Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on August 10, 2005, 09:30:05 AM
-
go get em Israel (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050810/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_dc)
-
I think it's more like "release the dogs of war" which isn't a good thing.
Interesting that Britain, France and Germany have had no better result with Iran than the US has had with NK, despite the difference in approach.
However, it looks like Iran is going to get 1 lash with a cooked spaghetti noodle from the IAEA.
An early draft of a resolution obtained by The Associated Press expressed "serious concern" about the resumption of conversion in Isfahan and urged Iran to cooperate by "re-establishing full suspension of all enrichment-related activities."
I'm sure that will bring Iran around. However, that's not really necessary is it?
Afterall, EVERY nation should have a good sized nuclear aresenal, as all countries are equally trustworthy
-
They've just offered a bribe.. 'mess with our nuclear program, we raise oil prices. Don't and we'll start dropping our support and supply for insurgents and terrorists in syria, iraq and afganistan'.
Henh. No matter what happens.. prices are going up. No matter what happens, by our current rules of identification, Iran IS a terror supporting state by it's own admission that it has info it's not sharing and terrorists it is currently supporting and supplying.
-
The last proposal made by the E3 was reasonable, they would keep their nuclear plants for peaceful purposes and meet our min requirements for security concerns.. However even if they had accepted, I think in the end we would have another NK situation, were we find out a few years later they made a bomb, under the watchful eye of the U.N. (our heros)...
I suppose the only comfort we will have then is being able to say "we told you so!", with plenty of google examples of idiots telling everybody it's only for peaceful purposes.... :rolleyes:
-
the diff being NK isn't filled with a bunch of towel topped fanatics that want Israel wiped from the globe...
it is really Israeli business and I say we let them take care of it
-
Oil gone up anyway. Yesterday a station went from $2.36 a gallon to $2.49/gallon in hours.
-
I say we publicly say "we warned you", step aside, and quit getting in Israel's way. Our support of them is the biggest reason we have any problems in the Middle East, and every one of the terrorist groups keeps talking about how they want a piece of Israel. I say let em. They'll get the same spanking they got last time they tried it. I also say this time, when they drive the attackers back home with their tails between their legs, we let Israel keep every inch of land they take. Lets see what happens to oil prices if they own Iran's oil. :aok
-
Originally posted by Toad
Afterall, EVERY nation should have a good sized nuclear aresenal, as all countries are equally trustworthy
Actually all countries are equally trustworthy, i.e. not at all. Which is why we have WMDs and why everybody wants them. If my neighbor has a shotgun I sure as hell want one too. Can't trust that drunk motherfudger.
-
Ummm....if I had a drunk neighbor armed with a shotgun that I couldnt trust, I'd want a rifle so he couldnt get close enough to me to use his shotgun.
-
Ah, you want a BIGGER ICBM!
-
More missiles, less crime! :cool:
-
Funny thing is the US is going to smaller, more accurate guided
ordnance so that we don't have to use nukes.
I guess it would make it easier to take out Beetle's place
without wiping out half of England :D One bomb, one house :)
-
What beetle said is more or less correct. There is a valid comparison between guns and nukes. More guns = less crime, but also a few deadly shootouts once in a while. More nukes = less war, but also potentially a nuclear exchange once in a while (it will probably be very unpopular after the first incident).
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
What beetle said is more or less correct. There is a valid comparison between guns and nukes. More guns = less crime, but also a few deadly shootouts once in a while. More nukes = less war, but also potentially a nuclear exchange once in a while (it will probably be very unpopular after the first incident).
that's assuming that the people that have them are responsible individuals.
If everyone could strap C4 and 5lbs of ball bearings to their chest and walk into a crowd at disnelyland and kill all sorts of people no one would.
Crazy's out there don't care about popularity they want to kill people indiscriminantly.
-
That goes for the guns = less crime theory too. Some people just snap and go on a killing spree at the local mall or post office etc.
Nations however rarely snap like that, but if one were to do that it would soon vanish in a ball of fire. Just like Iran or NK will if they somehow manage to detonate a nuke in the US.
