World War I I I ?

Get the feeling that WWWIII might have begun?

Nope.

NK isn't going to nuke anyone - they know meep well they would never survive it. Maybe if they were cornered, but there would be no one left to fight, so same result. Israel and the rest of the middle-east have been at it for a long time - nothing new there.

WWIII will probably be a fallout between the US, Russia, and China. You can already see them (all) flexing their muscles.

.... OK, that may be a bit ridiculous, but does anyone get the feeling that this fireball looks a lot like a giant robotic duck holding a sword?

Latest news: 9:02EST Israeli planes bomb southern suburb of Beirut, Lebanon.

HOLY meepERS!

Wait, I've got it, check this out - it's because of the oil, but only indirectly. The big $ already knows the oil will run out and they're jockeying for position in the alternative energy race. BUT - it's BECAUSE the alternatives are free (solar, wind, etc) that they'll HAVE TO fight for it, just to stay in business!!

Keep your eye on the WTO; they'll be running it from behind the scenes...

For some reason I can never seem to follow middle-eastern politics, so here's a useful article from the BBC's website that explains why Israel should be interested in bombing Lebanon (short version = conflict over land with the militant wing of Lebanon's major Shia Muslim political party, Hezbollah).

Who are Hezbollah?

and then here's a nice little article on the role of Syria

Beirut waits as Syrian masters send Hezbollah allies into battle (read the comments too)

edit for typos. there's probably more.

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2006-07-14 at 02:33:17, Lefen praised Jejus</span>

Is that the cover for you new album?

Kind of a combination of hardcore Israelli folk tunes, mixed with a little North Korean post-funk meep Groove-tastica?

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2006-07-14 at 11:22:57, Steel praised Jejus</span>

In all seriousness

CNN: Before Friday's bombing of Beirut airport, the United States helped broker an unusual deal that allowed a runway at the Beirut airport to be repaired long enough to allow a private aircraft carrying former Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Nakati and five planes from Middle East Airlines to take off.

No doubt carrying the Bin Laden family to safety again, or the like!

The BBC news said the 5 planes took off to literally "save the planes"....Its fair enough, theyre not cheap. Then as soon as they had taken off, Isreal re-bombed the runways again.

<code>                     Poor little baby Israel...
</code>

Heh Heh Heh <span class="post_was_edited">On 2006-07-14 at 14:39:46, Steel praised Jejus</span>

A guy I work with just got back from visiting his family in Lebanon. He found this today on the CNN web site - it's a picture of his home village; his parents' house is just over the hill.

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2006-07-14 at 17:25:26, jwalker praised Jejus</span>

The Israel v Lebanon conflict is more likely to escalate than the N. Korea nuke issue.

Israel never gave Lebanon the ultimatum to get back their hostages from the Hezbola or else...place threat here.

It is for this reason that I think that the world sees this conflict as, not a war on terror, but a war that Israel has brought to Lebanon. All 9/11 references or war in Iraq like tactics are now null in void without the War On Terror label.

Its a good ol' fashioned state vs state war, which means countires can take sides and we can all repeat the Franz Ferdinand effect, only with way kewler guns.

Riddle me this though, why does the US government keep suppoting Israel? To the point that we vetoed a UN act that would sanction Israel for using too much force in this issue, as well as backing the blockade of Lebanon. Does the Bush Administration not recognize that Israel is a liability? I guess I answered my own question. However, does anyone think mutually assured destruction is even viable these days? Everyone thinks they're going to heaven to kiss Jebus on the toe and or lick Muhhamad's meep, they don't care if they are destroyed.

Oh well, when the nukes start flyin' I'm gonna find that hot chick in the office and meep the meep out of her, cause my girlfriend works too far away and I'm sure she'd understand. I won't even care if the office bicycle reaches orgasm, as long as I gets mine.

Oddly enough all this WWIII talk makes me want to play RISK.

DonQuixote: Riddle me this though, why does the US government keep suppoting Israel? To the point that we vetoed a UN act that would sanction Israel for using too much force in this issue, as well as backing the blockade of Lebanon. Does the Bush Administration not recognize that Israel is a liability? I guess I answered my own question.

I would say that the most trained and incrededibly tactical (not to mention the most anti-muslim) force in the region would fall more in the lines of resource than a liability.

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2006-07-14 at 23:47:17, Phlebas praised Jejus</span>

It seems that Hamas and Hezbollah are uniting which is all sorts of meeped up.

This is my understanding of the breakdown:

Hezbollah is Shi'a and funded by Iran to a tune of 100 million a year, probably much more from other sources.

Hamas is Sunni and funded by Syria and who knows who else.

They both hope for the destruction of Israel.

They have both taken Israeli hostages which is a HUGE deal because of what it means historically regarding Israel and their hostages.

Israel takes hostage_related_matters very person and considers the return of their hostages a priority above all else.

They will do whatever necessary to achieve this..

:(

"personally" is how Israel takes hostage matters..

also, Lebanon is a mess because the government cannot legally disarm the Hezbollah militia. They have the force to go down south and meep them up but they do not have the authority politically and I think constitutionally (?)

