Israels attack on Lebanon.

Post Reply New Topic

Too many people here dispense BS for me to make friends. Most people here are either radical left-wing kooks or idiot bible thumpers. When you occupy the sane middle-ground, You get attacked from both sides.

How is it that the statement itself DOESN'T reek of propaganda?? Apparently you take what the President of Iran said TOO literally. The Jews aren't going to leave the middle east without a fight. Muslims know this. In order to remove the regime, you must drestroy the army. Since most Israeli adults are in the reserves, this means WIPPING JEWS OFF THE MAP. QUIT DELUDING YOURSELF!! ! The President of Iran wants to finish the job the NAZIS started!!

Well, at least you're not a rabid anti-semite.


The people of Southern Lebenon have mad a "Deal With The Devil" by allowing Hezbollah to take over the region. Much like "innocent" Germans who found themselves in WW II. Dresden was a beautiful city too. That did'nt stop it from getting the crap bombed out of it.


This is backwards logic. Go back in history to 1945. The arabs started to attack jews almost as soon as they came to the region. Israel did'nt start this conflict! The jews are heavily outnumbered. They NEED peace with the arabs. The arabs DON'T need peace with the Jews, since they outnumber them! By following your logic,the argument that you're tring to make is that the mere presence of jews in the middle east is the de-stabilizing factor.


They have'nt attacked the WHOLE country, just the southern half that Hezbollah occupies. Hezbollah is firmly entrenched within the culture ther. The only way to remove them is with a full military campaign.


This is called the "calculus of the middle east" There's 6,000,000 Jews and 300,000,000 Muslims. In order for Israel to call a military action "Sucessfull" the have to kill the enemy at a ratio of at least 50:1. That's why it's hard to make the case that Israel is the aggresor here. If Israel fails negotiate a lasting peace with arabs, they will be pushed into the ocean. The terrorists know this. That's why they won't stop attacking!!

no, i don't agree with your conclusion at all. i'm not trying to make any judgement on the iranian regime's position toward israel as a whole, simply pointing out that his speech was grossly mistranslated and has subsequently been used as a propoganda tool to exacerbate the current situation in the middle east.

To be relaced with what? Another Muslin state. Then what would happen to the Jews? I'm sure they would be so well treated there seeing that they have been killing them for years. Is this a place you would want to live?

As for the mistranslation and such it's all a word game maybe to us the suttle differnce means something but not to most people.

It's also funny that in other threads "regime change" is considered to reek of proaganda when applied eslewhere by the other side I guess it all depends on your piont of view

you have to remember israeli's have also been killing muslims for years. obviously the situation in the middle east is not good from either sides point of view.


possibly but i'm not so sure, look at how often the "wiped from the map" statement has been quoted in the media.

but the context is completely different. maybe "regime change" was a poor choice of words, given the connotations of the phrase in the present climate. ahmadinejad's statement was did not state that iran will pre-emptively invade israel and replace the regime. simply that his view is that the zionist regime in israel should end due to their oppresion of the palestinian population.

be aware that i am taking sides in the debate here, just observing the tactics used by the west in misrepresenting a phrase from a speech in order to justify increasing pressure on iran.

I also remember various Mulsims Leader calling for Israel to be driven into the sea That kinda goes along more with wipeing off the map that anything else. No the current situation is not good for the resonable people on both sides but they ussaly are not the ones calling the shots. It would though be in the radicals best interest though becuse without just this sort of strife they would have no reason to exist. It seems every time it quiets down they stir the pot for to incress their own power while the normal people pay the price. Hezbollah is primaraly funded by Iran so who do you think is doing the stiring now?

We need to look at the context of what originally happened first to understand why this fighting is occuring.

After WWII, due to the devestation of the holocost towards the jews, the powers that be decided that the jewish people should have a land to call their own and used the bible to determine what land to give them. The problem was that there were people already living on that land and they have been there for centuries.

