?  We assume that he would attack Hezbollah if he were the Israeli PM, but he really didn't say that.  He suggested in a way, "threaten if necessary" (Bruce's words).  He did come up with some "Well, we will let the UN try to settle it", but still avoided the direct questions.  People are getting tired of this avoiding directly answering the questions with a lot of CO2.  We have names for people like that.  Saying that someone else can come up with the solutions is not what we asked.  We asked what his solutions would be.



I did answer the question.....I did say "threaten if necessary", I didn't say attack.....difference between threats and attacks. Israel could have easily said (after putting the presssure from the US..etc) that if Lebanese army is not deployed in x number of times we'll enter sourthern lebanon.

What you're talking about stresses what i've said all along, the issue in this forum is people not willing to respect the other side posts. You've asked me a question and I answered you. You may not like it, but this is my opinion and my view.

Where did I say "someone else can come up with the solutions" ??


----------



## tamouh (9 Aug 2006)

> Have you not noticed the Western tendency to blow things up, then pay to rebuild them (see Kuwait, Iraq etc) All Lebanon would have to do is put two bumpties in a Ferret scout car and have them say "Gee, could we get some help here?" and if it was a legitimate offer, IMO the NATO troops would be there at their own expense.



Two questions:
1) Who gets the contracts to rebuild ?
2) Who pays the bills to these contracts ?

e.g. Gulf War I.....who do you think financed that war ? It was the Saudis who paid for large part of it.
e..g Iraq War.......who has the most contracts to rebuild in Iraq? The USA   ,  who is paying these bills? The Iraqi government (debt financed).



> I don't recall seeing Canadian troops being deployed to the Middle East    Maybe I need to read the paper more often



Yah maybe, or check: http://www.dnd.ca/site/operations/current_ops_e.asp  part of the UN mission.




> That one is my fault.  I should have said "What diplomatic avenue should Israel have taken for this specific event, being the kidnapping of their soldiers that realistically would have led to their return alive".  Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part.



Realistically meaning to your point of view , or realistically so I can answer your question and you'd respect my answer ?

What I've proposed in answer above is the realistic solution that would have been achieved through diplomatic avenues.

.......late nite I'm off......


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> Two questions:
> 1) Who gets the contracts to rebuild ?
> 2) Who pays the bills to these contracts ?



1) Who cares and 
2) Who cares.  
What does it matter who does the rebuilding?  Is some pissy left wing moaning about western contractors really a good reason to leave Lebanon at the mercy of a well organized and funded terrorist organization?



			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> Yah maybe, or check: http://www.dnd.ca/site/operations/current_ops_e.asp  part of the UN mission.



 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:  Best paper tiger yet!!  Excluding the troops in A'stan and Israel, there are 109 troops in OBSERVER missions.  And I have a strong belief that they are highly motivated to OBSERVE the hell out of the area, but I don't see a big stabilization effort ensuing.  



			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> Realistically meaning to your point of view , or realistically so I can answer your question and you'd respect my answer ?
> What I've proposed in answer above is the realistic solution that would have been achieved through diplomatic avenues.


  

And I really have to wonder, especially with all of your touted "regional first had experience" WTF good talking to terrorists would serve?  Best case scenario, you trade prisoners and encourage more attacks.  



			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> .......late nite I'm off......



HAH!!  As always, when the going gets tough, the trolls get going.  "Tourza, Rey, where are you?"  :'(


----------



## Bo (9 Aug 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> 1) Who cares and
> 2) Who cares.
> What does it matter who does the rebuilding?  Is some pissy left wing moaning about western contractors really a good reason to leave Lebanon at the mercy of a well organized and funded terrorist organization?
> 
> ...



Zipperhead, how do you expect to keep a decent dialogue going when you consantly throw personal attacks?

Not only that, but it was you who said the following:



> *Have you not noticed the Western tendency to blow things up, then pay to rebuild them (see Kuwait, Iraq etc) * All Lebanon would have to do is put two bumpties in a Ferret scout car and have them say "Gee, could we get some help here?" and if it was a legitimate offer, IMO the NATO troops would be there at their own expense


. 

And when Tamouh responded:



> ) Who gets the contracts to rebuild ?
> 2) Who pays the bills to these contracts ?
> 
> e.g. Gulf War I.....who do you think financed that war ? It was the Saudis who paid for large part of it.
> e..g Iraq War.......who has the most contracts to rebuild in Iraq? The USA   ,  who is paying these bills? The Iraqi government (debt financed).



To which you responded "Who cares"  :

It was you who stated the farce in the first place and when the truth came out, you place a nice little spin on it by bashing the left.



> What does it matter who does the rebuilding?



Um...The one who does the rebuilding gets all the money.   :


----------



## tourza (9 Aug 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> 1) Who cares and
> 2) Who cares.
> What does it matter who does the rebuilding?  Is some pissy left wing moaning about western contractors really a good reason to leave Lebanon at the mercy of a well organized and funded terrorist organization?
> 
> ...



What are we talking about exactly?

Regards,

tourza


----------



## Rey (9 Aug 2006)

Hi all,



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> HAH!!  As always, when the going gets tough, the trolls get going.  "Tourza, Rey, where are you?"  :'(



I'm not a Troll. 
So let me make my position clear. I am a civilian. Mostly a lefty with some righty tendencies, primarily in policing and military. 

I have a different position than someone as yourself, I will try to back up any position with cited evidence. Though, I will admit, that I sometimes have trouble remembering where I read something.  :-[

If you support your position with enough documentation, I will adjust my view.

So can we get past the insults?

I'm not going to answer specific points, I tried that in response to Zipperhead_cop's post  - and we all saw how that turned out.  :-\

So I'm going to answer some points brought up in this thread, some pointed at me, and some rather general.

You will find that I tend to switch terms between insurgent and terrorist.
IMO:
Insurgent: attacks military target
Terrorist: attacks civilians


I try to read a variety of news sources, primarily international.

In regard to my comment on Qana, here are the two articles I had read. I had also read an article (can't remember where) that indicated that a spokesman (can't remember the title) indicated that the video being shown was of a vehicle hiding behind a similar building. If I can find the article, I will cite it.

No Hezbollah Rockets Fired from Qana
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34186

Livni: Qana attack led to turning point in support for Israel
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745185.html


I have questioned attacks on what I see as civilian targets. I have admitted that when arms are carried/stored in civilian buildings and vehicles, they lose their noncombatant status, provided there is enough intelligence to support it. 
But I have yet to see any information about numbers of attacks and percentages of these that carried arms/insurgents. Surely, there must be some data from after action reports that would indicate the number of vehicles that were legitimate targets. 

I have seen a few points in the line of (to paraphrase) "stomp them into the ground, and they won't attack anymore". This gives you 20 years of relative peace, until the next generation grows up, at which point you'll have to stomp another generation. With enough decisive victories like this, you could victory yourself to death. (I think there was a famous quote along these lines, can't remember it though)

For a long lasting peace between parties you need a negotiated peace.

A suggestion.

Lebanon: The Lebanese govt has already stated that with the return of the Sheba farms area, they can have peace. I know, it is supposed to be Syrian territory, but Syria has said that they turned it over to Lebanon. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/763504.stm ) In any such negotiation Hezbollah is going to be a player, whether we like it or not. But the advantage of having Hezbollah involved in the process ensures any agreement can be enforced by Lebanon. In fact, as Hezbollah has said they will become a defensive force in Lebanon if this happens, this could be used to negotiate disarming.

Occupied Terratories/Israel: Return to '67 border, I believe there is a UN resolution for this. Jerusalem becomes an International city. For the first while, there will have to be co-operation between Palestinians and Israelis to stop, investigate and prosecute terrorists.

These are broad stroke ideas.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Aug 2006)

Rey said:
			
		

> ...
> For a long lasting peace between parties you need a negotiated peace.
> ...



Nonsense.

Amongst the longest periods of lasting 'peace' we have in modern history are:

•	Britain/France (1815 to the present) imposed by the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo; and

•	_Anglosphere_+/Axis powers (1945 to the present) imposed at various places like Dresden, Hiroshima, Reichwald Forest and so on.

Negotiated peace is nothing more than an invitation to another war.  We will get peace when the *enemy* – and there is one although it is not, yet, even most of Arabic/Persian Islam – is safely in its graves and on its knees.

Edit: spelling


----------



## Bo (9 Aug 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Negotiated peace is nothing more than an invitation to another war.  We will get peace when the *enemy* – and there is one although it is not, yet, even most of Arabic/Persian Islam – is safely in its graves and on its knees.



Interesting opinion. Kill 'em all so we can have peace.

Israel and Egypt were able to negotiate a peace and it has lasted over 27 years.


----------



## paracowboy (9 Aug 2006)

Bo said:
			
		

> Interesting opinion. Kill 'em all so we can have peace.
> 
> Israel and Egypt were able to negotiate a peace and it has lasted over 27 years.


after Israel kicked the shit out of them. A few times.


----------



## 2 Cdo (9 Aug 2006)

Why do some lefties fail to grasp that SOMETIMES force is the only way to ensure lasting peace. Without force, or the real threat of force, peace is just a pipe dream. As far as the negotiate argument, how do you negotiate with someone who's stated purpose is to destroy you?

I breathlessly await some left-wing answer to that question, because I honestly don't see how or why you would want to negotiate with a group who only wants to see your demise.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Aug 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> after Israel kicked the shit out of them. A few times.



Another, hmmm, funny that.........it is really mind-boggling to see how someone with a cause can be so blind to SOME parts of history.   I guess  WW2 was just 6 years of "negotiating" then.........and the atom bomb actually just shot out thousands of leaflets with the words..."sign here" on them.


Now Korea, now there is a nego....oh wait, still one of the most militarized zones in the world


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Aug 2006)

Bo said:
			
		

> Zipperhead, how do you expect to keep a decent dialogue going when you consantly throw personal attacks?



Hah!  When did I become the Big Bad Wolf?  All I'm trying to do is pin the guy down to a reasonable answer, and all anybody who does that is gets smoke and mirrors.  It would be a sad state of affairs when justifying a position is seen as a personal attack.  Pretty thin skin there, buttercup.  Plus, Tamouh in his own way is doing fine.  He can handle his horns being tweaked a bit.  
What difference could it possibly make in the battle who or how the place is going to be rebuilt?  My point was that if it is Israel doing the damage by itself they likely won't be rebuilding too many suburbs.  If the non-Hezbollah Lebanese government appealed to NATO or some coalition of the disinterested, then those nations would likely help in the rebuilding.  As it stands, it will probably be dirty Iranian money through Hezbollah that builds most of the stuff back up, and further entrench them in the countries infrastructure.  To suggest that not proceeding with the battle is a better avenue is at least up for debate.  
Sorry Bo, if I left you out of the terrorist sympathizer pool.  You haven't really had much to say like the other three, so you kind of didn't rate.  Don't feel bad.


----------



## tamouh (9 Aug 2006)

> Hah!  When did I become the Big Bad Wolf?  All I'm trying to do is pin the guy down to a reasonable answer, and all anybody who does that is gets smoke and mirrors.  It would be a sad state of affairs when justifying a position is seen as a personal attack.  Pretty thin skin there, buttercup.  Plus, Tamouh in his own way is doing fine.  He can handle his horns being tweaked a bit.



zipperhead_cop: you're trolling big time, and the mods allow it. If I were to respond to your answers in the same way you've been responding to mine, I assure you the mods would be on my back if not banned already. You make a statement then contradict it. You ask a question then bash the answer (without an intelligent response).



> Why do some lefties fail to grasp that SOMETIMES force is the only way to ensure lasting peace. Without force, or the real threat of force, peace is just a pipe dream. As far as the negotiate argument, how do you negotiate with someone who's stated purpose is to destroy you?



We're not saying force should never be used. If it wasn't for force, Hitler wouldn't have been stopped. However, there is a time and a place for everything. The ME is a place where force will not work. It still follows the tribal rules: " myself against my cousin, my cousin and myself against my enemy" (This is a very popular say in the ME...just one to show). 

** This is a bit lengthy, but if you really want to have a small insight about ME politics and wars, this may help **

I'll give you another example, when the Syrians entered Lebanon, they thought simply they could hit the militias positions until its flattened. What really happened, The Syrians would fire at militia positions, and the militia keeps firing back. The Syrians hit, and the militia hits back.

Another example, Current Iraq. Put aside all the political hype, theories. The US defeated the Iraqi army....everything was going great, everybody anxious for a new Iraq. The US began going after the small insurgency that started by mainly Saddam Loyalist supporting him and his two sons. The US would hit, and sometimes mistake its target killing several civilians. Well, the relatives for the dead do not understand nor care what the US was attempting to do. All what they care about revenge for their dead ones, so they go about rebelling against the US and its supported government. The more these things occur, the more people join the rebel forces.

Another example, Israel in Lebanon '80s .... Amal movement (Sheaa movement prior to establishment of Hezbollah), the Christian militia and the PLO where in all out war against each others, Israel enters from the south: Amal, PLO, Syria, the newly made group Hezbollah stand against Israel. The Christian militia is split with part of them join the Israelis and part decide not wanting anything to do with this war.

Another one, You know why Syria entered Lebanon ? Simple....The Sunnis from the North were about to take control over most of Lebanon and the Christian militia was distant for defeat. The Syrians were ASKED by the Christian militia and Lebanese government to intervene and put a stop to the Sunnis. When Syria entered, the Sunnis and the PLO stood against Syria. Syria began arming the Christian militia until.........this is very important.......Syria discovered the Christian militia also were getting supplied from Israel. This is when things in Lebanon went in another direction. The actions of the Christian militia enraged then Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad and he quickly withdrew all support to the militia and sided with the Shea'as party.

Let me take you a little bit earlier end of 1960s, early 1970s....the Syrians armed The PLO leader (Arafat) in Lebanon to counter the Israelis in the south. With these same weapons, the PLO fought against the Syrian army in the late 70s prior to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

****
Added:

These are few examples to show you how wars end up in that region. It has always been like that through out history, there is no right or wrong side. One thing for sure the ME region has alot of .....Men who grave Power!


----------



## armyvern (9 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> Another example, Current Iraq. Put aside all the political hype, theories. The US defeated the Iraqi army....everything was going great, everybody anxious for a new Iraq. The US began going after the small insurgency that started by mainly Saddam Loyalist supporting him and his two sons. The US would hit, and sometimes mistake its target killing several civilians. Well, the relatives for the dead do not understand nor care what the US was attempting to do. All what they care about revenge for their dead ones, so they go about rebelling against the US and its supported government. The more these things occur, the more people join the rebel forces.



I think this particular paragraph highlights points that were brought out in the beginning of this thread. This is why terrorists are considered terrorists and are in a league of their own. Conventional armies do not intentionally target civilians although sometimes collateral damage does occur, despite what the Americans or the IDF were attempting to do.