It's as if those militia guys down in Texas starting attacking Mexico instead of just building fences and the US Army was not allowed to do anything about it.

freakbass: They have both taken Israeli hostages which is a HUGE deal because of what it means historically regarding Israel and their hostages.

I really think we need to get away from the incorrect idea that Israel are the "good guys" and the Palesitinans/Hezbollah are the "bad guys". It's just not as simple as that. Which is why I swarmed this.

From the article:

Israel has eliminated, through targeted assassination, hundreds of Palestinians and jailed thousands more, including women and children, and hit and jailed many Hezbollah activists. In the process, it has killed hundreds of innocent Palestinians and many Lebanese.

Israel has justified all this in terms of self-defence, and collateral damage in what it has called a fight against terrorism, as defined by itself.

It has never paid the least attention to the fact that Palestinian violent actions against Israel have had their roots in Israel's colonial occupation of the Palestinian land and brutal suppression of the Palestinians as a people, who, like Israelis, have the right to live in independence, peace and security.

Similarly, Israel has ignored the reality that its occupation of southern Lebanon for 20 years - until withdrawing unilaterally in 2000 because it could no longer sustain the cost of this operation - contributed substantially to making Hezbollah the fighting force that it is today.

The situation in the Middle-East is much more complicated than labelling one side as a bunch of terrorists and the other as a persecuted and peace-loving minority.

That's great information there.

But please don't misinterpret my words as being pro-Israel or thinking they are dong anything positive here.

Just stating a fact that they traditionally have totally freaked out in situations where their citizens and/or soldiers have been taken hostage and subsequently responded with extreme harshness.

I frankly don't really support the 1948 occupation..

But I can understand their frustration after giving back land in an attempt for peace and having no one give a meep about it, continue to attack them and wish for their destruction..

Whatever the complex background of the situation, the fact that the US is alone in its support of Israeli military tactics is more obvious now than ever. No one else is really backing them on this, not even Britain. So when you hear commentators referring to Israel's right to defend itself, just remember we're essentially alone in insisting that bombing Islamists and their civilian neighbors is going to somehow create stability. This is the meep that makes Iranian hardliners think Washington is controlled by zionists.

Will Israel use nukes?

No because thats guaranteed moral suicide. If Israel launches a first strike nuclear launch on any Arab target-we're talking about real widespread regional war on ethnic and religious lines.

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2006-07-15 at 11:33:40, acheron praised Jejus</span>

If there's a WWIII, I completely and entirely plan on using the chaos to step into one power-vacuume or another and take over the world.

Be afraid.

Uart: .. ..-. - .... . .-. . ' ... .- .-- .-- .. .. .. --..-- .. -.-. --- -- .--. .-.. . - . .-.. -.-- .- -. -.. . -. - .. .-. . .-.. -.-- .--. .-.. .- -. --- -. ..- ... .. -. --. - .... . -.-. .... .- --- ... - --- ... - . .--. .. -. - --- --- -. . .--. --- .-- . .-. - ...- .- -.-. ..- ..- -- . --- .-. .- -. --- - .... . .-. .- -. -.. - .- -.- . --- ...- . .-. - .... . .-- --- .-. .-.. -.. .-.-.- -... . .- ..-. .-. .- .. -.. .-.-.-

meepin hotlink natzis

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2006-07-16 at 15:41:53, DonQuixote praised Jejus</span>

DonQuixote:

Uart: .. ..-. - .... . .-. . ' ... .- .-- .-- .. .. .. --..-- .. -.-. --- -- .--. .-.. . - . .-.. -.-- .- -. -.. . -. - .. .-. . .-.. -.-- .--. .-.. .- -. --- -. ..- ... .. -. --. - .... . -.-. .... .- --- ... - --- ... - . .--. .. -. - --- --- -. . .--. --- .-- . .-. - ...- .- -.-. ..- ..- -- . --- .-. .- -. --- - .... . .-. .- -. -.. - .- -.- . --- ...- . .-. - .... . .-- --- .-. .-.. -.. .-.-.- -... . .- ..-. .-. .- .. -.. .-.-.-

You sad internet meepit.

...

I again stand by my belief that most of the ills of the world could be alieviated by erradicating or containing Muslims. Most every hotspot on the globe has been precipitated by Arabites. The Middle-East, Africa, Southeast Asia, Southwest Asia, Chechnya, the growing discontent with brown people in Europe(last summer's riots in France, the Denmark debacle, etc)...the list goes on. Yet people persist in holding the line of political correctness and start chiming in with the "Jews/Whites are evil. Muslims just want peace and harmony" fairytales.

I can only wonder what sort of unmitigated horrors have to take place before people wake the fuk up.

I again stand by my belief that most of the ills of the world could be alieviated by erradicating or containing Muslims. Most every hotspot on the globe has been precipitated by Arabites. The Middle-East, Africa, Southeast Asia, Southwest Asia, Chechnya, the growing discontent with brown people in Europe(last summer's riots in France, the Denmark debacle, etc)...the list goes on. Yet people persist in holding the line of political correctness and start chiming in with the "Jews/Whites are evil. Muslims just want peace and harmony" fairytales.