-
If some terrorist pops a Nuke in the US.. just one; I'd bet that washington's 'short list' of 'terror supporting' nations will be vaporized almost immediately.
No joke. If we get nailed, we'll react overwhelmingly and with out even a little bit of compassion for 'innocents'. There will be no 'discussion', no consulting other powers. Just big bright flashes over Terhan, Damascus, Ridyah etc.
There will be no mercy.. just remorse.
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
That goes for the guns = less crime theory too. Some people just snap and go on a killing spree at the local mall or post office etc.
Nations however rarely snap like that, but if one were to do that it would soon vanish in a ball of fire. Just like Iran or NK will if they somehow manage to detonate a nuke in the US.
nations and people are hardly an equal comparison.
-
Exactly.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
If some terrorist pops a Nuke in the US.. just one; I'd bet that washington's 'short list' of 'terror supporting' nations will be vaporized almost immediately.
No joke. If we get nailed, we'll react overwhelmingly and with out even a little bit of compassion for 'innocents'. There will be no 'discussion', no consulting other powers. Just big bright flashes over Terhan, Damascus, Ridyah etc.
There will be no mercy.. just remorse.
now that would be stupid, try finding out first WHO and WHY before going Banana's on everyone's a**
-
"That goes for the guns = less crime theory too. Some people just snap and go on a killing spree at the local mall or post office etc.
Nations however rarely snap like that, but if one were to do that it would soon vanish in a ball of fire. Just like Iran or NK will if they somehow manage to detonate a nuke in the US. "
Now that is funny... governments snap all the time... many more people have been killed by governments than have ever been killed by other citizens... governments kill their own people all the time. I trust my neighbors with a gun a lot more than I do my government.
lazs
-
Originally posted by SLO
now that would be stupid, try finding out first WHO and WHY before going Banana's on everyone's a**
Iran pretty much invented farming out terrorism to 3rd parties to avoid the blame. Saudi Arabia has been financing mosques around the world that preach hate/terrorism and breed terrorist. Syria has and is currently supporting several terrorist outfits including ones operating in Iraq. If one of the groups they support goes rouge and nukes a US city, you can bet the American public will not be looking to try and convict a handful of terrorist. The countries that created them and supported them either directly or indirectly will be as responsible as the "cell" that did the job.
-
exactly. there won't be any *****footing around. if somebody pops a nuke here, the world will be a very, very different place in very short order.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
"That goes for the guns = less crime theory too. Some people just snap and go on a killing spree at the local mall or post office etc.
Nations however rarely snap like that, but if one were to do that it would soon vanish in a ball of fire. Just like Iran or NK will if they somehow manage to detonate a nuke in the US. "
Now that is funny... governments snap all the time... many more people have been killed by governments than have ever been killed by other citizens... governments kill their own people all the time. I trust my neighbors with a gun a lot more than I do my government.
lazs
Really? Governments snap all the time? I think your mistaking "snapping" with "cold and calculated crimes". Of course there are cold and intelligent criminals too, with guns.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
exactly. there won't be any *****footing around. if somebody pops a nuke here, the world will be a very, very different place in very short order.
I think that depends on who is in charge
I think they are waiting until we place a hand wringing lefty, a clinton clone, in the White House again before they try something that large as they think we will not react as severe as if they did it now
-
possible.. but I suspect that as soon as 'they' get a device and a delivery method they will strike.
one thing seems to keep recurring.. it would seem they underestimate our resolve and resources.
oddly enuff, we've been making the very same mistake.
-
Last night on the evening news I heard a Whit House spokesperson say "we" would give them (Iranians) a chance to comply with the latest UN requests (demands?) Sounds like a thinly-veiled threat/promise to me. I expect to hear soon on the news about Israel putting the plant out of commission.
-
I say give Israel free rein over Iraq airspace.
-
So now we are glibly talking about actualy using nuclear weapons! and Allowing Israel to strike out at a fundamentalist Moslem state!