This is highly unlike terrorists, who choose to intentionaly target civilians of their 'enemy' and even civilians of their own nations. Cripes, they place missle launch sites on top of buildings housing handicapped children!! And then they cry foul. Currently in Iraq, these same terrorists and insurgents are blowing up markets, souqs, and other targets of opportunity on a daily basis....blowing the crap out of and killing their fellow Muslims and countrymen. What are the terrorists intentions?

When the hell is the AVERAGE Muslim going to wake up and (to quote from you


> care about revenge for their dead ones, so they go about rebelling against the US terrorists/insurgents and its supported government supporters. The more these things occur, the more people join fight the rebel forces.



Your argument here is weak, given that it would seem that you tend to uphold a certain standard of conduct for the US and another for terrorist factions. You also seem to not apply the same rules to actions (or inaction) taken by average Muslim citizens when terrorists or insurgents blow up their loved ones. Why do we see no revolt or uprising by these same people against the terrorists when some jihadi decides that he's going to blow himself up at the souque today?


----------



## tamouh (9 Aug 2006)

> Your argument here is weak, given that it would seem that you tend to uphold a certain standard of conduct for the US and another for terrorist factions. You also seem to not apply the same rules to actions (or inaction) taken by average Muslim citizens when terrorists or insurgents blow up their loved ones. Why do we see no revolt or uprising by these same people against the terrorists when some jihadi decides that he's going to blow himself up at the souque today?



Whether you call them terrorists, freedom fighters, insurgents, rebels or whatever. Their war is not my war. Assassinations and bombings are nothing new to the ME. Every single government in the Middle East (including the Israeli government) allowed itself to prosecute innocent civilians that possess a potential for opposing them. Whether being the Druze, Palestinians, Armenians, Sunnis, Christians, Shea'a. They were all at one time in the past 100 yrs the target of sestimatic cleansing in that region. Its the survivor of the fittest in that part of the world, and I do not want their problems in the ME to creep to my country. 

The only way to prevent that, by disengaging all parties in that region. Let them sort their own problems, because there is no winning party, no choosen ones and no champions of democracy. They are all there for the power.


----------



## 2 Cdo (9 Aug 2006)

So Tamouh, your solution is to ignore it and hope that it solves itself? You truly are a piece of work. By the way Hezbollah is a TERRORIST group, end state. They are not insurgents or freedom fighters or any other convienient label you wish to give them to hide their true intentions. They are terrorists, can you even acknowledge that?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Aug 2006)

rey with your logic only the Israelis are forced to concede anything. Where is it fair for them? Its not.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Aug 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> So Tamouh, your solution is to ignore it and hope that it solves itself? You truly are a piece of work. By the way Hezbollah is a TERRORIST group, end state. They are not insurgents or freedom fighters or any other convienient label you wish to give them to hide their true intentions. They are terrorists, can you even acknowledge that?



Easier to get get water from a stone....


----------



## Infanteer (9 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> Another example, Current Iraq. Put aside all the political hype, theories. The US defeated the Iraqi army....everything was going great, everybody anxious for a new Iraq. The US began going after the small insurgency that started by mainly Saddam Loyalist supporting him and his two sons. The US would hit, and sometimes mistake its target killing several civilians. Well, the relatives for the dead do not understand nor care what the US was attempting to do. All what they care about revenge for their dead ones, so they go about rebelling against the US and its supported government. The more these things occur, the more people join the rebel forces.





			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I think this particular paragraph highlights points that were brought out in the beginning of this thread. This is why terrorists are considered terrorists and are in a league of their own. Conventional armies do not intentionally target civilians although sometimes collateral damage does occur, despite what the Americans or the IDF were attempting to do.
> 
> This is highly unlike terrorists, who choose to intentionaly target civilians of their 'enemy' and even civilians of their own nations. Cripes, they place missle launch sites on top of buildings housing handicapped children!! And then they cry foul. Currently in Iraq, these same terrorists and insurgents are blowing up markets, souqs, and other targets of opportunity on a daily basis....blowing the crap out of and killing their fellow Muslims and countrymen. What are the terrorists intentions?



Actually, Tamouh's analysis of the spawning of much of the Insurgency of Iraq seems quite on-target.  I'm starting to get sick of this arguement of "We don't intentionally target civilians and they do" arguement as if it somehow makes it better.  I'm sure people here couldn't honestly say that they'd be any less angry about the loss of a family member or neighbour due to a mistake by an high tech military force operating in your neighbourhood - especially if you come from a culture where vengence and tribal loyalties have an important positions.  A dead civilian is a dead civilian, no matter how we wish to suger coat the reasons behind our cause of their death....

This sort of cultural misunderstanding is what seems to be leading to alot of our problems in attempting to influence events in the region.  Tamouh's example of Iraq is on the money.  4th Infantry Division came into Anbar province swinging and swaggering, an low and behold, 6 months later the place is a friggen nightmare.  The situation was such a clusterfuck that the OFFICIAL US Marine Corps history places blame on 4ID's leadership for its stronghanded approach.  A book is being written about it right now; here is the discussion over at LF, plus two good aneqdotes from guys on the ground (one which is a section from a book on the Iraq Insurgency).

http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5131022531/m/1211092552



> Originally posted by ODA 564:
> Based on first-hand observations from good friends in the PSYOP and CA units that supported the 4th ID (M) - including TF IRON GUNNER- as well as guys I knew in SF units in that AOR, the 4th ID (M)'s treatment of the Sunni population demonstrably increased the resistenance potential in their AOR.
> 
> They were excessively heavy handed.  Their techniques, especially the wide-scale detention of males on little to no cause and their rough treatment of all civilians, made the entire Sunni population angry at them.  This made fertile ground for the seeds of the Sunni insurgency to take root and flourish in.
> ...





> Originally posted by Abu Buckwheat:
> I think that report above is on the spot.  For an alternative view here is a chapter from my forthcoming (still waiting for final editing) book "The Terrorists of Iraq - Inside the Strategy and Tactics of the Iraq Insurgency"  All of this occured in 2004 as well.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> ... Its the survivor of the fittest in that part of the world, and I do not want their problems in the ME to creep to my country.
> 
> The only way to prevent that, by disengaging all parties in that region. Let them sort their own problems ...



There are lots of attractions to the _“leave ‘em alone to fight ‘er out”_ proposition – to me, anyway.

Have you thought it through, tamouh?  Do you really want the Arabs (and Iranians and a bunch of North Africans, too) nuked back to stone age, to paraphrase General Curtis Lemay?

That’s the most likely outcome of _“ leaving ‘em alone”_.  One of the Arab or Iranian groups or governments is, without a doubt, going to master the art of mating a chemical warhead to a medium range missile and one of ‘em is, no doubt, going to acquire a nuclear weapon and some means pf delivering it.  When, not if that happens that/those group(s)/government(s) *are* going to use those weapons against the Israelis and the Israelis *are* going to retaliate, in kind and massively and in all directions.

Tehran, Shiraz and Bandar Abbas, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Doha and Qatar, Muscat, Aden and Sana, Mecca, Medina, Riyadh and Jiddah, Damascus and Lakatia, Tripoli and Beirut, Cairo, Alexandria, Port Said and Aswan, and the other Tripoli will all be reduced to smoking, dirty irradiated ruins.

Tens of millions of Arabs and Iranians will die in the initial blasts – the smallest being much bigger than the Hiroshima bombs - and in the few days following.  Tens of milliosn more will die from radiation sickness.

There will be no help; there will be no mercy.

Europe and Asia and America will turn their backs.

The Arabs and Iranians will be blamed for starting it all.  _”Good riddance to bad rubbish,”_ is what the Chinese and Dutch and Canadians, too, will say (quietly, to themselves) even as they mouth piteous platitudes.  Out loud they will say: “Help is on the way … <quietly, again> just as soon as it is safe to provide it, which may be in about 1,000 years.”

That suits my agenda, tamouh.  It puts paid to the Wahhabis and all their _fellow travellers_ which is all that concerns me.  We (Canada) may, as a peripheral advantage, get some high quality immigrants/refugees from Israel.  There wont be enough Arab bombs or gas to kill all that many Jews – many will manage to flee and they will look for new ‘promised lands’.

But what about you, tamouh?  Does that suit you, too?  If so, let’s join together and advocate: *“leave ‘em alone; let ‘em sort it out amongst themselves.”*


----------



## paracowboy (9 Aug 2006)

Edward,

my biggest problem with the idea of ignoring them is that we tried it for decades, so they exported their war to our shores. They sky-jacked aircraft, took over cruise ships, and attacked embassies. The murdered innocents by the bucketful along the way. 

Now, we have an entire fifth column living in large enclaves in every major city, including my own, which has the largest Muslim community in Canada. The over-whelming majority are good people, some are friends of mine. But when the war explodes over there, it WILL be brought home to roost. They WILL set off explosions in Canada, some to attack their tribal foes, some merely to garner atention for their particular cause.

Either way, Canadian civilians will die.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Aug 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> ... we have an entire fifth column living in large enclaves in every major city, including my own ... when the war _ <my interjection: any war, including the current one, whether 'we' are involved or not> _ explodes over there, it WILL be brought home to roost. They WILL set off explosions in Canada, some to attack their tribal foes, some merely to garner attention for their particular cause.
> 
> Either way, Canadian civilians will die.



I agree but, as I interjected, that will happen anyway.  Leaving 'em alone, or not, is not the major determinant.  That, the determinant, is rage.  Rage at what?  That's another topic.


----------



## paracowboy (9 Aug 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> That's another topic.


but an inter-related one, and your posts are always informative (dry as a fossil,  ;D but informative) so by all means, expound!


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Aug 2006)

The one advantage the US and Canada is that our muslim communities are alot more integrated into our respective societies than they are in Europe. Europe's future is looking grim because of the large muslim communities living in relative isolation and are economically left out of society. Their birth rate is alot higher than the Europeans and could one day be a majority which would alter the culture and history of Europe.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> zipperhead_cop: you're trolling big time, and the mods allow it. If I were to respond to your answers in the same way you've been responding to mine, I assure you the mods would be on my back if not banned already. You make a statement then contradict it. You ask a question then bash the answer (without an intelligent response).



Wah.  I get my warnings from the mods just like everyone else.  However, when someone calls me out and asks me for a solution or answer, I provide it.  If there seems to be an element of annoyance in my responses, it may be that you are annoying in your lack of succinct answers.  And I have yet to accuse you of any lack of intelligence, yet you have attacked me thus.  However, since I am not as thin skinned as you appear to be, I am not hitting the [NOTIFY MOD] button.  



			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> We're not saying force should never be used. If it wasn't for force, Hitler wouldn't have been stopped. However, there is a time and a place for everything. The ME is a place where force will not work. It still follows the tribal rules: " myself against my cousin, my cousin and myself against my enemy" (This is a very popular say in the ME...just one to show).



Oh, so the whole of the middle east can assault and murder Israel ad infinatum, but if they retaliate it's "if you mess with him, you mess with me, so don't even go there"?  Personally I'm glad Israel has more stones than that.  



			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> ** This is a bit lengthy, but if you really want to have a small insight about ME politics and wars, this may help **
> I'll give you another example, when the Syrians entered Lebanon, they thought simply they could hit the militias positions until its flattened. What really happened, The Syrians would fire at militia positions, and the militia keeps firing back. The Syrians hit, and the militia hits back.
> 
> Another example, Current Iraq. Put aside all the political hype, theories. The US defeated the Iraqi army....everything was going great, everybody anxious for a new Iraq. The US began going after the small insurgency that started by mainly Saddam Loyalist supporting him and his two sons. The US would hit, and sometimes mistake its target killing several civilians. Well, the relatives for the dead do not understand nor care what the US was attempting to do. All what they care about revenge for their dead ones, so they go about rebelling against the US and its supported government. The more these things occur, the more people join the rebel forces.
> ...



WOW!!  See, I think if I was an Arab I would be pretty insulted at your insinuation that people from the middle east are mindless revenge mongers that couldn't possibly get their savage heads around the idea that eventually "an eye for an eye" just leaves a bunch of blind people.  Since you trot out various other countries, lets look at them too.  
Iraq:  seems they were pretty content to not rise up against Sadam and exact revenge for all the people he killed.  Where was all that feisty Arab rage when his idiot sons were murdering and raping criss crosses through the country?  Hmm, pretty placid.  Why?  IMO because he was a brutal psycho and to go against him was certain death.  
Lebanon and Syria (with respect to the example you gave):  Seems that indecision and demonstrated lack of resolve is what aggravated the situation.
Further--Egypt:  As mentioned, tried to step up and take out Israel.  Got a whuppin.
Libya:  Tried to be a big shooter too, didn't work out too well.  
So, IMO brutal force is actually pretty effective as long as it is brutal enough long enough.  The whole "you will be my enemy forever" is just jackass caveman thinking.  You can call it culture if you want, but who has benefitted from that mentality?  Palestine?  Lebanon?  Serbia/Croatia, Hutu/Tutsi, etc, etc?  
The one constant that remains is Israel will not give up and go away.  Another constant is that IMO Israel knows the mentality of it's enemy, and knows that if it hits hard enough, they will cave.  You just have to take out the mouth piece.  In law enforcement we see it all the time.  You have a group of ten yapping off and acting like they can take on the world.  You tell the main mouth (invariably the smallest, and least capable) to beat it, and they go off on some "you %$%@#$ will never take me, you better get ten more cops because you don't know what I can do and I will #$%$% you up".  The other nine look all hard and ready to go, but when stick is face down with the ever-expanding red circle under him, suddenly nine people have really interesting shoes and other places to be.  Sometimes a second guy will walk about thirty feet away and start chirping, and once he goes away, things are nice and quiet.
This war has to run it's course.  A victor will emerge.  
And I have yet to hear why Lebanon cannot side with Israel and help them purge Hezbollah?  Other than "they don't want to". 
Oh, that's right.  You pigeon holed the entire middle east into a mindless revenge factory that couldn't possible come up with an alternative solution.


----------



## tamouh (9 Aug 2006)

Edward: Show me where to sign. If that is the path they choose, and I'm sure they won't, then its fine with me. Let them sort out their own problems. They are smart people and can make their own decisions...after couple of nukes and generations wiped out, they might realize there is no way out of this but to compromise with each others and make peace (or maybe they wont until someone prevails !!!!)

You can only run the Middle East with an Iron Fest.....any Middle Eastern will tell you that.



> zipperhead_cop:
> And I have yet to accuse you of any lack of intelligence, yet you have attacked me thus.  However, since I am not as thin skinned as you appear to be, I am not hitting the [NOTIFY MOD] button.



Nor did I press the notify_mod button, and any neutral viewer of your posts back can confirm what I've said....



> Oh, so the whole of the middle east can assault and murder Israel ad infinatum, but if they retaliate it's "if you mess with him, you mess with me, so don't even go there"?  Personally I'm glad Israel has more stones than that.



Israel (or the UN) put itself in this position. It placed itself in this scenario. In the middle, surrounded all around with Arab nations. You put yourself in such place, you better be prepared to take on the heat....