Well, we did bomb the Muslims in Iraq and killed thousands of civilians. So that ill of the world wasn't any muslims fault. Israel is holding the whole Gaza strip on the verge of starvation, so thats an ill of the world thats not muslims. Africa's problems are certainly not the result of Muslims.

As you well know, muslims often tend to live in politically troubled parts of the world. And obviously just because a person of a certain religious persuasion lives in a part of the world where there is conflict of some sort, that doesn't mean we kill them. That would not make a lot of sense. If you were to overlay a map of oil-rich and or crucially important geo-political regions of the world with Islamic countries, you'd find a lot of crossover. But people should already know that. And yes, killing or "containing" 1.4 billion people would be an "unmitigated horror" though I suspect you are just trying to offend people.

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2006-07-16 at 10:49:48, acheron praised Jejus</span>

acheron: Well, we did bomb the Muslims in Iraq and killed thousands of civilians. So that ill of the world wasn't any muslims fault.

acheron: Israel is holding the whole Gaza strip on the verge of starvation, so thats an ill of the world thats not muslims.

acheron: Africa's problems are certainly not the result of Muslims.

acheron: As you well know, muslims often tend to live in politically troubled parts of the world. And obviously just because a person of a certain religious persuasion lives in a part of the world where there is conflict of some sort, that doesn't mean we kill them. That would not make a lot of sense.

acheron: If you were to overlay a map of oil-rich and or crucially important geo-political regions of the world with Islamic countries, you'd find a lot of crossover. But people should already know that.

acheron: And yes, killing or "containing" 1.4 billion people would be an "unmitigated horror" though I suspect you are just trying to offend people.

acheron: For the timeline of this whole conflict, and I'm still reading up on it, it looks like Israel kidnapped two people out of Lebanon-which is a major crime and the kidnapping of the soldier was the reprisal. Thats what started the current situation.

acheron: and Check out the chomsky link I just swarmed for more info.

I'll check it out.

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2006-07-16 at 11:48:10, Clavis_Apocalypticae praised Jejus</span>

Lefen: I really think we need to get away from the incorrect idea that Israel are the "good guys" and the Palesitinans/Hezbollah are the "bad guys". It's just not as simple as that. Which is why I swarmed this.

Israel has justified all this in terms of self-defence, and collateral damage in what it has called a fight against terrorism, as defined by itself. It has never paid the least attention to the fact that Palestinian violent actions against Israel have had their roots in Israel's colonial occupation of the Palestinian land and brutal suppression of the Palestinians as a people, who, like Israelis, have the right to live in independence, peace and security. Similarly, Israel has ignored the reality that its occupation of southern Lebanon for 20 years - until withdrawing unilaterally in 2000 because it could no longer sustain the cost of this operation - contributed substantially to making Hezbollah the fighting force that it is today.

The situation in the Middle-East is much more complicated than labelling one side as a bunch of terrorists and the other as a persecuted and peace-loving minority.

Kind of a biased source there in that op-ed. Israel was first instituted and formed by the UN, the very organization that is now condeming them. The occupation of land that Israel has consistently tried to return has always been as a result of winning in wars of aggression started by it's Arab neighbors. There has never been a self-goverened state of Palestine in historical terms so the claims of oppression of 'Palestinain' peoples are patently false to begin with.

As for Israel labeling the PLO and Hamas as terrorist organizations look at the first charter for the PLO. One of their stated goals is the destruction of the state of Isreal. Isreal has offered land and concessions to the Palestinian 'government' and PLO and has been rebuffed numerous times. Israel has attempted in the past to return Sinai and the West Bank in parts to Egypt, Jordan, and Syria - all stable or semi-stable governments at the time and none of them want those regions back due to the terrorist/militant thugs inhabiting them. Why take a people like that into your own country to cause problems when you can just leave it for the Israelis to take care of and lose face points on the geo-political scene?

Stump:

Lefen: I really think we need to get away from the incorrect idea that Israel are the "good guys" and the Palesitinans/Hezbollah are the "bad guys". It's just not as simple as that. Which is why I swarmed this.

Israel has justified all this in terms of self-defence, and collateral damage in what it has called a fight against terrorism, as defined by itself. It has never paid the least attention to the fact that Palestinian violent actions against Israel have had their roots in Israel's colonial occupation of the Palestinian land and brutal suppression of the Palestinians as a people, who, like Israelis, have the right to live in independence, peace and security. Similarly, Israel has ignored the reality that its occupation of southern Lebanon for 20 years - until withdrawing unilaterally in 2000 because it could no longer sustain the cost of this operation - contributed substantially to making Hezbollah the fighting force that it is today.

The situation in the Middle-East is much more complicated than labelling one side as a bunch of terrorists and the other as a persecuted and peace-loving minority.

Kind of a biased source there in that op-ed. Israel was first instituted and formed by the UN, the very organization that is now condeming them. The occupation of land that Israel has consistently tried to return has always been as a result of winning in wars of aggression started by it's Arab neighbors. There has never been a self-goverened state of Palestine in historical terms so the claims of oppression of 'Palestinain' peoples are patently false to begin with.