That'll make the world a better place! :rolleyes:
-
hmmmm ,,
Can someone explain why it's better to wait for this to happen?
It would of course be better if a agreement can be reached. But what else do we have left to compromise, we arleady promised they can keep their reactors for peaceful purposes. This is a better deal than what we are offering to NK.. All we have left to negotiate with is to say it's ok to go ahead and build your bomb..
For those who think it will only be just one bomb think again... Every attack that has been made to date has used multiple bombs against multiple targets. They would be very stupid only to use one bomb... It would be like shooting a bear with a 22 when your only 10 feet away...
-
Do we know it will happen?
-
Its blind support for Israel over the interests of the arab world that has caused this mess anyhow!
All that crap about Moslems wanting the world to be one big Islamic state
Its all about power politics and people who feel unjustly treated. The religion thing is just a smokescreen.
Sort out the Israel Palastine situation. Take a more even handed approach in foreign affairs and maybe just maybe we wouldn't be needing to worry about all this.
Supporting Israel as a nuclear power and letting them do the wests dirty work is a total recipie for disaster! If Israel didn't have the bomb, the US and Britain weren't enforcing "regime change" by building up Military power in the ME would the Iranians feel that they realy needed a bomb?
Its dumb unsophisticated foreighn policy that is causing this just as it helped kick off the cold war. The world is a complex place requiring complex solutions not " yee ha lets bomb em " politics.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
" yee ha lets bomb em "
works for me.;)
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
Do we know it will happen?
No we don't know...
But I don't like to gamble with peoples lives hoping for the best with the Iranian "supreme leader" who is not accountable to anyone but god, by placing our fate in his hands...
-
But you are willing to hope for the best with Pakistan's "supreme leader", or China's, or any of the former Soviet republics (which are mostly muslim) etc.?
-
Keep rolling the dice, sooner or later you will get "snake eyes"...
:o
-
With the threat of going to the UN, Iran has Oh about 15 years to worry about it, then the US will have to send in troops to stop it.
-
Our policy has been for the most part 'reactive'. They do something, we 'react'. Lately, the bush policy has been leaning towards 'proactive'.. do what's necessary to eliminate the threat before it becomes a reality.
Should AQ use a nuke, the reponse will be 'in kind', reactive AND overwhelming. And he won't just tag ONE group/nation, he'll tag 'em all, immediately. To wait would be inviting another strike, and frankly, the worlds condemnation and outrage for one retaliation vs 4 or 5 retaliations all in the same time frame would be the same. So, 'get it done' would most likely be the plan.
Of course, all the above is idle speculation. I do know I'd be frothing at the mouth to 'get it done' and i suspect most other americans would feel the same way. I also suspect the 'government' would not survive very long if it did not 'reach out and touch' the terror supporting states in retaliation for a nuke touched off here.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
would the Iranians feel that they realy needed a bomb?
Short answer, yes.
Long answer yes. Iran has had designs on being the geo-political power in the Mid-East since about Cyris the Great. Although dressed up in Islam for the time being, they essentially are ramping up a neo-persian empire that will counter balance Isreal and Turkey. In fact, all the talk of Turkey being a "EU" country simply elevates Iran to be the next power broker. I surmise that Iran already has designs on an "autonomous" S. Iraq, and has openly supported and in essence controlled Syria (ever wonder why Hizballah never had a civil war in Syria like they did in Lebbanon?).
Iran has alot going for it to bring the entire middle east under its sphere of influence. Note that it is a net energy exporter, it has a stable autocratic government, it govt is also well distributed within the country (no splinter groups), and a decent military (fort he area). For it to get the bomb, or just make everybody think they have the bomb would increase their standing in the area with other regimes.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
So now we are glibly talking about actualy using nuclear weapons! and Allowing Israel to strike out at a fundamentalist Moslem state!
That'll make the world a better place! :rolleyes:
it's happend before...the Israeli strike not the nuke thing. I don't particularly feel we are in a position to stop israel if they want to.