> And I have yet to hear why Lebanon cannot side with Israel and help them purge Hezbollah?  Other than "they don't want to".
> Oh, that's right.  You pigeon holed the entire middle east into a mindless revenge factory that couldn't possible come up with an alternative solution.



Until you understand the Middle Eastern culture more, no examples will explain it enough to you. If you're talking about the Middle East, think like a Middle Eastern. There is large difference in tribal loyalties, family bonds, religion favouritism and language preference.

I'll just add another example.....Why did the Arabs rise against the Ottoman empire after 600 yrs ??

In 1908-1915 the CUP (Committee for Union and Progress ) overthrow the Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid II and install his brother Sultan Mohammad Rashad V in his place, thus beginning a stage called "Turkification". Where by the Ottoman empire is slowly being converted into a Turkish state

- At that time, Ottoman empire had still control over most of the Middle East region as known now.

- The Turkification process specifically forces the replacement of Arabic language (The official language of Ottoman Empire in the ME) by the Turkish language, and all senior Arab officials are replaced by Ottoman Turks

- Jamal Pasha , a Turk, also widely known in Arab states as (Jamal Pasha the Butcher) is appointed to take control of Al-Sham region (what is known now as Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine). 

Mainly when the Ottoman Empire had decided to force its language on the people in the ME, the revolution began. That short period of 10-15 years caused the Ottoman Empire to loose its support in the Arab region. The Arabs sided with Britain against the Ottomans in WW-I and lead to the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.

Let me bring you another example, The Mongolians as you know conquered South East Asia, Iraq and Al-Sham region before their forces were stopped in Egypt in 1260. The Mongolians in the ME converted to Islam and slowly adopted the Arabic language, they later integrated within the Ottoman Empire to rule the ME after the Mameluke and Seljuk empires fell.  From history its evident to conquer the ME means to adopt to its environment, and not the other way around.

p.s. just as a side note of interest, the general (Saif ad-Din Qutuz) who led the Mameluke Egyptians to victory against the Mongolians was later ambushed by his officers because they feared when he returns to Egypt that he'll claim power for himself.

So before you come back with another question, read up on ME history and learn why in the ME, history is everything !!


----------



## Infanteer (9 Aug 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Iraq:  seems they were pretty content to not rise up against Sadam and exact revenge for all the people he killed.  Where was all that feisty Arab rage when his idiot sons were murdering and raping criss crosses through the country?  Hmm, pretty placid.  Why?  IMO because he was a brutal psycho and to go against him was certain death.



Uhh...they did.  Ever hear of the marsh Arabs?  Halabja?  Gordon and Trainor discuss Iraqi files found after the invasion that highlight that Saddam's biggest reason for wanting to hold his chemical stocks - or feign his possession of them - instead of playing ball with the UN was indeed that feisty rage.  He felt the threat of an uprising was enough not to tip his hand.


----------



## 2 Cdo (9 Aug 2006)

Tamouh, is Hezbollah a terrorist organization or not? Still awaiting an answer, but I doubt if you will acknowledge them as terrorists, after all it's much easier to blame Israel for all the middle easts problems. :


----------



## paracowboy (9 Aug 2006)

tamouh,

again, you spew out sidebars, but the bottom line is that either the ME changes and grows or it dies. Which is fine, except that they'll drag everyone else down with them. So, the West will be there. 

Here's the crux: The War between those who would spread terror in their attempts to bring back the Caliphate, and us, is on. Period. We will not allow Radical Islam to destroy our way of life, which is their avowed goal.

Your posts are nothing more than a steady stream of terrorist sympathies, and you continue to provide nothing *constructive*. Defeatism, appeasement, and whining. So either start being part of the solution, and provide workable solutions, or shut up, fer chrissake.


And zip, Infy is right about Iraq. Most Arab nations are run by a small band of savages who keep control via terror, but there are always small groups who resist. They're usually kept around to be trotted out for excuses as to why the leadership HAVE to be totalitarian. With Iraq, it was Sadam's tribe, which he kept in power, and his immediate clan, which he kept in splendour.

I wonder if that accounts for the change from the Arabs being feared and ferocious warriors, to being ineffectual cowards? Something happened in the 18th-19th centuries.


----------



## tamouh (9 Aug 2006)

> Tamouh, is Hezbollah a terrorist organization or not? Still awaiting an answer, but I doubt if you will acknowledge them as terrorists, after all it's much easier to blame Israel for all the middle easts problems



2 Cdo: Hezbollah is a terrorist oranization....sure. Israel is also the reason for many of the current instabilities in the ME  (Mind you, if Israel wasn't there, I'm sure they would have something else to fight over....like when the Egyptian President Nassir send troops to Yemen to fight against the Saudis in the 60s, or the Syrians against the Jordanians or Turks)



> Uhh...they did.  Ever hear of the marsh Arabs?  Halabja?  Gordon and Trainor discuss Iraqi files found after the invasion that highlight that Saddam's biggest reason for wanting to hold his chemical stocks - or feign his possession of them - instead of playing ball with the UN was indeed that feisty rage.  He felt the threat of an uprising was enough not to tip his hand.



In fact, one of the many reasons the Shia'a right now distrust the US government goes back to that incident when GW Bush encouraged the Shia'a in the south to rise against Saddam, but stopped short of supporting them which led to the massacre of many Shia'as in Bassra.

Other examples of such uprisings....The Palestinians against King Hussein (They even assassinated his father the King), The Sunnis against Hafez Al-Assad in 80s which also lead to the complete destruction (flattening) of Hama and the massacre of tens of thousands of people. The Kurds against the Turks, and the Palestinians Intifadas against the Israelis.

Additionally, all these uprisings can easily (and it is) being labeled as terrorist activities by their government. I remember phrases like ("Takfeer Groups" means rejected groups...non-Islamic) for the latest uprisings against Syrian government. 

So my question to anyone, would you support these uprisings against their governments knowing in their methods they'll murder civilians, would you support such uprising against Iran or Syria ?

My other point....the "terrorist" attacks occurring in Iraq are nothing but ethnical cleansing. That country in my opinion is heading for a civil war and the result of it will be a Shea'a majority supported by Iran.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Aug 2006)

So, are we done venting at each other yet?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Aug 2006)

Nope, just like a certain region......


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> You can only run the Middle East with an Iron Fest.....any Middle Eastern will tell you that.



So why is what Israel doing so wrong?  According to you, they should take a scorched earth policy and obliterate the entire middle east?  
Why would anyone want to run the middle east?  Even if they had an iron fest?  What is a fest?  
I'm pretty sure Israel doesn't want to run the middle east.  I bet Iran does, but that is a whole different story.  
So it is your position that Arabs only respect violence and brutality.  Again, why is Israel making such a bad choice then?  Seems they just have to be brutal enough for long enough and the Arabs will cave.  Isn't that what you are showing in your historical examples?  



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Uhh...they did.  Ever hear of the marsh Arabs?  Halabja?



Nope.  Guess that speaks to how well they motivated the populace to arms.  The only thing I ever heard about an uprising was the Kurds, and again you see a brutal putting down of an uprising.  



			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> So my question to anyone, would you support these uprisings against their governments knowing in their methods they'll murder civilians, would you support such uprising against Iran or Syria ?



My interest ends with Israel.  They are the only country that conducts itself most like a western nation (minus all the annoying PC stuff) and the rest really seem content to fight and pick away at each other.


----------



## paracowboy (9 Aug 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So, are we done venting at each other yet?


nah, this thread will go on for ever. It's funny to watch, though, and keeps all the silly shit off the real boards.


----------



## tamouh (9 Aug 2006)

> Here's the crux: The War between those who would spread terror in their attempts to bring back the Caliphate, and us, is on. Period. We will not allow Radical Islam to destroy our way of life, which is their avowed goal.



Do you agree with me that no one deserves power unless they've worked for it ?

Do you also agree with the statement that in general people who don't deserve power are usually weak ?



> So why is what Israel doing so wrong?  According to you, they should take a scorched earth policy and obliterate the entire middle east?
> Why would anyone want to run the middle east?  Even if they had an iron fest?  What is a fest?
> I'm pretty sure Israel doesn't want to run the middle east.  I bet Iran does, but that is a whole different story.
> So it is your position that Arabs only respect violence and brutality.  Again, why is Israel making such a bad choice then?  Seems they just have to be brutal enough for long enough and the Arabs will cave.  Isn't that what you are showing in your historical examples?



There is no wrong or right. Israel can attempt to run the Middle East, but they'll fail. Simply because they don't belong to the culture and language of Middle Easterns. Even if they occupy Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and reach to Yemen, they'll be resisted feircely. They'll be pretty much going from one war to another just like the Mongolians until their army weakens. The Iranians in my opinion will attempt to run the Middle East and they'll be contested as well.

*** Added: This is what I've been giving you examples from history, it clearly shows any future conquerers must adopt to the ME culture to be able to sustain their hold on the region. Otherwise, their fate will end like the Ottoman empire in its final days.



> Nope.  Guess that speaks to how well they motivated the populace to arms.  The only thing I ever heard about an uprising was the Kurds, and again you see a brutal putting down of an uprising.



Kurds didn't uprise against Saddam, they've attempted assassination of Saddam.....Halabja is a Kurdish city. It goes to show how much you know about Middle East!!


My question to you again zipperhead_cop and don't try to run away from it:

Would you support uprisings against their own governments knowing in their methods they'll murder civilians, and blow up place. Would you support such uprising against Iran or Syria ?


----------



## Infanteer (9 Aug 2006)

This has entered the realm of absurdity....


----------



## paracowboy (9 Aug 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> This has entered the realm of absurdity....


from the first post where you split this topic! It's an amusing little sidebar to watch with all the grimness everywhere else.


----------



## GAP (9 Aug 2006)

.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Aug 2006)

Way too much CO2 being produced.  Thief!

I wish that they would have brought a full deck to the table.  I feel like there is something missing, and its' counterpart is out looking for it.


----------



## the 48th regulator (9 Aug 2006)

tamouh,

Be gentle for a chap that has not posted here.  But in a sentence, what is it that you wish to achieve as a member of army.ca..

dileas

tess


----------



## tamouh (10 Aug 2006)

tess,

learn & share with other members the issues that affect us all, especially issues related to Middle Eastern affairs.


----------



## the 48th regulator (10 Aug 2006)

tamouh,

Have you extended that care to this site.  To the beliefs of the members here?  To the understanding and Ideology of what it is to be a Canadian soldier?  Or did you come here to mix the soil in the water and rile us up with your views...

You seem to be, my fellow poster, a contradiction of your own philosophy..

dileas

tess


----------



## Bo (10 Aug 2006)

Wow!!! 

This man has explained it all in a 10 minute interview to Sky News in England.
He is a member of the British Parliament.


http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-galloway_060806,00.html


----------



## Blue Max (10 Aug 2006)

G. Galloway is a wanker that only gets re-elected because he panderers to all the Muslim conspiracy theories that Islamo-fascists would have you believe. 

He is a waste time.  :threat:


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2006)

Bo said:
			
		

> This man has explained it all in a 10 minute interview to Sky News in England.
> He is a member of the British Parliament.



And you never heard of this guy before?  He has been labeled a "nut job" in the media.  He's a joke.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Aug 2006)

If France was launching missiles into England indiscriminately I bet you sure as shit that England would respond in full force.  


edited for rambling


----------



## tamouh (10 Aug 2006)

No Sir, and it is clear what I've expressed here has all respect to other people views. There are two sides for each coin. Myself and others here have exchanged enlightening views and opinions which contribute a great length to understanding the current issues.

What I find in this forum is the biased opinion presented here that are either narrow viewed with no one except to very few challenging these sort of thoughts. 

Any attempt to present a different view is either labeled "terrorist sympathizer", "lefties" , "trolling" .... or other names not worth mentioning. 

In all honesty, as a Canadian Citizen from Middle Eastern background I find many posts here insulting to me and my fellow citizens, and I'm sure to many CF current and past serving members of Middle Eastern backgrounds including myself.


----------



## Bo (10 Aug 2006)

"Waste of time, nut job, a joke"...it's pretty easy to call him names isn't it? But what about what he said? 

You gotta admit though, he's got a way with words. I doubt anyone here could go toe to toe with him.



Here's another one:



> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdFFCnYtbk


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Aug 2006)

I bet there are 1 or 2 that could go head to head with this guy and hold their own.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Aug 2006)

Insulting because they won't buy the Israel bad/everyone else good that you seem to proclaim or because someone has insulted the Islamic faith?
If someone has insulted the Islamic faith please direct my attention to it and due process will be considered. Just as long as you do not confuse the wonderfully peaceful Islamic faith with the despicable pieces of trash who are trying to hijack it.


----------



## FastEddy (10 Aug 2006)

Bo said:
			
		

> "Waste of time, nut job, a joke"...it's pretty easy to call him names isn't it? But what about what he said?
> 
> You gotta admit though, he's got a way with words. I doubt anyone here could go toe to toe with




Probably not, because they wouldn't be able to get a word in edgewise, or  had-en you noticed.

But since you seem enthralled with this person, who do think is the villain in this conflict.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (10 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> Do you agree with me that no one deserves power unless they've worked for it ?
> 
> Do you also agree with the statement that in general people who don't deserve power are usually weak ?



a) Depends how they worked for it.  Hard work should be rewarded with success.  Working hard at murder and excluding anyone who is not a radical islamist is not something that should be rewarded.  

b) Way to open ended to answer sussinctly, but here in Canada, I would say the Liberal leadership was very weak, yet held power for years.  




			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> There is no wrong or right. Israel can attempt to run the Middle East, but they'll fail. Simply because they don't belong to the culture and language of Middle Easterns. Even if they occupy Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and reach to Yemen, they'll be resisted feircely. They'll be pretty much going from one war to another just like the Mongolians until their army weakens. The Iranians in my opinion will attempt to run the Middle East and they'll be contested as well.
> 
> *** Added: This is what I've been giving you examples from history, it clearly shows any future conquerers must adopt to the ME culture to be able to sustain their hold on the region. Otherwise, their fate will end like the Ottoman empire in its final days.



Where do you get this stuff about Israel trying to run the middle east?!?!?  All they want is peace within their own borders.  The only reason they occupy any land is to secure it and stem the attacks.  And you know bloody well that Israel is not adopting anyone elses culture.  However, I have heard that Israel is quite tollerant of other religions in Israel, unlike it's neighbors.  



			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> Kurds didn't uprise against Saddam, they've attempted assassination of Saddam.....Halabja is a Kurdish city. It goes to show how much you know about Middle East!!



I never claimed to be an expert in the middle east.  I also fail to see what the difference is between an assasination attempt and an uprising?  And I think you can knock it off with the "I'm a victim, he is picking on me" attitude with that sort of jab.  



			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> My question to you again zipperhead_cop and don't try to run away from it:
> 
> Would you support uprisings against their own governments knowing in their methods they'll murder civilians, and blow up place. Would you support such uprising against Iran or Syria ?