As for Israel labeling the PLO and Hamas as terrorist organizations look at the first charter for the PLO. One of their stated goals is the destruction of the state of Isreal. Isreal has offered land and concessions to the Palestinian 'government' and PLO and has been rebuffed numerous times. Israel has attempted in the past to return Sinai and the West Bank in parts to Egypt, Jordan, and Syria - all stable or semi-stable governments at the time and none of them want those regions back due to the terrorist/militant thugs inhabiting them. Why take a people like that into your own country to cause problems when you can just leave it for the Israelis to take care of and lose face points on the geo-political scene?

To start, any source on the conflicts in Israel WILL BE BIASED. The arguments of Clavis, Lefen and Stump lead into one of my strongest beliefs about the "Israel Problem" and two possible solutions to this problem.

The "problem" of the creation of the state Israel goes back much much further than the post WWII UN decision to give the Jewish people a state. "Israel" is a "Holy Land" to three major world religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This little piece of land has been fought over for literally thousands of years as a result of these three religious claims to the land and because of the fertility of that land and its prime placement in the Mediterranean.

Stump, the Ottoman Empire was a Muslim empire and it did rule over the area that is now known as Israel.

Lefen, I have been to Israel and the Muslim population there is far from "brutalized". There are areas that are primarily Muslim and areas that are Jewish. Yes, the stateless "Palestinians" are marginalized, but they have chosen to protest in a violent manner instead of following the path of Gandhi and passive aggression. I understand their anger, but I disagree with their methods.

Clavis, you have no idea what most Muslims are like. Have you ever visited a Muslim theocracy? If so then I am very surprised that you would even hint at such a horrible idea. Your beliefs about Muslims are poorly formed at best. One could just as easily replace "crazy meep Christians that hate Jews and Muslims" with your comment about "jew/christian hating Muslims". Fundamentalists (read, extremists) are a problem for every major religion even Jews. I lived in Saudi Arabia for ten years and have seen great acts of kindness in that theocracy as well as great acts of, for lack of a better word, "evil". However, I have visited other Muslim states such as Turkey, where minarets and steeples rise side by side, with no problems at all. Also, if you have ever studied anything about the Koran, you'd know that all people of the Jewish faith that existed before Muhammad's "revelation" are considered to be MUSLIMS. Also note that the Koran states that Jesus (usually mentioned as "the son of Mary") was a great prophet. The Koran is a book much like the Bible or the Tanak, which can be interpreted in various ways. Getting rid of Muslims is not the answer. You would just promote Christians to the rank of "craziest fundamentalists around". Remember the Oklahoma bombing was perpetrated by a WHITE AMERICAN CHRISTIAN. I believe that the real problem as far as religion goes are the fundamentalists not the average people of faith.

Lefen, I do agree that the current Israeli conflict is not as simple as Jews vs. Terrorists. It all goes back to the LAND that is now called "Israel".

For lack of a better solution to the "Israel Problem", I suggest that the UN create a neutral state in Israel's place. Of course the UN would actually have to have power or usefulness at any level, to do this for it to work. If the Holy Land for three different religions is occupied by any one of the three religions there will always be conflict.

The only other solution I can think of is to just completely obliterate all that is considered holy in that area, a well placed nuclear missile would do well, the fallout alone would keep the land inhabitable for at least hundreds of years. This act would have to be done by someone, or country, that is willing to be destroyed itself, and cannot be seen as one religion against another. North Korea might be a good candidate for this. They are not viewed as a religious state and they are demonized in almost every country around the world. China and Russia would quickly dissosociate themselves from North Korea if they perpetrated this act without any reason or provocation. This way there is no more holy land. No one could occupy it and the conflicts over that little piece of land would cease.

However, this is really just a corollary of the post WWII idea (mostly brought about in the areas that had been completely destroyed) that the most beautiful solution to the "human problem" would be a complete nuclear destruction of the entire planet.

I have yet to hear any better or more viable proposition.

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2006-07-17 at 02:20:31, DonQuixote praised Jejus</span>

DonQuixote:The "problem" of the creation of the state Israel goes back much much further than the post WWII UN decision to give the Jewish people a state. "Israel" is a "Holy Land" to three major world religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This little piece of land has been fought over for literally thousands of years as a result of these three religious claims to the land and because of the fertility of that land and its prime placement in the Mediterranean. Stump, the Ottoman Empire was a Muslim empire and it did rule over the area that is now known as Israel. Lefen, I have been to Israel and the Muslim population there is far from "brutalized". There are areas that are primarily Muslim and areas that are Jewish. Yes, the stateless "Palestinians" are marginalized, but they have chosen to protest in a violent manner instead of following the path of Gandhi and passive aggression. I understand their anger, but I disagree with their methods.

Yes sir, Ottoman Empire was Muslim, however once again, there was never a self-governed state of Palestine historically. The region as a whole was refered to as Philstina or Palestine if you wish to call it that by the Roman Empire much as the peninsula of Egypt is refered to as the Sinai. It was made up of many self governed areas including Judea - the kingdom of Jews. Amazingly all the religions managed to live mostly peacefully here until the fall of the Roman Empire, and some of them still do as you pointed out. It says a lot about a people when the extremists are able to keep their Muslim neighboring countries from accepting them into their lands.

edited for brevity's sake.