-
Greetings Skydancer,
Originally posted by Skydancer
Its blind support for Israel over the interests of the arab world that has caused this mess anyhow!
All that crap about Moslems wanting the world to be one big Islamic state
Its all about power politics and people who feel unjustly treated. The religion thing is just a smokescreen.
One of my Arabic history profs at the University of St. Andrews used to start his first lecture to the incoming class by stating something along the following lines.
"Most of you being Westerners, and in particular academic, secular, upper class Westerners from the UK see everything in political terms. That is your template for interpreting everything. The class struggle, left wing vs. right wing, Capitalism vs. Socialism. That way of thinking is absolutely ingrained in the Western psyche, most of you, perhaps without even thinking about it frame everything in the same terms that have framed thinking in the West since the rise of nationalism and the publication of Origin of the Species and Das Kapital. So you will try to see Arabic History through that lens, you will try to interpret their actions, their religion, their history, their economy through the lens of Western, Secular, Political ideology. DON'T DO IT! You will never understand the Arab mind, or Arab history, or Arab actions if you do so. You will simply fail to understand the middle east as profoundly as most westerners do and will instead find it to be irrational or or incomprehensible or irritating at best.
The average Arab doesn't see things in terms of the class struggle or left vs. right, oh some Westernized ones do, but that is not their worldview, it is your worldview and you are simply being foolish and quite possibly arrogant to demand they use it as well.
What then is the right lens to use to understand them and interpret them? It is Islam. The Arab world neither knew nor wanted to know anything of secular humanism or separation of religion and state until we forced it on them during the colonial period and now that is unraveling as the river returns to its natural course. Islam is more than a religion, it is law, it is government, it is economics, it is the life of the Arab. It is literally the constitution of many Arab states, its propagation and defense which is written into their constitution didn't actually need to be, it would be understood by the Arabs even if it weren't. They don't even call themselves citizens or subjects, they are the Umma the faithful. Even those who don't believe in Allah, believe in Islam.
Therefore begin to understand Islam, and then you will begin to understand the Arabs."
Skydancer, respectfully, you cannot simply transplant your Western socialist worldview onto the Middle East and erase 1300 years of Islam's hegemony as a worldview, and equally respectfully, you are never going to be able to understand them or react to them until you begin to take Islam very, very, seriously. You have grown up in a nation where women can wear whatever they please and go where they want with whom they want, where it is taken for granted that the people may create and enact laws for themselves, where people can criticize Christ and Christians (and theoretically any other religion) without fear of imprisonment and where people are free to choose whether they want to be any religion at all. Where living together with a member of the opposite sex without being married is no big deal. This is not the case throughout most of the Middle East.
Al-Qaeda didn't attack Washington and New York because of Israel, they attacked - and they have restated this again and again - because there are infidels on the sacred Saudi Arabian peninsula and that simply cannot be allowed. The Jihadis are fighting the West in Iraq not because we are American or Republican, or Conservative. Heck they'd be bombing them if they were French Communists. They are fighting them because they are infidels occupying Muslim land. That is also why they objected in the strongest possible terms to the democratic elections, because they undercut the entire concept of Islamic rule (A Caliphate which enforces Sharia) and that's not me saying that, that's Al-Zarqawi:
" Now they are completely preoccupied with making the big American lie called 'democracy' successful. Americans have been playing with the minds of many peoples with the lie of 'civilized democracy;' they have deluded them that their happiness and prosperity is conditional upon this inadequate human system, and subsequently the infidel American administration declared war on Iraq and Afghanistan because it is the primary protector and guardian of democracy in the world...
...