Cripes, again with being down on your fellow Arabs!  Jeez, is there any place in your mind that Arabs could get something done without going on a civilian killing rampage?  Yes, I would be thrilled to support an uprising in Iran and see the theocrats get hung and torched.  But that would be a military action, not planting cowardly bombs in markets to kill people while they go about their daily business.  If they are blowing up military or government buildings, then yes, have at 'er.  



			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> In all honesty, as a Canadian Citizen from Middle Eastern background I find many posts here insulting to me and my fellow citizens, and I'm sure to many CF current and past serving members of Middle Eastern backgrounds including myself.



And I would hope that your attitude to your fellow Arabs back in the middle east doesn't come off as insulting to them as it does to me.  Several times now you have alluded to the idea that Arabs need to be beaten into submission, ruled with an iron hand and will mindlessly kill in order to avenge killing forever, based on history.  Around my parts that is called predjudice, but maybe it is okay when you are foisting it on your own people.  For me, the dummy who thinks that all humans have the capacity to learn and change, and believes that all people, Arabs included, basically want their families to thrive and survive


----------



## Ham Sandwich (10 Aug 2006)

As a general rule in a debate, when a particpant refuses to answer the first question posed to him/her (esp one as relevant as the one posed to him) and is usually a good indication that he/she is full of s**t. And to not answer the later question of "Can you blame Israel for wanting to destroy Hezbollah rockets", well, any reasonable person would have said no regardless of their opinion of Israel's motives. 

This guy is a self admitted socialist who's said, and i quote _"If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life." _

When metting with saddam Hussein: _"Sir: I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigably." Additionally he said "hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds" (Arabic for "until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem")." 
_
He has been filmed adressing Uday as "Your excellency".

And he's been known to fly the Palestinian flag above his constituency office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway

This guy's off his rocker. The real question is why would a reputable news agency bring in such a known crackpot? IMO, sky news showed a little bias by bringing him in, not for his side, but against it because he reasonably should have been expected to make a laughing stock of the side he's arguing for, as he clearly did. That's like bringing in a southern snake handling bible basher to represent Christianity in an interview.


----------



## Shec (10 Aug 2006)

I have been offsite for the past month for a number of reasons which I will be happy to disclose by way of a private message if asked.  Tamouh, as you say 



			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> No Sir, and it is clear what I've expressed here has all respect to other people views. There are two sides for each coin. Myself and others here have exchanged enlightening views and opinions which contribute a great length to understanding the current issues.
> 
> What I find in this forum is the biased opinion presented here that are either narrow viewed with no one except to very few challenging these sort of thoughts.
> 
> ...



Well here is my side of the coin coming as a 3rd generation Jewish Canadian and as a 2nd generation CF vet.  I didn't write it, I only wish I had for it unequivocally reflects my sentiments:



> Those Poor, Innocent Lebanese
> 
> By Irwin N. Graulich August 4, 2006
> 
> ...



Now, to the essential elements of the Tamouh Plan for Peace:

(1)   Seek UN security council resolution condemning Hezbollah (easily will pass)

Oh goody, another UN Resolution.  Just like all the others nobody has paid any heed to.   With a UN Resolution  +  $1.25 we can each get a cup of coffee at Tim Hortons unless there is a force to enforce it.   And with the UN dominated by the Muslim bloc of countries who make up  at least 1/4 of its membership I think we can all agree that a UN force is not mutually acceptable.     

(2) 
Put pressure on Lebanon to secure its border, US can play major role in this as well since Lebanon government became a major US ally after the Syrian withdrawal
The Lebanese Army is either effectively or perceptively impotent at best or a replacement and training depot for Hez at worst.  Therefore the problem will be perpetuated, not solved , as there is no credibility.

How about an arms embargo against Leb/Hez  until both sign a sign a peace treaty with Israel to end the state of war that has existed since Lebanon declared it in 1948.  Arrangement to be backed up by mutually acceptable MNF mandated to engage in hot pursuit of any violations by either party.  

(3)  Pursue avenue of swapping prisoners between Lebanon and Israel - official (not between Hezbollah and Israel).
If a 3rd party is to become custodian of the PoWs and a facilitator of the exchange should that not be a neutral 3rd party which Lebanon is definitely not?  Once again - a role for a mutually acceptable multi-national force.  What you are proposing tacitly admits, and re-affirms,  that the Lebanese government is complicit.  If this fact is beyond compehension let me do you the courtesy of speaking frankly:  same sh**, different pile. 

(4) Lebanese army integrate Hezbollah within its ranks and deploy soldiers to the south on the border.
 see (2) above, first sentence of answer.

(5) The whole process in my opinion would have taken a month until the time to swap prisoners, and under the right pressure the army would have been deployed in about 3 months time.
Given this war has been going on for nearly 60 years now and that the Lebanese Army appears to be such a crack force that is tad overly optimistic, don't you think?

I trust I have clearly presented our position, a position that is not subject to debate.  Negotiations yes - if in good faith.  Otherwise you might want to re-read the above-quoted article.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> In all honesty, as a Canadian Citizen from Middle Eastern background I find many posts here insulting to me and my fellow citizens, and I'm sure to many CF current and past serving members of Middle Eastern backgrounds including myself.



tamouh’s point needs to be taken into account.  I continue to maintain that we have a (self-declared) enemy – an enemy with a _fifth column_ right here in Canada.  That enemy is *not* Islam or the Arabs, generally, or even the Iranians.

The enemy is: some Islamic groups or _movements_ – like al Qaeda.

The enemy might be (or become) some nation-states, including Iran, Syria and, yes, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates, too.

The enemy has two broad groups of supporters – the _fifth column_, around the world including right here in Canada, too:

•	Muslims who are, understandably, enraged at _invasions_ of Muslim countries and at overt racism and religious bigotry in the West and in Asia; and

•	_Tolerant_ Western ‘liberals’ (who are not, in any way, _*real liberals*_, but that is being dealt with on other threads) who want to sympathize with the underdog or who are bitter anti-capitalists (à la Pierre Trudeau) and, therefore, need to declare that _”the enemy of my enemy_  <the US led, capitalist West>  _is my friend.”_

No one is our enemy just because (s)he is Muslim or of Arabic ethnicity.  Many (most? just some? – I have no way of knowing or even of _guesstimating_ with any degree of confidence) of our fellow citizens and guests in our country are good, honest, peaceful people who wish no harm to Canada or Canadians; many are defending and will defend Canada now – in our armed forces.

I am having some trouble finding the right words; I have, elsewhere <here, actually: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/48639/post-425248.html#msg425248 > disclaimed my own use of _Islamist_ as shorthand for the _movements_ and the supporters.  I detest _cute_ terms like Islamofascist and I have said, over and over again until people are tired of hearing it that _terrorism_ is not something against which sensible people wish to wage war – we need to eradicate some terrorists, just as we need to support, arm and, now and again, even decorate and honour others – see: http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Text/secretagents.html .

In any event, I, personally, have no brief for (or against) any of the antagonists in the Middle East and no particular interest in the survival of any of them or their religion or their _culture_.  I do not find a localized (to the Middle East) nuclear _holocaust_ to be especially _unthinkable_.  That does not mean the people there, or their _cultures_ are in any way inferior, nor does it mean that any Muslims or Canadians of Middle Eastern ethnicity are less loyal Canadians than any others – handsome old fellows of (largely) Scots descent, for example.  It does mean that I don’t much care how people look or what they choose to believe or, even, what they say; I do care about how they act.

I want to return to a point above: _” Muslims who are, understandably, enraged …”_



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> but _ <it, the subject of Muslim rage is > _ an inter-related one, and your posts are always informative (dry as a fossil,  ;D but informative) so by all means, expound!



----------​
First permit me two digressions (these are the really dry bits, para, you can safely ignore them  :-* ) :

1.	Many years ago (several decades, actually) a wise old Brit told me, referring to Palestinian _gastarbeiters_ in the Arabian peninsula, _”They [the Palestinians] are the Jews of the Middle East.”_  What he meant was that the Palestinian _town Arabs_ were heartily detested by their (rich) hosts who really, really wanted to believe that they were still noble desert nomads, etc, etc _ad infinitum_.  The Palestinians were, however, essential – as were (still are) the Euro-Americans because the locals also detested (probably still detest) education and work.  (Some of you will remember the _one day wonder_ in the press when it was discovered that while young Egyptian peasants were being deployed to Kuwait/Iraq (Desert Storm) young (rich) Kuwaitis were gambling in the casinos and dancing in the discos in Alexandria.)

I read, recently, (I forget where) an article which explained that one of the reasons that science and technology is _retarded_ in the Middle East is that the Arabic language, with all of its nuances, is so difficult to master that there is little time for math and science at the elementary level.  This difficulty leads to a further de-emphasis of the core mat/science subjects which, inevitably, means that people educated in Arabic, in the Middle East have a poor technical base.  That doesn’t mean they don’t understand or cannot exploit science and technology – it means that most Middle Eastern countries produce less scientists, engineers and technologists than do Asian and Western countries (despite the difficulties and cultural complexity of, say, Chinese) and they are less valued in those technologically less sophisticated societies.  I’m not sure I agree with all of that thesis but it does explain some of the things I saw, many, many years ago, over several years experience in/around that region.

2.	I was, recently, invited to give a seminar in a couple of (foreign) universities.  I was asked to _explain_ America.  I posited that one cannot understand America today without understanding Britain 100, 200, 400 and 800 years ago.  I used the collapse of the _Angevin_ ‘empire,’ the defeat of the Armada, the defeat of Napoleon and the Boer War to describe the rise and fall of Britain, emphasizing a few points:

a.	Britain was _blessed_ after Henry II by being a rich country with poor kings;

b.	Henry II’s greatest legacy was the legal system which instilled, throughout the nation, confidence in and respect for the rule of law;

c.	Britain was, from about 1200 on, an essentially *liberal* (individualistic) society with strong entrepreneurial skills;

d.	Elisabeth made a virtue out of economic necessity by developing a _maritime strategy_ – which the French, in particular, never figured out;

e.	A British naval meritocracy coupled with a highly entrepreneurial naval system (prizes, etc) made the defeat of Bonaparte’s _continental system_ both inevitable and, relatively, easy; and

f.	Britain stagnated rested on it laurels in the 19th century and became so preoccupied with domestic issues (Ireland) that it ignored its naval and military ‘tools’ and forgot the essential foundations of its foreign policy – I suggest that the _entente cordiale_ with France (1904) was a blunder of historic proportions, maybe the worst in British history.

But, in those critical centuries, Britain changed the world and it made it possible for a new enlightened, liberal, secular, capitalist 'West' to impose its _order_ on all others - including the Muslims, all the Muslims.

Those digressions matter, to me, because they help me to see how and why the (British led, until 1940) West, and East Asia too for that matter, grew and prospered while the Arabic/Persian ‘world’ stagnated.

----------​
In fairness we must admit that many Muslims do not wish to return to a medieval social order.  They want to recapture the _golden age_ of the late 15th century: Saladin had (350 years earlier) liberated the _umma_ from the crusaders; the new Mogul empire brought new _culture_ and _civilization_ from the East to the Arabs; Europe had not, quite, mastered its Renaissance; the _golden horde_ had been absorbed and the Muslims had military superiority; Islam was paramount.

1500 is the turning point:

•	In 1492 Grenada finally surrendered to the Spanish Christians;

•	In 1529 the Christians won a decisive, pivotal victory at Vienna; and

•	In 1571 the _Holy League_ defeated the Turkish fleet at Lepanto.

Hammer blow after blow pounded the Muslim empire.  It would get worse when, in the mid 18th century, the Brits dismantled the Mogul Empire and replaced it with their own Indian empire.

Many modern Muslims, especially those of Arabic/Persian/West Asian ethnicity, are enraged because they can see, now, that the world which surrounds their spiritual home raced ahead - socially, politically, technologically, militarily and economically – while Turkey, Persia, Arabia, North Africa and West Asia sat on their duffs, smoking their _hookas_, sipping their _chai_ and dreaming of past glories.  (Sound like France?)  They understand, and are enraged, that their ancestors were lazy and corrupt and pissed away a great, powerful empire which _*might*_ have been a springboard for creating a unified Muslim world.  In short they see 500 years of wasted opportunities and they see the consequences: they are forced to leave their ‘homelands’ to seek better futures in foreign, unfriendly, _pagan_ lands – the lands of the people who, just a few centuries ago, bowed and scraped when they met a Muslim.

Humiliation.

Not just the individual humiliation which happens, day after day, year-in and year-out, when one is treated as a second class citizen – even by the other recent immigrant who runs the grocery store; there is a deeper, more painful group humiliation which comes from being assumed, by the ruling majority, to be second rate.  Ask Québecers about this.

Now top that up with a steady diet of corrupt kings and princes and rude, crude, buffoon_ish_ tinpot dictators like Muammar Khadafi; add a dash of _6 Day War_ and then Saddam Hussein and years and years of bad jokes about Arab tanks (all reverse gears); now add Desert Storm; watch a few million Jews defeat and defeat and defeat again scores of millions of Arabs; then comes 9/11 and a whole new round of anti-Muslim images in film and on TV; there is more, overt racism after 9/11, too; then the invasion of Afghanistan then Iraq; and it goes on and on … is it any wonder that many, many young Arab men (already poor, already ill-educated (as the poor most often are, regardless of race or creed), already poorly integrated into the _mainstream_ society (as the ill educated poor almost always are)) are enraged?

I have no particular interest in or knowledge of Islam.  I have read that (in terms of proselytizing) it is the most ‘successful’ of the great religions.  I do know that many Muslims believe that their religion is under attack – it doesn’t matter why they believe that, it doesn’t matter if their belief is without foundation; what matters is that they (many of ‘em) *do believe* that ‘we’ (all the rest of us, including the Chinese and the Indians) are out to get them.  (Speaking only re: the Turkic people in Xinjiang province of China, that’s probably true.  There is an overt (Han) Chinese _programme_ aimed at swamping the ethnic Uygur people with Han Chinese and, at best, marginalizing Islam.  The Chinese government is _’tolerant’_ of _’minority’_ religions, provided they toe the party line.)

So there we have it: most Muslims are poor – no matter where they live.  Worse, because we have (electronically) shrunk the world they *know* they are poor.  Most Muslim countries are ‘backwards’ – technologically dependent upon the West (and maybe the East, too).  Many (most?) Muslims feel under siege.  Young Muslims, like young people everywhere, want ‘something better’ right now and they are frustrated when the existing system (for getting ‘something better’) seems closed to them – especially to those already in the West.  Is rage so surprising?

What can we do about it?

What should we do about it?

I don’t know.

To those who managed to get all the way to the end: sorry this was so long, I’m too lazy to do a proper job of editing.   

----------

Edit: deleted a word - stagnated - which is not true and replaced it with a phrase which is better


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Aug 2006)

Further, and I wish I had read this before I wrote my earlier (today) diatribe, here is a view from the UK, from today’s _Globe and Mail_.  It is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060810.wxcoash10/BNStory/specialComment/home 


> All of us, in a mirror, darkly
> 
> We must escape from seeing Muslims only through two paradigms, terrorism and backwardness, says TIMOTHY GARTON ASH . When Muslims turn their back on Western ways, in the mirror, darkly, is also Western excess
> 
> ...