Yes sir, Ottoman Empire was Muslim, however once again, there was never a self-governed state of Palestine historically.

Point taken.

Back to Clavis' argument, how does one solve the problem of religious tensions without obliterating one or all of them?

I got nothin.

DonQuixote:Back to Clavis' argument, how does one solve the problem of religious tensions without obliterating one or all of them?

Obliterate the extremists on both ends, leaving a moderate middle, filled with the creamy nougat of peace.

but that wouldn't leave a moderate middle because some of the moderates who witnessed the obliteration would then become more extreme.

Another difficult part of this issue is what BREEDS extremism. There does not seem to be a simple answer. It's not purely Extremist_Muslim rhetoric. It's also "I just saw my father and brothers get blown up"..

I just heard on the news that Lebanon may actually be getting some meep and taking hold of their own country. They may disarm Hezbollah themselves. That would be great.

The United States as a whole has done a decent job with freedom of speech and religion in limiting the damage caused by extremist views. Sure there's the odd moment or two of niger hangings and damage to sin-a-gogs and churches, but overall we let people say and do what they feel like. We've got idiots like those Westboro Baptist fools with Fred Phelps but our laws and general derision take care of things like that mostly. People tend to follow a moderate line in the states.

The problem facing the Muslim community is that their most outspoken people are the extremists. It's high time for the moderates to come out of the closet and scream from the tops of their minarets that the extremists don't represent them and they wish to live in peace. The day that starts to happen will be the start of the decline of violence over religion.

And yes, truly it would be amazing to see Lebanon take control of their own country, I'd worry though that without support from somewhere else it may degrade into a civil war again, giving Syria perfect pretext to jump in as a 'peacekeeping force'. This will obviously worry the Isrealis, as they and most of the world already believes Syria and Iran are backing Hezbollah and Hamas, and may spell a greater regional conflict.

Stump: The problem facing the Muslim community is that their most outspoken people are the extremists. It's high time for the moderates to come out of the closet and scream from the tops of their minarets that the extremists don't represent them and they wish to live in peace. The day that starts to happen will be the start of the decline of violence over religion.

The problem with moderates is they are usually the most soft spoken. I am speaking of moderate muslims, for lack of a better word. They do exist. Some even come from Saudi. I went to prep school with a member of the Al Rashid family. He said, "The fundamentalists are assholes, I never want to go back to that country again!" I won't post his true name because that could get him killed. A fatwa is a terrible thing to have to avoid for the rest of your life. So, being a vocal moderate can get you killed. Rather unpleasantly at that.

He was actually more of a liberal than a moderate, but you get the idea. I find that many muslims who receive a western education have a much more moderate view of Islam.

In Saudi they preach "Wahabism", which is an uber extremist/violent interpretation of the Koran. They are the one's you hear telling you to "cover up your woman", which is really odd when you're 16 and obviously a white American. Living there gave me a unique view of the muslim world. Some of it is much like ours, but most of it is like living on another planet.

Anyways, I don't think you could ever really kill all extremists. What are you going to do? Some sort of Neo-Mcarthy esque witch hunt? A door to door, or cave to cave, census? How do you plan on finding them?

What really needs to happen, is for the UN to finally do what they were meant to do, be the world's moderator. Someone needs to get them back up to snuff, if they ever even were. I vote Vas or Clavis. Vas seems to be wise and almost shepherd like. Clavis is more of an intellectual facist, but he'd definitaly get the job done.

That's right! You heard it here first. Linkswarm will solve all the worlds ills via this thread. Text your vote to 89898 for Vas and 98989 for clavis. You will receive complimentary jokes texted to you every day until the end of time.

Sorry, thought a little levity couldn't hurt. My ritalin must be wearing off.

Night Night Swarm

Stump: Kind of a biased source there in that op-ed. Israel was first instituted and formed by the UN, the very organization that is now condeming them. The occupation of land that Israel has consistently tried to return has always been as a result of winning in wars of aggression started by it's Arab neighbors. There has never been a self-goverened state of Palestine in historical terms so the claims of oppression of 'Palestinain' peoples are patently false to begin with.

The State of Palestine and the Palestinian people definitly exist as an entity officially recognised by Israel. They certainly recognise the Palesistians enough to leave the Gaza Strip in the hands of the Palestinian Authority (edit: although not under it's control).

Can you clarify what you mean when you say that Israel have constantly tried to return land? To whom? If you're talking about the Gaza Strip here then I'd very much disagree that Israel have given any of it "back". What they actually did when they withdrew from Gaza was to create a very large open-air prison by maintaining control of the borders (land and sea) and airspace. In addition, the Isreali govenment heavily censor news coverage from within Gaza by closely controlling international press access.

I'm not going to say that the Palestinians and Hezbollah haven't provoked Israel into the current conflict, b/c arguably, they have. The problem I have with all this is that Israels response has been grossly disproportionate. Israel have declared Hezbollah as terrorists and are using that definition as carte blanche to arbitrarily name various parts of Lebanon as "terrorist strongholds" as an excuse to bomb the meep out of them without fear of reprisal from the international community.