"This principle - that is, government of the people [and] by the people - is the very core of the democratic system ... and it exists only through this [principle]. This, then, is the 'religion of democracy' which is being praised and glorified with much fanfare. This is what its theoreticians and thinkers and missionaries keep publicizing, and this in fact is what we see and experience in the reality from which we suffer. Democracy, in all its variations and interpretations, is based on principles and foundations, the most important of which may be summarized as follows:
"First: Democracy is based on the principle that the people are the source of all authority, including the legislative [authority]. This is carried out by choosing representatives who act as proxies for the people in the task of legislating and making laws. In other words, the legislator who must be obeyed in a democracy is man, and not Allah. That means that the one who is worshiped and obeyed and deified, from the point of view of legislating and prohibiting, is man, the created, and not Allah. That is the very essence of heresy and polytheism and error, as it contradicts the bases of the faith [of Islam] and monotheism, and because it makes the weak, ignorant man Allah's partner in His most central divine prerogative - namely, ruling and legislating. Allah said: 'Sovereignty is Allah's alone. He has commanded you to worship none but Him' [Koran 12:40]. 'He allows none to share His sovereignty' [Koran 18:26]...
"Second: Democracy is based on the principle of freedom of religion and belief. Under democracy, a man can believe anything he wants and choose any religion he wants and convert to any religion whenever he wants, even if this apostasy means abandoning the religion of Allah... This is a matter which is patently perverse and false and contradicts many specific [Muslim] legal texts, since according to Islam, if a Muslim apostatizes from Islam to heresy, he should be killed, as stated in the Hadith reported by Al-Bukhari and others: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.' It does not say 'leave him alone.'
"One may not make a [peace] treaty with an apostate, nor grant him safe passage or protection. According to Allah's religion, he has only one choice: 'Repent or be killed.'
"Third: Democracy is based on considering the people to be the sole sovereign, to whom all juridical matters and conflicts should be referred, and if there is any controversy or conflict between governor and governed, each of them threatens the other to refer to the will of the people and its choice, so that the people should decide on the matter on which is disagreed. This conflicts with and is contradictory to the principles of monotheism, which determines that the arbiter, deciding by His judgment in matters of discord, is Allah and none else. Allah said [Koran 42:10]: 'And in whatever thing you disagree, the judgment thereof belongs to Allah.' Democracy, on the other hand, says: 'And in whatever things you disagree, the judgment thereof belongs to the people and to none beside the people...'
"Fourth: Democracy is based on the principal of 'freedom of expression,' no matter what the expression might be, even if it means hurting and reviling the Divine Being [i.e. Allah] and the laws of Islam, because in democracy nothing is so sacred that one cannot be insolent or use vile language about it.
"Fifth: Democracy is based on the principle of separation between religion and state, politics, and life; what is Allah's is rendered unto Allah, which is just worship in the places designed for it. All other aspects of life - political, economic, social, etc. - are the people's prerogative...
"Sixth: Democracy is based on the principle of freedom of association and of forming political parties and the like, no matter what the creed, ideas, and ethics of these parties may be. This principle is null and void according to [Islamic] law for a number of reasons... One of them is that voluntary recognition of the legality of heretical parties implies acquiescence in heresy... Acquiescence in heresy is heresy...
"Seventh: Democracy is based on the principle of considering the position of the majority and adopting what is agreed upon by the majority, even if they agree upon falsehood, error, and blatant heresy... This principle is totally wrong and void because truth according to Islam is that which is in accordance with the Koran and the Sunna [i.e., the tradition of the Prophet], whether its supporters are few or many; and that which contradicts the Koran and the Sunna is false even if all the people of the world agree on it..."
" The matter, then, is a matter of principle; it is non-negotiable, and there can be no concession regarding it whatsoever... It is a matter relating to the principles of our creed - nay, it is the very essence of our creed."
- Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, January 23, 2005
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
What then is the right lens to use to understand them and interpret them? It is Islam. The Arab world neither knew nor wanted to know anything of secular humanism or separation of religion and state until we forced it on them during the colonial period and now that is unraveling as the river returns to its natural course.
............................. ............................. ............................. ...............
So respectfully I have to ask why are we trying to enforce it on them again? Iraq? Why make the same mistake all over again?
............................. ............................. ............................. ..................