Rather than work out a diplomatic solutions, the nations in power went in with their guns and told the people living there to move, no ifs ands or buts about it. Not only that, but the powers at the time figured that the other arabic nations would take those people in.

Now imagine if a soldier came to your home and told you to leave immediately because someone else needs your house more that you and we do not intend to pay you back. Hell, we get mad at that when we are given money here in the US.

So of course, the people there rebelled against what was happening to them but they were no match toward the people with guns. The arabic nations however decided that they were going to back up their own people and as such, gave them the means to defend themselves (in the same way the US gave Israel the means to defend herself).

The time for a diplomatic solution what 60 years ago, not now. On top of that, the US still insists that Israel not be held responsible even though they want Iran et al. to be held to a higher standard. In fact, it is this US arrogance of being involved on the Israel side of things that causes trouble with the rest of the arabic nations. Why should Israel be allowed to have weapons to wipe out Iran but Iran is not allowed to have weapons to wipe out Israel.

Not only that, but Israel seems to follow the we must annihalte them course of action to any issue caused by the opposing side. Hezbollah kidnapped 2 soldier (who knew going into the service what risks were being taken, even if they are forced into the service under mandatory conscription). Instead of allowing the Lebanonese government hunt for the soldiers (and the UN would have assisted), Israel decided to wipe Lebabnon off the map. Now Hezbollah is claiming to be defending Lebanon.

As far as Syria and Iran, I do not think it is advisable to even ask them to get involved because if they due, I bet they will back Hezbollah in the same way we back Israel.

This is just another issue in a political areana that is frought with so many knots that maybe the only solution is to cut it in half.

I thought that Israel claimed independance and was immediately attacked. And also that the Palestinians attempted to claim independance but Jordan prevented them from doing so?

...it's statements like this one that make me weep for the sake of humanity.

jonathan79, as far as i know, the UN partitioned the country in 1947, i'm not sure about israel claiming independance, but they accepted the partition, and the arabs rejected it. i'm also not sure about jordanian intervention before the 1948 war.

as far as jewish migration to the area, it goes back a bit earlier than WW2, zionist jews had begun to move into the area in the late 19th century. the balfour declaration was made by the british at the end of WW1, which basically stated that the jewish people could establish a nation in the region, which had previously been part of the turkish empire and had been placed under british administration by the league of nations in the aftermath of the war.

after various arab uprisings the british tried to wash their hands of the affair during WW2, by limiting jewish immigration to the area, which in effect antagonised both sides. by this point the jewish settlers had established an army of sorts to defend themselves from hostility from the arab population, which ended up fragmented, one branch of it cooperating with the british in WW2, and the other hostile to the british, and even trying to cooperate with the nazis in an attempt to ensure the jewish diasporas' migration to israel after the war.

1947, the UN partitioned the country after britain again tried to wash its hands of the affair, this time withdrawing from the region. the jewish community accepted the proposed partition, and the arabs didn't, resulting in unrest which culminated in the first arab-israeli war in 1948, during which the surrounding arab nations became involved, and the rest is history.

there was a fair sized jewish community already in the region before WW2, and even before WW1, with hostility already mounting between the two poulations. anti-semitism in europe also goes back long before even WW1, to the 19th century and even earlier.

if anyone wishes to correct me on any of the above, feel free, its been a long time since my interest in world politics subsided, and i may have made a few minor errors, but this is roughly how it happened.

why?

Neither of those b****** should have nuclear weapons. Never trust religious nut jobs with these weapons full stop. the mutually assured destruction concept just simply does not matter to these fella's if they are delluded that xx virgins or heaven is waiting for them its like a mass suicide pact and take their enemies with them. Its a good thing the zionists are fundamentally an athiest movement or we really would be in a world of excrement.

I completely agree here. But I'l take it further we should never trust any religous nut jobs with anything fundies are scary enough without weapons what ever religion they are.

Then the US should not have any weapons of mass destruction either.

Can we keep this dicussion out of the land of Oz??