I heard on the radio this morning that an Isreali cabinet minster was quoted as saying that they were going to "take Beirut back 20 years". This is hardly the measured response that the UN are encouraging, neither is it the actions of a country that is simply defending itself as the US govt are saying.

Stump: As for Israel labeling the PLO and Hamas as terrorist organizations look at the first charter for the PLO. One of their stated goals is the destruction of the state of Isreal.

Accepted. Although Hamas is the only other democratically-elected government in the region besides the one in Israel ;) And lets not forget that Hezbollah was created as a direct result of Israel's occupation of Lebanon.

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2006-07-17 at 05:57:11, Lefen praised Jejus</span>

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2006-07-17 at 07:26:39, Lefen praised Jejus</span>

Lefen: The State of Palestine and the Palestinian people definitly exist as an entity officially recognised by Israel. They certainly recognise the Palesistians enough to leave the Gaza Strip in the hands of the Palestinian Authority (edit: although not under it's control).

Recognition of a state of Palestine and the Palestinian people by Israel has only come in recent times. I believe it was as a result of the Camp David Peace Accords, although it may have been even more recent. My point is that they were thrown a fairly large bone by the Israelis in the matter since they had never historically existed.

Imagine if you and your brothers were fighting over the TV your parents had given you and in the middle of it I showed up and said "WTF! This is my room, and my TV, get the meep out Lefen. The hot chicks can stay though." I have no actual claim to your TV or living room, but I get into the fight by constantly pinching you and your parents never say anything, even occasionally asking me if I want some refreshments. For some reason you hold off just meep slapping me and eventually agree to let me sit in the chair in the corner. There it is, Palestine and Israel.

Lefen: Can you clarify what you mean when you say that Israel have constantly tried to return land?

That more refers to the West Bank than Gaza. Following either the '67/'68 or '73 wars (don't recall which exactly) there were talks to return land seized by Israel to the respective countries they were seized from. Egypt accepted the return of the majority of the Sinai, minus Gaza. Syria and Lebanon refused to accept the return of the West Bank lands. They sought near impossible concessions from Israel as a condition of the return.They were actually somewhat happy to be rid of them as the people that lived there were dirt poor and minorities in their countries even then.

Lefen: Accepted. ( :cool: ) Although Hamas is the only other democratically-elected government in the region besides the one in Israel And lets not forget that Hezbollah was created as a direct result of Israel's occupation of Lebanon.

What was Israels reason for occupying Lebenaon though, and what happened to the country when Israel withdrew? The thing to remember about Lebanon is that it is not strictly a 'Muslim' country. There are large minorities of Christians also living there. It would be interesting to see a truly representative form of government in Lebanon, maybe there would be a chance for peace in the region. It'll be interesting after this is all over to see what both these governments do, I can see Israel offering aid to Lebanon to help rebuild the damage done so long as Hezbollah is contained with the help of the Lebanese govenment. What response Lebanon takes to such an offer could set a groundwork for the future.

On an interesting note is this [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060717/pl_nm/group_mideast_bush_dc[/url] from the G8.

You may hate Bush, but you've gotta love candor like this:

"See, the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hizbollah to stop doing this meep and it's over."

89899898

We have a new low here, Stump. Consider your nonsensical children and a TV set analogy. Consider your Bushism, which you consider candor. Consider how the large portion of your arguments in the recent post are dependent on non-existent, and unexpectable good will from Israel to the Arabs.

Israel's policy towards its neighbors has been nothing but antagonistic since its conception. While this antagony may be justified to some extent, it is often in direct contradiction to UN policy, and whenever Israel does cooperate with the UN or peacemakers, it is because the threat of aid being cut off hangs heavy over its head.

One thing I really don't get is how Jews in the US can empathize with Israelis. The Israeli state is a puppet operation of US imperialists, and Israelis, instead of resisting, walk hand and hand with their masters. If you look at all the wars and conflicts in the middle east since the end of WWII, how many of them can you say were good for Israel, and how many were good for the US at Israel's expense?

Stump: The thing to remember about Lebanon is that it is not strictly a 'Muslim' country. There are large minorities of Christians also living there. It would be interesting to see a truly representative form of government in Lebanon, maybe there would be a chance for peace in the region.

Why is the deomcratically elected Lebanese government not representitive? It's true that the Hezbollah militia acts independantly from the Lebonese army, but "the people" saw fit to elect Hezbollah MP's in 2005 knowing what they stood for.

Stump: Imagine if you and your brothers were fighting over the TV your parents had given you and in the middle of it I showed up..

In this situation your argument would be that it wasn't their TV to give ;)

If Israel were really after a peace, then they'd be negotiating a two-state solution with The State of Palestine but they won't. Instead, they are content to annex and brutally repress the Palestinain people.

Stump: I can see Israel offering aid to Lebanon to help rebuild the damage done so long as Hezbollah is contained with the help of the Lebanese govenment.

Possibly, but I think that the Lebanese government is unwilling/unable to control the Hezbollah militia (we can discuss the ratio of these two options ;)).