I think Canadian Muslims probably share many of the views Ash ascribes to their British coreligionists and for the same reasons:

1. Military operations in Afghanistan;

2. The generally _libertine_ nature of our major cities – where, as in Britain – most Muslims live, and the _socially conservative_ Muslim _critique_ of it; and

3. Stephen Harper’s views on Israel/Lebanon.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Aug 2006)

Edward,

Well done, Sir.  Best summary of the problem facing the world that I have yet read.


----------



## joaquim (10 Aug 2006)

Lots of flames in here. I'll add my two cents, hoping not to start a new fire. 

To Edward Campbell and all the others who can't see the forest for the trees, my point is: The root cause of war in the Holy Land is religion. This region simply cannot be understood with politics and history alone. 

The nation of Israel is made of two parts: the Jewish people (Am Israel) and the land (Eretz Israel). Read the scriptures for the details on how they won this land by war. Israel is a strong nation only when it is gathered on that land. However, Jewish history is a repetition of God’s anger, destruction, exile and redemption. In exile, Jews are stripped of nationhood and hated by all. They do not fight their tormentors, but die or run in shame. With the Jews in exile, Palestine was desolate and without king. As the Jews suffered, so did their land.

With the Nazi holocaust, it was understood by Jews and Christians alike that 1900 years of exile and the death of millions was an extraordinarily severe punishment for an extraordinarily grave crime (the rejection of Jesus); men (the UN) judged it was enough. What was God’s judgement? In the Bible, victory at war is given to Jews only when they obey God’s commandements (e.g. Joshua 7). The stunning military victories of the contemporary Israelis are taken as proof of God’s aproval.

Muslims consider Jews to be cursed by Allah (Qur'an 2;65-66, 4;160, 5;78-79, and many more). They are even denied humanity (5;64, 62;5). therefore, a faithful Muslim cannot sign a peace treaty with a Jew. Since Allah chased the Jews from their land (57;29, 59;2-4), and since its conquest by the Arabs in 635, the Holy Land (the whole thing) is considered Muslim territory to be liberated. Still today, this is the goal of Hezbollah and Hamas, among others. 

For Jews to stop fighting now would be desobeying God’s commandement. For Muslims to accept Jewish rule in any part of the Holy Land would mean overruling Allah’s condemnation of this evil people. Both are sinful; there simply cannot be peace in the Holy Land. 

To find out how the story end, read the scriptures, starting with Ezekiel 36-40. It is not pretty.


----------



## paracowboy (10 Aug 2006)

Edward,
nicely done. You have encapsulated Bernard Lewis' book, What Went Wrong? The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East, perfectly, in one post.


----------



## Bo (10 Aug 2006)

Nicely put Edward (I wish I had your skill with words), though I have to disagree with your reasoning as to WHY Muslims are enraged. 

Muslims aren't mad because their "ancestors were lazy and corrupt and pissed away a great, powerful empire". That's like saying Italians are pissed today because the Roman empire is no more. That argument doesn't hold.

Nor are they mad when "they are forced to leave their ‘homelands’ to seek better futures in foreign, unfriendly, pagan lands". Who would this anger be directed to? There are many immigrants of various religions that come to Canada for a better life - do they feel the same way, or is that just Muslims?

I believe that this CURRENT "rage" stems from the injustice in Palestine and the current conflict in Lebanon. Yes, we've been down this road before, but when you think about rage, and I mean real RAGE, it is not the loss of "past glories" or certain anti-Muslim images spread throughout the media that invoke this feeling.

The real rage stems from witnessing atrocities being committed against a defenceless, poor people. Your people. Watching their land taken away, watching their freedoms taken away, watching their very rights as human beings taken away. You witness this and tell me you don't feel rage.


----------



## paracowboy (10 Aug 2006)

Bo said:
			
		

> ...blah blah blah...I hate Israel...blah blah...I have nothing productive to contribute, so I'll troll and rant...blah blah blah...


  :


----------



## Bo (10 Aug 2006)

Joaquim, excellent, insightful post.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Aug 2006)

Maybe if they stopped "raging" and got on with working a system they wouldn't need to be so poor.....and what atrocities, just out of curiosity, had Israel committed in the last few years?....and what land have they "taken" away in the last few years?.....and how have the victims of missile attacks and suicide bombers been anything but "defenseless poor people"?

..and when do I get my wish that the whole area flies off into space?


----------



## paracowboy (10 Aug 2006)

he cites the Bible and mythology, and you congratulate him on an insightful post? That's why nobody takes either of you seriously, kids.


----------



## Bo (10 Aug 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> he cites the Bible and mythology, and you congratulate him on an insightful post? That's why nobody takes either of you seriously, kids.



He is citing the Qur'an and The book of Ezekiel, as well as the Bible. It looks like he has done actual research  into the religious idealogies of each side, provided us with credible references, and posted an objective argument. So yes Paracowboy, I congratulate him.

After all, isn't it religion that started this whole mess?


----------



## Shec (10 Aug 2006)

Bo said:
			
		

> I believe that this CURRENT "rage" stems from the injustice in Palestine and the current conflict in Lebanon. Yes, we've been down this road before, but when you think about rage, and I mean real RAGE, it is not the loss of "past glories" or certain anti-Muslim images spread throughout the media that invoke this feeling.
> 
> The real rage stems from witnessing atrocities being committed against a defenceless, poor people. Your people. Watching their land taken away, watching their freedoms taken away, watching their very rights as human beings taken away. You witness this and tell me you don't feel rage.



Atrocities against defenseless poor people?  Oh, you mean like strapping on a bomb belt and blowing yourself iup n a crowded restaurant, bus, or mall filled with defenseless people..  Or maybe hijacking 4 civil airliners full of defenseless people and crashing them into buildings full of other defenseless people?

Give your head a shake,  THey are poor because they can't forget their past glories,  real or imagined.  They would rather sit and work themselves into a frenzied hatred as the world passes them by in leaps and bounds, rebuffing every olive branch offered them.  They are the architects of their own fate.  

BTW, Did you ever notice how these enraged warriors hide behind their children while Israeli troops stand in front of theirs?


----------



## TMM (10 Aug 2006)

Edward, you've obviously done your research; I'll read it tonight to see how much of it I agree with.



			
				joaquim said:
			
		

> *Jews and Christians alike that 1900 years of exile and the death of millions was an extraordinarily severe punishment for an extraordinarily grave crime (the rejection of Jesus); *men (the UN) judged it was enough..



Pardon my French, but WTF? ??? I have been a member of two Christian religions and not once in 36 years have I ever heard of this. I would love to know, and would be willing to read any links available to Jewish scholars or religious text which states what you posted. I can't say much more on the above quote because I know it would get me banned!



			
				Bo said:
			
		

> The real rage stems from witnessing atrocities being committed against a defenceless, poor people. *Your people.* Watching their land taken away, watching their freedoms taken away, watching their very rights as human beings taken away. You witness this and tell me you don't feel rage.



Of course there is rage. My ancestors lived though centuries of war. The difference being that in 1968 when one young man felt such rage he didn't set everyone else on fire but only himself. He got his point across without hurting anyone else. No one was strapping bombs onto their bodies and taking out other people. None of them thought it a bright idea to gain support by instilling fear and blowing people up half a world away.


----------



## bilton090 (10 Aug 2006)

We're all in this together, don't think your wars will not affect our lives
    Tamouh
     You are not on my side, it makes me sick to think of you as a Canadian citizen, and a  X member of the CF. You said you are a product of that region I can see that you have the same 2000 yr old f-ed up way of thinking. It's not about land, or looking for a peaceful solution it's about KILLING all the Jews they can ! & now they would like to KILL all the people that didn't think the f-ed way they do !
     You said let the UN security council fix it, LOL what a sh@t pit that is !
      Middle eastern culture WTF, that's why we are in this spot !
      Israel should say 1 more rocket hits our cities and we will tack. nuke you, the Palestinians, Syria & Iran.These country's are so f-ed they don't know they lost, hit them with a bigger club, maybe killing a million or so will do something ! , all they know is killing, give it back to them ! they should be exterminated, they can't live in peace !
  The U.S. did it to Japan to save lives ! Israel maybe should be thinking the same way.
  That's my rant !


----------



## paracowboy (10 Aug 2006)

Bo said:
			
		

> Qur'an


mythology


> The book of Ezekiel


 mythology


> the Bible


mythology



> After all, isn't it religion that started this whole mess?


not even close to the whole truth. Perhaps if YOU did some actual research, you'd realize that. I have a post with a list of over 40 books on the subject. Pick a few and start reading.


----------



## paracowboy (10 Aug 2006)

bilton090 said:
			
		

> they should be exterminated


this is across the line. Do not repeat it.


----------



## Bo (10 Aug 2006)

Shec said:
			
		

> Atrocities against defenseless poor people?  Oh, you mean like strapping on a bomb belt and blowing yourself iup n a crowded restaurant, bus, or mall filled with defenseless people..  Or maybe hijacking 4 civil airliners full of defenseless people and crashing them into buildings full of other defenseless people?
> 
> Give your head a shake,  THey are poor because they can't forget their past glories,  real or imagined.  They would rather sit and work themselves into a frenzied hatred as the world passes them by in leaps and bounds, rebuffing every olive branch offered them.  They are the architects of their own fate.
> 
> BTW, Did you ever notice how these enraged warriors hide behind their children while Israeli troops stand in front of theirs?



Oh man, where shall I begin...



> Palestinians in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, have lived under Israeli occupation since 1967. The settlements that Israel has built in the West Bank are home to around 400,000 people and are deemed to be illegal under international law


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/803257.stm




> The restrictions imposed by Israel on the movements of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories have reached an unprecedented level since the beginning of the intifada (Palestinian uprising) in September 2000.(1) Closures, blockades, checkpoints, roadblocks, curfews and other restrictions have had a disastrous impact on the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and have crippled the Palestinian economy. Unemployment and poverty have spiralled, malnutrition has emerged, anaemia and other health problems have increased and education has been negatively affected.
> In law as well as in practice, the Israeli authorities have breached their obligations under international law to respect and protect the rights of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The sweeping and indiscriminate restrictions imposed by Israel on the movement of people and goods in the Occupied Territories not only violate the right to freedom of movement, but also infringe the right to work and other economic and social rights of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.
> 
> Some 60 percent of Palestinians now live below the poverty line of US$2 per day and most are forced to depend on aid. The high levels of unemployment, poverty, malnutrition and other health problems afflicting Palestinians are not just a humanitarian problem they are the direct result of the restrictions imposed by Israel on the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.



http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150642003




> Israel holds about 7,500 Palestinian prisoners in a system which has been criticised by the Public Defender's Office for chronic overcrowding.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3635748.stm



I'll tell you what, watch the movie Peace Propaganda and the Promised Land and afterwards, tell me you don't feel different about the current ME situation. Hell, I'll even watch and/or read any piece that you want which supports your position.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Aug 2006)

Bo,
You have some points above...there's just one thing that makes it all just too stupid.

They keep poking the big guy even though the big guy has been pulling back and allowing more freedom.  So who is to blame? Well all I know if I allow more freedom to my children and things go alright than its all good, if those freedoms mean I have more headaches, then.........

I wonder how long the US would take us lobbing the occasional mortar round or shooting at the odd vehicle now and then?

...and I wonder how many Jamaicans are in our penal system? You oppressor you.....


----------



## rifleman (10 Aug 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Bo,
> You have some points above...there's just one thing that makes it all just too stupid.
> 
> They keep poking the big guy even though the big guy has been pulling back and allowing more freedom.  So who is to blame? Well all I know if I allow more freedom to my children and things go alright than its all good, if those freedoms mean I have more headaches, then.........
> ...



Two points, the same thing has happened time and time again with no solution - perhaps time to try another approach
They aren't children


----------



## bilton090 (10 Aug 2006)

We're all in this together, don't think your wars will not affect our lives
    Tamouh
     You are not on my side, it makes me sick to think of you as a Canadian citizen, and a  X member of the CF. You said you are a product of that region I can see that you have the same 2000 yr old f-ed up way of thinking. It's not about land, or looking for a peaceful solution it's about KILLING all the Jews they can ! & now they would like to KILL all the people that didn't think the f-ed way they do !
     You said let the UN security council fix it, LOL what a sh@t pit that is !
      Middle eastern culture WTF, that's why we are in this spot !
      Israel should say 1 more rocket hits our cities and we will tack. nuke you, the Palestinians, Syria & Iran.These country's are so f-ed they don't know they lost, hit them with a bigger club, maybe killing a million or so will do something ! , all they know is killing, give it back to them ! they should be exterminated, they can't live in peace !
  The U.S. did it to Japan to save lives ! Israel maybe should be thinking the same way.
  That's my rant !  


			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> this is across the line. Do not repeat it.


 They act like animals what do you like me to call it ? PUT DOWN, RUBBED OUT,SENATISED ! I call a spade a spade, this cancer needs Rad. treatment bigtime !


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Aug 2006)

Welcome to read-only for 2 weeks.


EDIT: My error.....read-only for 7 days.


----------



## Shec (10 Aug 2006)

Re;  Bo's reply:

The operative phrase being:



> The restrictions imposed_ *since the beginning of the intifada *_ by Israel on the movements of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories have reached an unprecedented level (Palestinian uprising) in September 2000.



Well no kidding,  It was an open revolt by orchestated by people bent on Israel's destruction.  You expected a dinner invitation perhaps?

I'll watch your Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land IF you either read or watch the video version of  The Fifty Years War.  
Don't quote me the BBC or Amnesty International, both are hardly unbiased commentators.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (10 Aug 2006)

Him again?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34776/post-272034.html#msg272034

 :boring:


----------



## paracowboy (10 Aug 2006)

rifleman said:
			
		

> They aren't children


then they should behaving as such.


----------



## Bo (10 Aug 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> mythology mythology
> mythology
> not even close to the whole truth. Perhaps if YOU did some actual research, you'd realize that. I have a post with a list of over 40 books on the subject. Pick a few and start reading.



Believe me Para, I am the last person to go around thumping a Qur'an, Bible or what have you (I am Agnostic). But if extremists on both sides feel that strongly about what is written in their religious texts, maybe Joaquim's statement has some merit, no?


----------



## paracowboy (10 Aug 2006)

Galloway? You're going to try to use Galloway? BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## paracowboy (10 Aug 2006)

Bo said:
			
		

> But if extremists on both sides feel that strongly about what is written in their religious texts, maybe Joaquim's statement has some merit, no?


not really. It's amazing how fast people can forget what their Faith tells them is Right when they stand to gain from doing what it says is Wrong. For instance, the Qu'ran states that Muslims MUST protect Christians and Jews as they are People of the Book. But, Mo said once that the Jews had to be eliminated. Now, in the first case, he was talking about the entire Race/Religion, and in the second, he was referring to a specific city that had refused to surrender to him. Guess which statement is used to validate the bile and hatred? And gues why? Because greedy men can employ it as a tool to distract their populace from the poverty and ignorance they live in *as a direct result of * the actions of those same greedy men.