Originally posted by Seagoon
Al-Qaeda didn't attack Washington and New York because of Israel, they attacked - and they have restated this again and again - because there are infidels on the sacred Saudi Arabian peninsula and that simply cannot be allowed.......... They are fighting them because they are infidels occupying Muslim land. That is also why they objected in the strongest possible terms to the democratic elections, because they undercut the entire concept of Islamic rule (A Caliphate which enforces Sharia) and that's not me saying that, that's Al-Zarqawi:
............................. ............................. ............................. .................
So why is Mr Bush trying to enforce western ideals of democracy upon them? Again why has Bush and Blair commited out two nations to doing something that the muslim world neither wants nor frankly, feel it needs!
Sorry but your argument seems to present a very good case for getting out of the ME backing off from supporting Israel and allowing the Muslim world to govern its affairs as it sees fit. Maybe in some parts of the world imposition of our model of "democracy" is not the solution to the problem. All it has done has created a whole set of new problems. Time to stop meddling perhaps?
Maybe we should leave the ME and those of our population who want no part of our democracy should leave the West or be made to leave? That would seem a better solution to me. ( Also to our finaly awakening govt who has just begun deportation proceedings on several supporters of terrorism!
( one day I'll get the hang of this button quote thing! Shrugs )
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
So why is Mr Bush trying to enforce western ideals of democracy upon them?
Some questions to ponder...
What is the world's largest democracy and is this democracy a western or eastern nation?
I this nation based on judeo-christian philosophy?
What western economic / governmental system was embraced by the government of the Chinese mainland?
Does the fact that these western ideas are practiced by the two largest countries in the world disqualify the idea that democracy can take hold in the Muslim world?
-
Wish we were not so dependent on oil. The Middle East would fall into caos just like Africa and the west should just let them drown in their on muck.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Wish we were not so dependent on oil. The Middle East would fall into caos just like Africa and the west should just let them drown in their on muck.
that's what I say. Make their oil wealth an irrelevent and make these people transition into the 21st century just like every other country has to. If they can't let them whine to the UN and the Nanny EU for help.
-
We have a 250 year domestic supply of oil in the form of shale.
Liquefaction of coal can be started for production of coal derived synthetic crude oil. The US has roughly a 1000 year supply.
Where are our processing plants? Or at least plans for them?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
.
Where are our processing plants? Or at least plans for them?
none. The Green peace wackos will protest anything we do to promote any kind of industry.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
We have a 250 year domestic supply of oil in the form of shale.
Liquefaction of coal can be started for production of coal derived synthetic crude oil. The US has roughly a 1000 year supply.
Where are our processing plants? Or at least plans for them?
See, that's the problem. We are able to survive without the Middle Easts oil. I would like to know why we are paying over $3 a gallon for fuel. Why are we giving the Middle East so much power over us? The same money that you and I are paying at the pump is being used to support terrorism. Someone in the West is preventing us from moving into the future by keeping use dependent on Middle East oil. These persons need to be found and shot.
-
Actualy Xargos I kind of agree with you after a fashion.
The only reason your govt or ours meddles in the ME is Oil. Without that frankly the Muslim world could do what it wanted and all our troops could come home.
Leave the Muslim world alone to govern itself however it will. If they then still attack us in our homelands then of course we must defend ourselves, however at the moment it is our troops who are building bases on their land not visa versa.
Lets get out then see what happens. The situation at the moment is untenable.
As for Africa "letting them rot" is not a good idea. Letting them rot is as good a way of breeding a new generation of people intent on having a piece of our pie as any. Help them develop might be better for security in the longer term.
-
India is the worlds largest democracy and not based on judeo-christian philosophy... :)
-
I don't beleave we should pull out even though I never believed we should go in either. To many Troops have been killed to leave. Their deaths would be meaningless if we left now and I'm a very strong supporter of the U.S. Military.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Actualy Xargos I kind of agree with you after a fashion.
The only reason your govt or ours meddles in the ME is Oil. Without that frankly the Muslim world could do what it wanted and all our troops could come home.
Leave the Muslim world alone to govern itself however it will. If they then still attack us in our homelands then of course we must defend ourselves, however at the moment it is our troops who are building bases on their land not visa versa.