The thought also occurs that Israel is actually weakening the Lebanese government through its current actions.

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2006-07-17 at 11:43:37, Lefen praised Jejus</span>

Video of our statesman-in-chief talking meep with his mouth full. He's Mouthy McBoor, he doesn't really know what "ironic" means, and he doesn't care to find out.

And nobody likes him.

"I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same," Bush said.

To that, Putin replied, "We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq, quite honestly."

And then they all laughed.

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2006-07-17 at 14:01:21, vladtweano praised Jejus</span>

Dinozoa, please explain to me how my analogy, while simplified is nonsensical? Parents (UN) gives Lefen (Jews) a TV (Israel). Lefen fights with his brothers (neighboring Arab countries) over control of said TV for months. I (Palestinians) walk in the room from nowhere and start to demand the TV from Lefen and occasionally I pinch or kick him (suicide bombs and rockets)- no lasting damage, just annoying as meep. Lefen asks his parents to do something and they just offer me tea and cookies (concessions) and he eventually says fine sit in the corner and watch what I'm watching, but I still pinch and kick him occasionally. Through it all he never just kicks the meep out of me like he could or should.

dinozoa: Consider how the large portion of your arguments in the recent post are dependent on non-existent, and unexpectable good will from Israel to the Arabs.

If you're reffering to the end of my post it's called conjecture, ususally identifiable by a phrase such as this:

It'll be interesting after this is all over to see what both these governments do, I can see

Reason #1 why I like that Bush quote? It's not full of bullmeep and honey - find the source of the problem and go straight to it.

Dinozoa: Israel's policy towards its neighbors has been nothing but antagonistic since its conception. While this antagony may be justified to some extent, it is often in direct contradiction to UN policy, .... If you look at all the wars and conflicts in the middle east since the end of WWII, how many of them can you say were good for Israel, and how many were good for the US at Israel's expense?

Wow, either we're talking about two completely different realities or you're not quite as open-minded as others here (I'll hold off on outright calling you an anti-semite). Name me one conflict Israel has been involved in that was flat out started by them, pre-emptive strikes don't count when it was clear they were about to be attacked (again) and the raid on the Iraqi nuke reactor doesn't count either as that was backdoor supported by most of the UN.

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2006-07-17 at 22:35:46, Stump praised Jejus</span>

Lefen: Why is the deomcratically elected Lebanese government not representitive? It's true that the Hezbollah militia acts independantly from the Lebonese army, but "the people" saw fit to elect Hezbollah MP's in 2005 knowing what they stood for.

True, they elected the political arm of Hezbollah - run on a different platform than one of militancy if I remember correctly. They may have known what they were truely getting, but who really knows which Hezbollah they voted for ? There's a way I could have phrased my response better, I just can't get it to come together.

Lefen: In this situation your argument would be that it wasn't their TV to give ;)

See my response above to Dinozoa, it was the UNs to give at the time as much as it would have been in their right to give part of Germany. Only slightly better decision in giving what they did.

Lefen: If Israel were really after a peace, then they'd be negotiating a two-state solution with The State of Palestine but they won't. Instead, they are content to annex and brutally repress the Palestinain people.

I don't see this solution coming into play any time soon, the hardliners in the PLO will never allow it to happen until Israel is destroyed and they won't settle for the land they already occupy. Israel will not offer them concessions so long as the hardliners in the PLO are in power and actively promoting terror as a valid means of resistance.

Lefen: (re Israeli aid to Lebanon) Possibly, but I think that the Lebanese government is unwilling/unable to control the Hezbollah militia (we can discuss the ratio of these two options ;)). The thought also occurs that Israel is actually weakening the Lebanese government through its current actions.

I'm not sure what the ratio is, I'd say they were afraid to attempt it, theres no telling how many current regular army soldiers would resist a call like that. It brings in the potential for another civil war when they were just recovering from the last one. There also comes the question of who's training and supplying Hezbollah - it's obviously either or both Syria and Iran. Which ever it is, if the Lebanese government were to attempt it would either of them seek to take an active role on Hezbollah's side?

In the short term they may be weakening the government by putting them in the position that it will eventually have to either join in the fight on one side or the other. If they do the stand up thing and go in against Hezbollah I think it may strengthen them a little on the world stage ("Look, we stood up and took responsibility.") I don't know about internally but I do know from someone on another board that has the misfortune of being in Lebanon on her summer vacation the Christian Lebanese are blaming Hezbollah for this, not the general government.

The choice in this is really up to the Lebanese government on how they come out of this - denounce Hezbollah and/or assist Israel in some way- draw the ire of Arab neighbors and grace from most western nations or sit and do nothing until Israel moves fully into the West Bank ? What are the downsides here? Draw other nations into the conflict? I'm lost right now as to the scale of consequences that can have. Where is our resident Jew to weigh in on all of this?

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2006-07-17 at 22:36:28, Stump praised Jejus</span>

Clavis, in reference to your post, I suppose what I would say is that I don't believe that religion truly causes war and conflict. While it is certainly an aggravating factor I think the most potent reasons for conflict are pure strategic and economic. This goes for all wars, Iraq back to Vietnam to WWII to the Roman Empire's imperialism. Africa, the Middle East, Gaza- their political problems are all colonial in flavor. The problems in any of the nations you mentioned can't be whittled down to the clash of religions-there's a lot more going on than that, there always is.