People will always twist their religion to meet whatever requirements they have of it. It gets worse when dealing with Islam, since Imams, Mullahs, etc do not have to meet any requirements aside from being able to quote the Qu'ran fluently in Arabic. So most simply learn it phonetically, and then have a bully pulpit to preach whatever rancourous hatred they may have in their hearts.

So, it's not religion, as such. It's politics (read: greed) disguised as religion. Marx and Engels were never as right in their opinion of religion as they are when it pertains to the ME. So, we COULD with effort distort Joiquim's post to match, but I prefer not to distort anything. There's enough of that as it is, when trying to make sense of the mess that is Central Asia.


----------



## Bo (10 Aug 2006)

Shec said:
			
		

> Re;  Bo's reply:
> 
> The operative phrase being:
> 
> ...



Geez, 5 hours! LOL I gave you an 80min documentary that's on google video.

Nevertheless, I agree to watching The Fifty Years War. Hopefully blockbuster has it.


Amnesty biased? Yeah, they do tend to have problems when human rights violations occur :. They have also condemned suicide bombers so don't think they're out to get Israel.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Aug 2006)

I used to support AI, but found that they began to spend most of their time attacking the west mostly for minor stuff, which I suspect was a way to increase guilt and therefore more donations, they seem less interested in talking about the real nasty stuff that goes on, because most people don’t want to hear it and it won’t get them media attention. 

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is nothing compared to the crap that goes on in Africa, ask people if they know anything about the “Lord’s Resistance Army” and what they do to children, that is horrifying.

The ME is just an ongoing reality TV show that makes for good media coverage, where the media can film selectivly in Gaza during the day and stay in a nice hotel in Israel at night.


----------



## Bo (11 Aug 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is nothing compared to the crap that goes on in Africa, ask people if they know anything about the “Lord’s Resistance Army” and what they do to children, that is horrifying.



Amnesty has printed 153 articles describing human rights abuses in Africa during 2006 alone:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-2af/index&start=1

In total, Amnesty has printed over 2672 articles for N.Africa and the Middle East versus 2483 articles for Africa. Is Amnesty biased?


----------



## Rey (11 Aug 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> rey with your logic only the Israelis are forced to concede anything. Where is it fair for them? Its not.



True, but for a discussion it gives us a starting point.

Let me explain my reasoning for the two points.

for Lebanon:

It makes no use to come to an agreement with the Lebanese govt on a treaty of some kind and have Hezbollah continue on as usual. If they do, eventually, we will find ourselves in a similar position.
Now, if Hezbollah is involved, they have a vested interest in maintaining the peace. The reason I suggested returning Shebaa Farms was because this is something both Hezbollah the Lebanese govt are both requesting. What I should have said was placing it on the negotiating table, this way both parties will come to the table.
Once we have all parties at the table, the details can be discussed, especially covering the statement from Hezbollah that they would disarm if Shebaa farms were returned.
I didn't mean to imply that *all* of the Shebaa Farms would have to be returned *immediately*, again those would be negotiating points.

But to get to that starting point there needs to be a cease fire. I have no idea how that is going to happen, IDF wants to hold a buffer zone, Hezbollah sees a bunch of targets.


for Occupied Terratories/Israel

I chose returning to the 67 border because of UN Resolution 242. My reasoning in this regard is enforce all UN Resolutions, or don't bother with any of them. IMO piecemeal enforcement will create more problems than it will solve. 
It is my understanding that there is a bit of play in actual land involved due to the wording of the resolution. Maybe this can be used to adjust the border to keep towns & farms together.
One option for Israeli security would be a strong 3rd party policing force, the reason for this is that there will be terrorists trying to break any peace. 

This would have to be a complete withdrawal with no Israeli only roads or settlements. Settlers should be given a choice of remaining behind as citizens of the Palestine state. 
If I remember correctly, the Palestinians want anyone to be able to return to their original homes. They would have to give that up, any of the diaspora would have to return the new Palestinian state, not Israel.


I know in both points there are a number of issues to be discussed. The upshot is that if it is successful, Israel could have peace in the territories and with Lebanon.

I think that if you give people a vested interest in peace you can effect a change in them, also these people are less likely to support terrorists if they have something to lose. 

Finally my reason for Jerusalem as an International city. No 1 religion controls the city, all visitors and residents treated the same. Could defuse many arguments.


I am aware that these points are based on my perceptions and assumptions, but if the dialog consists of Jews/Muslims are evil and only understand force, there will never be peace in the ME.

I look forward to any counterpoints.


----------



## paracowboy (11 Aug 2006)

decoy said:
			
		

> There's nothing wrong with being a socialist.  It's supporting fascism that's the problem.


ahhh, but   there is nothing so like the Far Left as the Far Right. From Socialism to Communism is a very small step. Explain the difference between Communism as practiced by the Soviet Union, China, and their satellites; and fascism as practiced by Il Duce and the National *Socialist* Party of Germany circa 1930's-1940's.

As for the problems of Socialism, that is covered ad nauseum in other threads.

Actually, don't bother responding, I'm just incapable of _not_ teasing ardent youngsters who think that true Socialism actually works, anywhere.


----------



## Shec (11 Aug 2006)

I agree with you that the good vs. evil argument is a non starter.  The real issue is land for security.  And in that regard
Shebaa Farms should be  off the table for a very strategic reason:  it is a saddle connecting the rest of the Golan high ground to Mt. Hermon.  To give it up would be to create a salient.   And why should Israel, from a purely military perspective, give up high ground to a adversary long and publicly bent on its destruction?  It's like giving Hez & Syria the keys to the vault.

West Bank:

Again the high ground and weaponry dictate considerations.  And the high ground follows the Jenin - Nablus - Jerusalem - Hebron axis.   The Pals can have everything east of that but again why give up the high ground & effective range especially considering:







and, 





and speaking of rockets, let's return to Lebanon for a moment:






The idea of having a 3rd party police the Israel/PA border is preposterous for as you yourself say there will always be terrorists trying to cross it.   That being the case why would a country abdicate its ability to defend itself?   The Gov. of Lebanon effectively did that & look what it got them.

Re; Jerusalem.  As you say religion controls the city.  Isn't Judiasm is entitled to a city of its own not unlike The Vatican, Mecca, or Medina? And unlike them the temples of other religions are not banned.   No,  Jerusalem stays too.

Re:  The Pal right of return.  Besides it also being preposterous (would you invite a couple of million people who hate you to move in next door?) it is a matter of historical record that Pal Arabs were invited to stay and help build the new state when Israel announced its Declaration of Independence in 1948.  Instead of picking up the builder's hammer the Arabs reached for the sword.  Well let them enjoy the wine from their sour grapes.

Obeying a UN resolution for no other reason than because it is a resolution?  Naive.


----------



## armyvern (11 Aug 2006)

Shec said:
			
		

> Shebaa Farms should be  off the table for a very strategic reason:  it is a saddle connecting the rest of the Golan high ground to Mt. Hermon.  To give it up would be to create a salient.   And why should Israel, from a purely military perspective, give up high ground to a adversary publicly bent on its destruction?  It's like giving Hez & Syria the keys to the vault.



Let's not forget the water. Israel, by far the largest consumer of fresh water in the Middle East, diverts the Jordan River above Lake Tibereas (Sea of Gallilee) in the Golan Heights from where it derives aprox 35% of the fresh water it consumes. Water is both a National security issue and a political issue in Israel. Mount Hermon, the headpond of the River Jordan, the Yarmouk river(another fresh water supply), are all located in the Golan Heights. Then there's the age old question of the Latani River in the "security zone" of Lebanon and whether or not it is being diverted. 

A Salient the Shebaa Farms may be, but there's much more than the high ground at stake here.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Aug 2006)

Shec said:
			
		

> And in that regard
> Shebaa Farms should be  off the table for a very strategic reason:  it is a saddle connecting the rest of the Golan high ground to Mt. Hermon.  To give it up would be to create a salient.   And why should Israel, from a purely military perspective, give up high ground to a adversary long and publicly bent on its destruction?  It's like giving Hez & Syria the keys to the vault.



...because from a purely military perspective, there hasn't been a conventional threat to Israel since 1973.  What is the point to retaining strategic ground for defensive purposes when your main opponent is suicide bombers and kids with sticks and rocks.



> Re; Jerusalem.  As you say religion controls the city.  Isn't Judiasm is entitled to a city of its own not unlike The Vatican, Mecca, or Medina?



No, not when it is equally sacred to other faiths.  If you are prepared to say Israel should get Jerusalem for religious reasons, then I see no point in trying to undermine the claims of certain Islamic factions to push Israel out of "Dar al Islam"....


----------



## Shec (11 Aug 2006)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Let's not forget the water. Israel, by far the largest consumer of fresh water in the Middle East, diverts the Jordan River above Lake Tibereas (Sea of Gallilee) in the Golan Heights from where it derives aprox 35% of the fresh water it consumes. Water is both a National security issue and a political issue in Israel. Mount Hermon, the headpond of the River Jordan, the Yarmouk river(another fresh water supply), are all located in the Golan Heights. Then there's the age old question of the Latani River in the "security zone" of Lebanon and whether or not it is being diverted.
> 
> A Salient the Shebaa Farms may be, but there's much more than the high ground at stake here.



Thanks for raising the water consideration ArmyVern.   You are absolutely correct and I am indeed ashamed of myself for overlooking it.  In fact  Syria's attempt to divert the headwaters of the Jordan R. was one of the provocations of the 1967 war and Israel's subsequent annexation of Golan.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Aug 2006)

Bo said:
			
		

> Amnesty has printed 153 articles describing human rights abuses in Africa during 2006 alone:
> 
> http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-2af/index&start=1
> 
> In total, Amnesty has printed over 2672 articles for N.Africa and the Middle East versus 2483 articles for Africa. Is Amnesty biased?



So what?

How about you post what Amnesty International has to say about Canada?  Then tell me more about their 'accounting' and statistics.


----------



## Shec (11 Aug 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...because from a purely military perspective, there hasn't been a conventional threat to Israel since 1973.  What is the point to retaining strategic ground for defensive purposes when your main opponent is suicide bombers and kids with sticks and rocks.
> 
> No, not when it is equally sacred to other faiths.  If you are prepared to say Israel should get Jerusalem for religious reasons, then I see no point in trying to undermine the claims of certain Islamic factions to push Israel out of "Dar al Islam"....



Maybe the lack of a conventional threat is due to the fact that the ground has been held.  If so, why give it up and re-invite it?

I take your point about Jerusalem being sacred to all faiths and that is not an issue as no one religion is barred from access throughout  the place, which wasn't the case until IDF paras booted out the Arab Legion almost 40 years ago.   However the fact remains it was a Jewish holyplace before the other religions were established.    So there is a reason precedent..  Every other religion has a "home"  of its own, why not Judiasm?    In any event,  the claims of  "certain Islamic factions"  are not going to cease if it is given up.  I reiterate:  point me to the synagogue in Mecca & Medina and I'll concede.

Furthermore, to get back to high ground argument Jersalem is on the aforementioned Jenin-Nablus-Hebron axis along which Mt. Scopus is a dominating feature.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Aug 2006)

Shec said:
			
		

> Maybe the lack of a conventional threat is due to the fact that the ground has been held.  If so, why give it up and re-invite it?



The conventional threat is not due to held ground, it is due to qualitative superiority of the IDF over any other conventional military force in the region; a superiority it established in multiple wars.



> However the fact remains it was a Jewish holyplace before the other religions were established.    So there is a reason precedent..  Every other religion has a "home"  of its own, why not Judiasm?



Who cares who "established it as a holy place first".  Should we hold a "who's spiritual bits are bigger in the city" contest to see who should ultimately get it?  I don't recall seeing any rulebook that states that every faith is "entitled" to a "home".  The fact is the matter is that each religion had a good millennia to establish itself in the city, and I can't see how any of them can claim that their right trumps anybody elses.



> I reiterate:  point me to the synagogue in Mecca & Medina and I'll concede.


  

So, the Jewish people should be entitled to have Jerusalem because they don't have a synagogue in Mecca?

A claim based on faith isn't a very convincing one; how are we supposed to undermine an ideology that uses Islam to justify fighting to the death with Israel when you want to push forth a claim that the Jewish people have some sort of Divine Sovereignty over the area.  Your rationale is part of the problem - it is the same that guides other to declare the destruction of Israel as their goal; using a combination of ancient and spiritual claims to back up "who gets what".

I can think of many reasons of why Jerusalem is in good hands right now but yours isn't one of them....


----------



## Shec (11 Aug 2006)

No, the reality, and the point,  is that under Israeli administration all faiths have unfettered access. 

I admit that in previous posts dating back a couple of years and under another thread I proposed that Jerusalem be an international city.
But that was then and this is now.   Someone in an earlier post on this thread asked if Arab demands for concessions were fair to Israel.   Same holds in this case - where is the assurance of equal access to Jerusalem granted to Judiasm?   For over 2,000 years the traditional Passover service ends with the wish "Next Year in Jerusalem".  That wish was repeated when Jews were burned at the stake during the Spanish Inquisition, it was repeated when they were herded into the gas chambers in Nazi occupied Europe, it was repeated at every other attempted "ethnic cleansing" in between,  and it became a reality in 1967.   And that my friend is why that city plucks at the heart strings.  Notwithstanding your observation about the unconvincing nature of faith-based claims,  do you really think that they are going to give it up voluntarily?

I'll close on a lighter note.  When G-d, through Moses,  led the children of Israel out of slavery in Egypt and into the Land of Canaan the people were amazed, speechless, dumbfounded.   "Could this be true?",   they asked G-D. " Is this so lush, verdant, and pleasant place truly our promised land of milk & honey?"   To which The Lord answered:  "Uuhhh, Yeah. But wait until you meet the neighbours"


----------



## Infanteer (12 Aug 2006)

Shec said:
			
		

> No, the reality, and the point,  is that under Israeli administration all faiths have unfettered access.



And that's the good reason.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Aug 2006)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Let's not forget the water. Israel, by far the largest consumer of fresh water in the Middle East, diverts the Jordan River above Lake Tibereas (Sea of Gallilee) in the Golan Heights from where it derives aprox 35% of the fresh water it consumes. Water is both a National security issue and a political issue in Israel. Mount Hermon, the headpond of the River Jordan, the Yarmouk river(another fresh water supply), are all located in the Golan Heights. Then there's the age old question of the Latani River in the "security zone" of Lebanon and whether or not it is being diverted.
> 
> A Salient the Shebaa Farms may be, but there's much more than the high ground at stake here.



Didn't Hezboallah build a diversion channel a few years ago that Israel threatened war if it was used?


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Aug 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> In all honesty, as a Canadian Citizen from Middle Eastern background I find many posts here insulting to me and my fellow citizens, and I'm sure to many CF current and past serving members of Middle Eastern backgrounds including myself.



What's so insulting about the truth Tamouh?