Their history of savage violence predates our fuking around where we don't belong.

Well we've only been meeping around in meep for a couple hundred years. So any kind of savage violence outdates our particular brand of international meepery. But the US is, obviously, of European origin and Islam-related violence certainly doesn't predate European violence, by a long, long shot. But whether or not their savagery predates our own is besides the point. American foreign policy and its architects are guilty, as Israel is, of the spilling of innocent blood. So too, of course, are many of those firing rockets. But nobody is walking into this with clean hands and if we can't admit that we shouldn't be talking about it. We have a moral responsibility to see to it that the violence ends. And a good first step is to stop attacking people or allowing our allies to attack others.

I'd say a case could be made that they tend to GRAVITATE to many of them.

Can you make that case? Please do so. I certainly don't think I could refute you without some reading and reflection, but I certainly gravitate towards other reasons for the conflicts we're discussing. Islam certainly did spread rapidly across the world, perhaps in a way that was unprecedented. But, just demographically, the middle-eastern/north-african/etc. these parts of the world are historically arab. Among arabs, Islam is the dominant religion. So these people live in a troubled part of the world and have certain pallor that makes us assume their muslim, but not all of them are. So, to me, your assumptions are racist. And despite the theocracies and militant religious groups I think colonial patterns are pretty evident throughout the third world. In fact, Iraq is looking pretty meep Latin American right now, in its death squads and feuding warlords. But I guess a lot of the "developing world" is like that. Anyway, I disagree with any notion that Islam is the real reason for whats going on. These are clashes over resources and strategic positioning, justified by religion and ideology. The similarity in propaganda to the cold war is kind of shocking. Its all old, dirty wine.

Once you read up on the current one, go back to about 600AD until present day. It's a fascinating tale.

Just imagine my snide response because I can't think of one.

Which is exactly the same situation the Jews/Hebrews/Cana'anites were in before England, France, and eventually the U.S. started mucking around in their affairs. I'd have the same laissez faire attitude if our Native Americans started bucking to get back what was once theirs.

About Palestine, I think its a weird kind of conversation to get into about who gets to create a "state". Whoever has the power has the legitimacy to form a "state". The reason I support a Palestinian state is I believe that any group of people have a right to self-determination. They want a state. Many Israelis want a Palestinian state as well (though you won't read about it). And most of the world, in UN resolutions passed in near unanimity (guess who vetoes those kinds of resolutions) have demanded that Israel recognize a Palestinian state for the overall reason that it seems to be the best hope for peace in the region. For most it remains so. And forget the worn-out "the UN is bullmeep" argument. world opinion is in favor of a two-state solution. Do we believe in democracy?

But I'm starting to believe that a Palestinian state will never happen. The other solution, one that is nearly as far away is the integration of Palestine into Israel. That means: no more fences, no more mechanized destruction of what would become public property, no more torture and abduction of Palestinian civilians, no more imprisonment without charges, and the creation of a Palestinian party in Israelis legislative politics. And it of course also means no more suicide bombings and killings of innocents by militants. Now how likely does any of that sound? A ceasefire, at least, can happen if Israel just reigns in its military. The perception of Israel backing down and giving the Palestinians a little room to breath would go along way towards easing the tension.

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2006-07-18 at 09:30:24, acheron praised Jejus</span>

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2006-07-18 at 09:32:22, acheron praised Jejus</span>

<span class="post_was_edited">On 2006-07-18 at 09:35:40, acheron praised Jejus</span>

Yo relax, little sausage! Dontchoo worry none bout the pokalips. Heheh.

Merkel: Keep on walkin, meepface.

they need to adjust GW's medication or something..

He's gotta be on more than just Halcion.

"Just a few miles from the Rest House hotel, where the United Nations was evacuating civilians on Thursday, wild dogs gnawed at the charred remains of a family bombed as they were trying to escape the village of Hosh"

Edward Said, linking the political positions of mainstream western society to those of prominent American literary critic Edmund Wilson and Zionist thought, reflects:

"Everything explicit in Wilson's writing is the implicit verity (so it seems) that anyone, especially an enlightened humanistic liberal, can write, have an expert opinion on, discourse about the situation in the Middle East.

What Wilson sees- and for that matter what the Westerner generally sees-is the Middle East is seen from the Zionist perspective. Israel is the norm, Israelis are the presence, their ideas and institutions are authentically native ones; Arabs are a nuisance, Palestinians a quasi-mythical reality (mainly, the argument goes, a propaganda reality) and so on.

Israeli origins are forgotten: Israel is a Western democracy now quite gratuitously set upon by anti-Semitic Arabs. The reversal in actuality is complete...one forgets [from this perspective] the relationship between Israelis and Arabs is not a fact of nature but the result of a specific, continuing process of dispossession, displacement and colonial de facto apartheid. Moreover one tends to forge that Zionists were arrivals in Palestine from Europe.-

from the Question of Palestine