Not that I am pointing a finger, but I would think the only insulted ones would be the synmpathisers and supporters of such cowardly and gutless murdering terr and related orgs.


Wes


----------



## paracowboy (13 Aug 2006)

Wesley "Over There" (formerly Down Under) said:
			
		

> What's so insulting about the truth Tamouh?
> 
> Not that I am pointing a finger, but I would think the only insulted ones would be the synmpathisers and supporters of such cowardly and gutless murdering terr and related orgs.


indeed. I take umbrage at your post, tamouh, as we DS try very hard to ensure that nothing is said on this forum that would be derogatory to anyone's race, religion, skin colour, sexual orientation, gender, or anything else over which they have no control. 

Now, as to people's actions: THAT is fair game.


----------



## armyvern (13 Aug 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Didn't Hezboallah build a diversion channel a few years ago that Israel threatened war if it was used?





> Let's not forget the water. Israel, by far the largest consumer of fresh water in the Middle East, diverts the Jordan River above Lake Tibereas (Sea of Gallilee) in the Golan Heights from where it derives aprox 35% of the fresh water it consumes. Water is both a National security issue and a political issue in Israel. Mount Hermon, the headpond of the River Jordan, the Yarmouk river(another fresh water supply), are all located in the Golan Heights. *Then there's the age old question of the Latani River in the "security zone" of Lebanon and whether or not it is being diverted. *



Well, I mentioned the diversion in my original post. Nothing specific because both countries have expressed keen interest in diverting the Latani. Israel did threaten war if the Lebanese proceeded with their diversion. But let's not forget that one of the main reasons the Lebanese wanted to divert the waters to their populace was to counteract independant water analysts assertions that Israel itself was diverting the Latani through it's underground resevoirs while it controlled the "Security Zone" in order to supply Israel's ever-increasing thirst and agricultural needs.


----------



## time expired (17 Aug 2006)

My God people dont go getting Tarmouth, or whatever his name is,mad after all he is a Muslim and who
knows what he is liable to do,maybe get on an aeroplane and go and join Hamas or H,bolla and go fight
the Jews who he truly seems to dislike.But I really dont think so,he probably considers himself as a so
called moderate Muslim and and friends therein lies part of our problems.In the UK the so called moderate
Muslims are telling people that Britains foreign policies are a justification for terrorist acts,and in france
the 20% Muslim part of the population has effectively paralized chiracs government for fear of terrorist
acts or being chucked out in the next election. My  greatest fear is that we will have a great swing to the
extreme right in the West that will posibly solve our Muslim problem, but at what a cost.


----------



## Jack O. (18 Aug 2006)

DO you have any evidence or facts to back up your claims? Because to me that looks like a bunch of crap.


----------



## paracowboy (18 Aug 2006)

time expired said:
			
		

> My God people dont go getting Tarmouth, or whatever his name is,mad after all he is a Muslim and who
> knows what he is liable to do,maybe get on an aeroplane and go and join Hamas or H,bolla and go fight
> the Jews who he truly seems to dislike.But I really dont think so,he probably considers himself as a so
> called moderate Muslim and and friends therein lies part of our problems.In the UK the so called moderate
> ...


that is a truly offensive post. On a couple different levels. Don't do it again.


----------



## time expired (18 Aug 2006)

Jacy O 
     I happen to live in southern Germany and due to the wonders of TV I have access to French ,
German and British news programming and while I am well aware of the limits of TV news I am 
able to watch and draw my own conclusions . When the senior Muslim cleric states that the policies
of the British government are alienating young muslims and encouraging them to turn to radical
ideals and the senior muslim police official echos these ideas ,I see this as a form of blackmail and a 
complete ursurping of our ideas of democracy . This threat to our society cannot be ignored and I am 
sorry if bringing this to your attention you find offensive . Sorry I forgot France , to justify my comments
I bring to your attention to the last election , J.LaPen the leader of the extreme right can very close to
to winning the last presidental election on a strong anti immigrant platform and this was only stopped 
by huge left wing demonstrations in Paris and other large cities , Chirac won even though he is a
Gaulist he was the only viable alternative . 
 Hope this answers your enquires as to the veracity of my claims


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Aug 2006)

I think he meant raggin' on Tamouh directly, and suggesting that he might do terrorist stuff.  Albeit he is a misinformed agitator ( :dontpanic: simmer down T, I'm just pulling yer ya-ya's) he has also posted some stuff that indicates that he is personally not okay with terrorism.  Personal attacks around this place get shut down pretty quick, and I think you dodged a bullet by only getting a heads up, and not a verbal.  Best take the hint from Para-mod-boy.  
If you are just expanding on Muslim extremist efforts to reshape the world, you should be alright.  
Okay, I'll jet now.


----------



## time expired (19 Aug 2006)

Zidderhead cop
                 In the interests of peace  , at least on this thread ,I , to take this opportunity to apologise
to Tarmouh for my despicable attack, mea culpa mea culpa etc . However ,paracowboy are you ready ?,
I was merely trying to make the point that so called moderate muslims who support the aims and
aspirations of terrorist groups in thought ,word, if not deed , to paraphrase Chairman Mao , are the sea 
in which the terrorist swims. Whether Tarmouh belongs in this group should only be judged by his
posts and my opinion I will keep to myself.
                 Regards


----------



## time expired (19 Aug 2006)

Oh man I did it again, Zipperhead Cop ,spelled your name wrong , I apologise , there was no evil intent.
                    Regards


----------



## paracowboy (19 Aug 2006)

you also seem intent on insinuating that ALL Muslims are bad guys. Your continual use of "so-called" in front of "moderate", for instance. If you have an issue with Islam in general, keep it to yourself. We don't allow that sort of thing. There's politically correct bullshit, and then there's blatant discrimination and hatred. Neither are welcome here. Nor are personal attacks.

Just keep that in mind when you type, and you should be fine. Welcome to Army.ca


----------



## time expired (21 Aug 2006)

Paracowboy
           If you had read my post carefully you would possiby understand that my argument is not with 
the muslim religion but with muslims who live in our Western democracies take full advantage of our
freedoms but are fully behind the efforts  of the various terrorist organisations, in the UK for example
 60% of muslims consider terrorist attacks on innocent civilians justified. Equally large percentages
 support  Hamas and H,bolla. It is these people that I have issues, the fact that I live in Europe may
have givern me a somewhat different take on things than yours,although by reading all your past posts 
we seem to be on the same page on most issues. However that being said I do not appreciate being
talked to as a badly behaved child, I have noticed that you and others on the directing staff have a tendency
to be quite condecending to people who do not reach your extremely high interllectual standards. 
 If this is enough to get me thrown off the site, so be it I will always have AARSE
                                  Regards


----------



## paracowboy (21 Aug 2006)

dude, I'm just layin' out the rules nice and clear so you understand them, in as plain English as I know how, same as I do for any other new guy. Take it as you will.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Aug 2006)

As a country that has freedom of speech, I think that any Muslim can say whatever they want.  That being said, I am sick of having to put up with political correctness and being foisted with "white man's burden" for some perceived or historical slight.  
It all traces back to the media.  They just LOVE to print inflammatory statements and get people going.  What it seems they don't realize is that there are lots of quiet observers that already think that way and are being emboldened by the apparent support in the mainstream, or fence sitters that may feel they should "get in the game" because they have a kinship to the extremist ideas.  
The concept of responsible journalism seems to have flown the coop.


----------



## joaquim (28 Aug 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> So, it's not religion, as such. It's politics (read: greed) disguised as religion.



True in 99% of the world, not the Holy Land. But don't listen to me. Listen to Isham, a summer camp director in Gaza, as he explains what he teaches the children:

_"We teach the children the truth.(...) Most important, the children understand that the conflict with the Jews is not over land, but rather over religion. As long as Jews remain here, between the [Jordan] river and the sea, they will be our enemy and we will continue to pursue and kill them. When they leave we won't hurt them." _ 

If this is politics, then what is religion?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/754992.html


----------



## George Wallace (28 Aug 2006)

???

First you quote paracowboy; then you ask "If this is politics, then what is religion?"  Obviously you didn't understand the words you quoted.



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> So, it's not religion, as such. It's politics (read: greed) disguised as religion.


----------



## joaquim (30 Aug 2006)

To George Wallace:

On the Hizbollah flag, the bottom text means "The Islamic Resistance in Lebanon". The upper text is the second half of Quran 5:56 "for, all who ally themselves with God and His Apostle and those who have attained to faith - behold, it is they, the partisans of God, who shall be victorious!" The green text is the name of the group, "the partisans of God", extracted from the same verse. Politics, disguised as religion?

From the 1988 Hamas covenant: Article 6: "The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned..." Politics, disguised as religion?

If anything is disguised in the holy land, it is *religion, disguised as politics*. For example, what Hizbollah calls "resistance" is merely the expression of the hatred of jews dictated by Qur'an 2:140, 4:46, 4:160, 5:41, 5:51, 5:82 and 9:30. Here is the last verse, for illustration:

_9:30 AND THE jewS say, "Ezra is God's son," while the Christians say, "The Christ is God's son." Such are the sayings which they utter with their mouths, following in spirit assertions made in earlier times by people who denied the truth! [They deserve the imprecation:] "May God destroy them!" How perverted are their minds!_


----------



## couchcommander (30 Aug 2006)

joaquim,

If I am to understand you correctly, are you really trying to assert that Hamas and Hezballah's actions are purely motivated by religious zeal? 

And re: the passage you cited - if I am reading it correctly, does it not ask God to punish them.... what do we, or any other human being, have anything to do with that? Or are you saying that these people are claiming to be God?


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Aug 2006)

CC:

Haven't you heard?  "God works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform"  We are all God's instruments and He will use us as He wishes.  

Apparently Hezbollah read the same book my Presbyterian Ministers did after all.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2006)

joaquim said:
			
		

> If anything is disguised in the holy land, it is *religion, disguised as politics*. For example, what Hizbollah calls "resistance" is merely the expression of the hatred of jews dictated by Qur'an 2:140, 4:46, 4:160, 5:41, 5:51, 5:82 and 9:30. Here is the last verse, for illustration:



So!  According to you  Islam is a Religion of HATRED and INTOLERANCE.




			
				joaquim said:
			
		

> _9:30 AND THE jewS say, "Ezra is God's son," while the Christians say, "The Christ is God's son." Such are the sayings which they utter with their mouths, following in spirit assertions made in earlier times by people who denied the truth! [They deserve the imprecation:] "May God destroy them!" How perverted are their minds!_



Isn't this a sign of intolerance?  How many examples in our everyday life do we find people calling something by a different name.  Hot Dog is Chiene Chaud to the French; Munchen is Munich to the English; God is Allah; and on and on.  Because someone uses another name for the same thing, doesn't mean that it is wrong, nor should it be a statement of politics in a religious forum.  

I look at this as Politics disguised as Religion.  It is not a religious belief that spreads hatred like this, but the political manipulation of religious beliefs to forward a political agenda.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Aug 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ..... It is not a religious belief that spreads hatred like this, but the political manipulation of religious beliefs to forward a political agenda.



+1


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Aug 2006)

Seems to me the point is going to be lost on the radicals.  They openly promote the elimination of government and encourage the Islamic leaders to take control of state affairs.  
From my Al Qaeda training manual:

After the fall of our orthodox caliphates on March 3, 1924 and after expelling the colonialists, our Islamic nation was afflicted with apostate rulers who took over in the Moslem nation. These rulers turned out to be more infidel and criminal than the colonialists themselves. Moslems have endured all kinds of harm, oppression, and torture at their hands.
Those apostate rulers threw thousands of the Haraka Al-Islamyia (Islamic Movement) youth in gloomy jails and detention centers that were equipped with the most modern torture devices and [manned with] experts in oppression and torture. Those youth had refused to move in the rulers’ orbit, obscure matters to the youth, and oppose the idea of rebelling against the rulers. But they [the rulers] did not stop there; they started to fragment the essence of the Islamic nation by trying to eradicate its Moslem identity.
Thus, they started spreading godless and atheistic views among the youth. We found some that claimed that socialism was from Islam, democracy was the [religious] council, and the prophet - God bless and keep him - propagandized communism.
Colonialism and its followers, the apostate rulers, then started to openly erect crusader centers, societies, and organizations like Masonic Lodges, Lions and Rotary clubs, and foreign schools. They aimed at  producing a wasted generation that pursued everything that is western and produced rulers, ministers, leaders, physicians, engineers, businessmen, politicians, journalists, and information specialists.
[Koranic verse:] “And Allah’s enemies plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah.” 
They [the rulers] tried, using every means and [kind of] seduction, to produce a generation of young men that did not know [anything] except what they [the rulers] want, did not say except what they [the rulers] think about, did not live except according to their [the rulers’] way, and did not dress except in their [the rulers’] clothes. However, majestic Allah turned their deception back on them, as a large group of
those young men who were raised by them [the rulers] woke up from their sleep and returned to Allah, regretting and repenting.
The young men returning to Allah realized that Islam is not just performing rituals but a complete system: Religion and government, worship and Jihad [holy war], ethics and dealing with people, and the Koran and sword.  The bitter situation that the nation has reached is a result of its divergence from Allah’s course and his righteous law for all places and times.
That [bitter situation] came about as a result of its children’s love for the world, their loathing of death, and their abandonment of Jihad [holy war]. Unbelief is still the same. It pushed Abou Jahl- may Allah
curse him - and Kureish’s valiant infidels to battle the prophet - God bless and keep him - and to torture his companions - may Allah’s grace be on them. It is the same unbelief that drove Sadat, Hosni Mubarak, Gadhafi, Hafez Assad, Saleh, Fahed - Allah’s curse be upon the non-believing leaders - and all the  apostate Arab rulers to torture, kill, imprison, and torment Moslems. These young men realized that an Islamic government would never be established except by the bomb and rifle. Islam does not coincide or make a truce with unbelief, but rather confronts it. The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun.The young came to prepare themselves for Jihad [holy war], commanded by the majestic Allah’s order in the holy Koran. [Koranic verse:] “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.”

This is how these guys think.  There is only one law--Allah.  There is only one government--Allah.  And in their minds, there is only one way that the entire planet will be acceptable to Allah--stone age theocracy.  And until they get it to that point, they feel duty bound to keep pounding away at whatever they feel is the best course of action.  They figure their eternity is on the line, so what does it matter if it takes generations to get something done?  That is why they beam with pride to see their kids strap on explosives and pick up rifles.  They think that they are working towards a greater goal, and we are just a bunch of heathen rodents to be put down to make way for the new Islamic paradise on earth they are working towards.  Death to them just means a fast track to the fun part.  
Solution?  Kill 'em.  Find them, wax them.  Simple.  Be nice to the ones who aren't involved, get them on board with the business of living.  For the radicals, there will be no talking with them.  Despite what our culturally bias view of wanting to die is "crazy", they see it as dedication.  Hell, I think I have seen rhetoric from one of the groups (Hezbollah I think) that made it seem like if you want to be living, you are the one with the perception problem.  Couple to that the fact that they know us and our culture fifty times better than we (on average) know them, they understand when to back off, when to make soothing noises and when to exploit our weak, conciliatory western attitudes.  People have to get their heads around the concept that you can kiss their maniacal arses  till the sun goes down and that will not buy us one splinter of consideration or compassion from them.  It would be like if a monkey with rabies handed you a flower.  You might go "aw, that was nice of him", then you would still put a bullet in it's head and bury it, because that is what you feel you are required to do in the best interests of all parties involved  [again, stressing that this is the radical take on the religion].
And I am also not so naive that I believe that there is only pure intentions behind Hamas and Hezbollah or even Al Qaeda.  To be sure the guys at the top are living large, and are pretty business minded.  But along with them and the zealot facilitators, they are the ones who need to be weeded out.  
And all the UN jabbering in the world won't make it otherwise.


----------



## joaquim (5 Sep 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is not a religious belief that spreads hatred like this, but the political manipulation of religious beliefs to forward a political agenda.



You can't possibly be serious! 

I quote the Qur'an, a text written in the 7th century, before the invention of politics as we know it. I show you an example of pure hatred for Jews and Christians, and you still call it politics! I give up. You win. This forum is politics. The weather report is politics. Everything is politics. Now I see it. 

PS: hey, zipperhead_cop, thanks for the support, but no thanks. No one knows for sure who is right, so do not mock the other guy's beliefs as you fight for yours.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Sep 2006)

:

I don't know what dimension you have come from, but what drove the creation of Kingdoms and Empires before the Qur'an was written in the 7th Century?  

Are we in a "What came first; the Chicken or the Egg?" scenario here?  Did man become a 'political animal' first or a 'religious fanatic'?  I guess you also call Darwin a Quack.  

Well guy; have it your way.   :


----------



## joaquim (5 Sep 2006)

No one writes about the Jewish equivalent of Jihad. This is an army forum, so I think it is appropriate to discuss religion when it applies to war. 

The Jew call it *milchemet mitzvah*, hebrew for mandatory war. The article below explains the distinction between it and milchemet reshut, optional war. A few selected passages (text englicized for clarity):

_According to all, an example of a mandatory war is conquering the land of Israel, as was done by Joshua after the exodus from Egypt, while an example of an optional war is extending the borders of the land of Israel as done by king David.

After stating that in battle one should not have fear, the Bible then proceeds to discuss who is exempt from war. Interestingly, the Bible then gives an exemption to battle to those who are scared (this refers to one who is worried about their sins) (...) Other people that are exempted from war are those who recently married, planted a vineyard, or built a new house. (...) The Gemara clarifies that the exemptions to battle only apply to an optional war. However, in a mandatory war, even a bride and groom are obligated to “fight”. 

However, there is an argument in the Gemara regarding whether an attack on an enemy nation to reduce their future threat is considered an optional or a mandatory war. (...) Based on this, it would seem that a pre-emptive war like the Six-day war, where it was clear that opposing troops were ready to attack Israel, would be considered a mandatory war. _

Note: the Gemara is a part of the Talmud that clarifies the Jewish law. It was written in the 4th and 5th century.

The article also discusses the need to offer peace to an ennemy before attacking him, how to treat prisoners and whether women are obligated to fight. To understand these rules, you must know that the land of Israel, as cartographed in Genesis, includes the current Israel, the west bank, Southern Lebanon, the Golan, and Eastern parts of Syrian and Jordan. It does not include the Negev desert or Eilat. The status of Gaza is vague. I link a map below.

The sum of milchenet mitzvah and jihad is a war that will end only with the military destruction of one side. And since both religions are told to never surrender, it will be ugly. Politics, needless to say, will play an important role but as an accessory. 

http://www.torahmitzion.org/eng/resources/show.asp?id=231
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/maps/img/002.jpg


----------



## paracowboy (5 Sep 2006)

religion is nothing more than a means whereby a select few use the gullibility of the many to enforce their own agenda on others - which inevitably becomes "how do I get more power?" resulting in war.

Religion is nothing but a mask for politics. 

Reach down, grab a buttock in each hand, and pull slightly. That "pop!" you hear is your head making it's egress from your posterior.


----------



## keaner (5 Sep 2006)

> religion is nothing more than a means whereby a select few use the gullibility of the many to enforce their own agenda on others



WTF?? The overwhelming percentage of believers in the worlds religions due it of their own freewill with no coercion whatsover. Further, the overwhelming number of 'mainstream' religions are peaceful....preaching brotherhood and inclusiveness.
 I'm Anglican. Is the Archbishop of Canterbury programming me to kill?? 

 I think I heard another 'pop'.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Sep 2006)

Pvt.Bloggins 

I am sure you have heard the term "Sheeple"?  Religious zealots are what we are talking about, not moderate religions.  Just because you don't feel it is your duty as an Anglican to go forth and kill all in the name of your religion, doesn't mean that there are not others that do.  joaquin is one such believer.  Jimmy Jones was a charismatic leader of a Religious Cult who convinced his followers to drink poisoned Koolaid in a mass suicide.  We have seen the same type of thing in Waco Texas, and in California, France, Switzerland and numerous other States.  What is your opinion of the Moonies, Hari Krishna's, etc.  The Pope, the Mullah's, Ammans, etc. all crave power.


----------



## paracowboy (5 Sep 2006)

Pvt.Bloggins said:
			
		

> I'm Anglican.


good for you. I'm Canadian.



> Is the Archbishop of Canterbury programming me to kill??


no, not any more. There was a time when he was doing precisely that. You'd have been led to cheerfully butcher Catholics, Muslims, Jews, etc. There are still parts of the world where Christians gleefully murder other Christians for genuflecting incorrectly. Well, actually, they do it so that someone else can profit from it, but they BELIEVE they're doing it because an invisible man in the sky wants them to. Because he loves them.

Little defensive? Try to read into things a *teensy* bit more. Getting spoon-fed what to think for too long seems to have slowed down your perceptive abilities a tad.


----------



## keaner (6 Sep 2006)

> There are still parts of the world where Christians gleefully murder other Christians for genuflecting incorrectly. Well, actually, they do it so that someone else can profit from it, but they BELIEVE they're doing it because an invisible man in the sky wants them to. Because he loves them.



Where?


----------



## a_majoor (6 Sep 2006)

To clarify things a bit, Politics in organizational theory is the method of gaining access to scarce or limited resources.

You don't need political parties to have "Politics", look inside an office or even a schoolyard. Sometimes the resources in question are not physical, but intangibles like power, "prestige" or emotional satisfaction (it's not always about the office supplies). 

Religion is a powerful organizing principle to explain the Universe and your place in it, so people who know how to co opt your belief system have an invaluable edge when playing "Politics". In other threads I've noted that some modern ideologies like Socialism and its many sub variations have many similarities to religion for their followers, which may go a long way to explaining why Socialist leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and so on were able to mobilize vast populations and entire nations and lead them into ruin.


----------



## armyvern (6 Sep 2006)

joaquim said:
			
		

> No one writes about the Jewish equivalent of Jihad. This is an army forum, so I think it is appropriate to discuss religion when it applies to war.
> 
> *The sum of milchenet mitzvah and jihad is a war that will end only with the military destruction of one side. And since both religions are told to never surrender, it will be ugly.* Politics, needless to say, will play an important role but as an accessory.
> 
> ...



Joaquim,

Although your definition of milchenet mitzvah is correct, your application of it in the bold text above from your post is incorrect. 

Last time I checked, it certainly isn't the Hebrews (or Israel for that matter politicly speaking) who are waging any jihad, or using this relgious justification (I personally call it an excuse - same for your quoted Koran example) to wage war against their neighbours and drive them into the sea.

They are the ones who are being attacked and their borders breached by Muslim religious zealots who are using the Koran to justify their actions. 

The Bible, Koran, Torah et al all say many things. Quite simply, it is IDIOTS using 'interpretations' of these verses to justify killing, torturing, and (attempting) to obliterate other nations or peoples that are the extremists. 

I could cut off my left big toe tomorrow because I think it's ugly and can justify it in my mind. That still means I'd be an idiot.

Don't quote passages from Relious texts as a reasoning/justification for war/jihad when only one side is actually applying that particular religious principle, and big hint here...it isn't the Hebrews. It is the Muslim extremeists who are doing this.


----------



## TCBF (6 Sep 2006)

"To understand these rules, you must know that the land of Israel, as cartographed in Genesis, includes the current Israel, the west bank, Southern Lebanon, the Golan, and Eastern parts of Syrian and Jordan."

- Given the ebb and flow of things in the OT, I think one might be able to make a case for most of the area between the Nile and the Tigris.


----------



## couchcommander (6 Sep 2006)

joaquim,

Politics, or the methods we humans use to make group descisions, trancend the nation-state... virtually any social group has a political aspect to it. What Mr. Wallace is saying is that the leaders of these groups are using religious devotion as a method of supporting _their_ agenda and _their_ well being. 

Like the U.S., their actions are far from alturistic (that's for the socialism and hitler comment, a_majoor - national socialist doesn't mean socialist, just like democratic republic doesn't mean democracy, and "the american dream" is a far more "religious" idea than anything socialist I've ever read - but, different thread, different argument...back to our regularily scheduled debate... ). 

As I pointed out before, these passages you quote need to be interpreted in a very _motivated_ manner to justify what is going on. 

If you want to referr to old history though, Muslim states were actually comparatively tolerant of other abrahamic religions (with some notable exceptions... see above).


----------



## paracowboy (6 Sep 2006)

Pvt.Bloggins said:
			
		

> Where?


uhhhhhh, Ireland? FYR? All over Africa? Central & South America? The Caribbean? Christians of various denominations cheerfully shooting, stabbing, burning other Christians. Is it because of their Faith? Nope. It's over money and power.

Religion began as a means whereby clever men used superstition to hold sway over their fellows: "Give me food, clothing...NO! SPECIAL clothing...and a fancy house to live in, or Ahura Mazda/Zeus/Mighty Ungawa/Insert Imaginary Friend Here will rain down fire on you."

Over time, that grew into the Religions we have today. Christianity used to sweep over the world with fire and sword, converting all in its' path. Feudalism was based entirely on Religion to enforce the Rule of Kings on serfdom. Then, it faced the Reformation where political power was forcibly removed from the Churches of the day. Now, they use Spiritual Extortion. "Give me money so I don't have to get a real job, and can keep God's house looking nice, or you'll burn forever in a lake of fire".

That's in the West, where we've seperated Church and State. Even so, Churches hold considerable sway. And they use it for political ends. Protestants still murder Catholics, and vice versa, in Northern Ireland. Is it because of Religion? Nope. It's over power and land. (Well, that's why it started, now its' over drugs and money.) Same-same the Balkans, Africa, etc.

And it's all a mask that evil men use to justify their crimies against humanity. Which is why joiquim's entire premise is faulty. It's not Religion. It's politics hiding behind Religion. Religion is just another tool greedy men use to enforce their will on others.

Which is why your analogy is flawed as well. Christianity in (most) of the West is no longer used to gain land and political power above the level of municipal government. Just to keep it's adherents tithing or contributing to the Offering Plate.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 Sep 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Religion began as a means whereby clever men used superstition to hold sway over their fellows: "Give me food, clothing...NO! SPECIAL clothing...and a fancy house to live in, or Ahura Mazda/Zeus/Mighty Ungawa/Insert Imaginary Friend Here will rain down fire on you."



I bet you are a laugh riot at the Regimental mass.   ;D


----------



## Shec (6 Sep 2006)

joaquim said:
			
		

> No one writes about the Jewish equivalent of Jihad. This is an army forum, so I think it is appropriate to discuss religion when it applies to war.
> 
> The Jew call it *milchemet mitzvah*, hebrew for mandatory war. The article below explains the distinction between it and milchemet reshut, optional war. A few selected passages (text englicized for clarity):
> 
> ...



The only problem with your thesis, which rests on your reference to the Gemara, is that you over look the other equally important element of the Talmud, the Mishnah.   Both are studied in tandem by Talmudic scholars who devote their lives to comparing,  contrasting, intepreting, and arguing the two.  

It is in the earlier Mishnah that  the concept of mikchenet mitzvah is  raised.  It also concludes that ideas of  holy war only brought devastation to the Jewish people as had been recently experienced in the  great Revolt of 66 C.E. and the Bar Kokhba Rebellion of 132 C.E.

So you might want to:

(1) Reference the correct original source,
(2) Recognize that the interpretation of either source is not an exercise that is exclusive of the other source,
(3) Spend a bit more time, like say 10-20 years, in studying them rather than relying on one internet reference which presents only one spin on a 2,000 year old and never-ending scholarly debate.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Sep 2006)

Shec said:
			
		

> So you might want to:
> 
> (1) Reference the correct original source,
> (2) Recognize that the interpretation of either source is not an exercise that is exclusive of the other source,
> (3) Spend a bit more time, like say 10-20 years, in studying them rather than relying on one internet reference which presents only one spin on a 2,000 year old and never-ending scholarly debate.



Damn, can you say "owned"....


----------



## Shec (7 Sep 2006)

owned


----------



## GAP (26 Oct 2006)

Danish court rejects Prophet cartoons case against newspaper  
JAN M. OLSEN Associated Press
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061026.wcartoons1026/BNStory/International/home

COPENHAGEN — A Danish court on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by seven Muslim organizations against the newspaper that first published a dozen cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that triggered massive protest in the Islamic world earlier this year.

The City Court in Aarhus said it could not be ruled out that some Muslims had been offended by the 12 drawings printed in Jyllands-Posten, but said there was no reason to assume that the cartoons were meant to “belittle Muslims.”

The newspaper published the cartoons on Sept. 30, 2005 with an accompanying text saying it was challenging a perceived self-censorship among artists afraid to offend Islam.

The caricatures were reprinted in European papers in January and February, fuelling a fury of protests in the Islamic world. Some turned violent, with protesters killed in Libya and Afghanistan and several European embassies attacked.

Islamic law forbids any depiction of the prophet, even positive ones, to prevent idolatry.

“It cannot be ruled out that the drawings have offended some Muslims' honour, but there is no basis to assume that the drawings are, or were conceived as, insulting or that the purpose of the drawings was to present opinions that can belittle Muslims,” the court said in its ruling.

The seven Muslim groups filed the defamation lawsuit against the paper in March, after Denmark's top prosecutor declined to press criminal charges, saying the drawings did not violate laws against racism or blasphemy.

The plaintiffs, who claimed to have the backing of 20 more Islamic organizations in the Scandinavian country, had sought about $17,000 in damages from Jyllands-Posten editor-in-chief Carsten Juste and culture editor Flemming Rose, who supervised the cartoon project.

The lawsuit said the cartoons depict Mohammed “as belligerent, oppressing women, criminal, crazy and unintelligent, and a connection is made between the Prophet and war and terror.”
More on link


----------



## George Wallace (26 Oct 2006)

Makes me wonder where these groups would have "FUNNELED" that $17,000.


----------