Lets get out then see what happens. The situation at the moment is untenable.
As for Africa "letting them rot" is not a good idea. Letting them rot is as good a way of breeding a new generation of people intent on having a piece of our pie as any. Help them develop might be better for security in the longer term.
africa has had enough aid from western worlds that I could have been brought up to speed but for mismanagment of those funds, warlords et al.
Same kind goes for the middle east in some ways. Look at baharain (SP) VERY rich country, arab, pretty secular, highly open to western ideas. How many major terrorists have come from there.....none that I can recall.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
So now we are glibly talking about actualy using nuclear weapons! and Allowing Israel to strike out at a fundamentalist Moslem state!
That'll make the world a better place! :rolleyes:
Yeah, I mean soiling your shorts at the mere thought of
confronting folks that don't like you is much more palatable.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Its blind support for Israel over the interests of the arab world that has caused this mess anyhow!
All that crap about Moslems wanting the world to be one big Islamic state
Its all about power politics and people who feel unjustly treated. The religion thing is just a smokescreen.
Sort out the Israel Palastine situation. Take a more even handed approach in foreign affairs and maybe just maybe we wouldn't be needing to worry about all this.
Supporting Israel as a nuclear power and letting them do the wests dirty work is a total recipie for disaster! If Israel didn't have the bomb, the US and Britain weren't enforcing "regime change" by building up Military power in the ME would the Iranians feel that they realy needed a bomb?
Its dumb unsophisticated foreighn policy that is causing this just as it helped kick off the cold war. The world is a complex place requiring complex solutions not " yee ha lets bomb em " politics.
If only the Israeli's had let those neighbors exterminate them
instead of resisting and taking territory, all would be well in the
ME.
As far as the West's agenda in the ME, it appears to be the
desire to buy oil..the fiends! Sophisticated foreign policy appears
an awful lot like appeasement. I don't suppose your last name
would be Chamberlain by any chance?
-
Stay tuned for more personal insults...
-
I'm used to it by now!;)
This does seem to be the NRA Bush is great Bomb the nasty Arabs board, And as I don't share these views I guess I'm open to them :lol :lol
-
But Sky.. you're so much easier to abuse than say, a sleeping cat or a fat chick.
What ever would we do without you? (my cat and girlfiend would leave, fer starters)
-
skyprancer... when you think like a woman... and lead with your face... you gotta expect some damage when you fight men.
lazs
-
I find it kind of interesting that the reason that Columbus was interested in finding a new way to the east by sailing west was because Europe was sick and tired of dealing with the Arabs when trading for the spices, silks and other Asian goods.
-
Lazs your back on the using the phrase woman as an insult thing again! :rolleyes:
Nope I'm a lefty swimming around in a sea of rightwingers in here! But by all means feel free to disagree with these views, Just remember I'm right and you are wrong;) ;)
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Just remember I'm right and you are wrong;) ;)
I thought you were left.
-
Hello Sky,
Well you begin to understand how I feel when I go back to the UK for visits, but I digress...
There are three major problems I see with your "total disengagement" or "creative capitulation" scheme:
1) It's unworkable: what is involved in leaving the nations of Islam would be to break off all trade and tourism connections, to pull out the workers who keep their only export industries going, to suspend all relief operations that feed and provide medical assistance for millions. Also, in short order the liberal Arab regimes the west props up, would collapse due to internal pressure. Imagine the Iranian revolution duplicated throughout the region. Every pro-Western government would be quickly replaced with what you would call a "hardline fundamentalist government." There is also the problem of our interdependence. The Middle East depends on the West for assistance in a host of different areas in addition to being almost totally dependent on them for manufactured goods, while we depend upon them for oil. Suddenly severing that connection would cause the collapse of economies on both sides. In the Middle East that would only strengthen the hand of the Islamic Revolutionaries.
2) It's immoral: Admittedly this depends on a belief in absolutes, but I happen to believe that it is wrong to simply leave a portion of the world in utter subjugation. I believe, for instance, that it is wrong for women to spend their entire lives uneducated, trapped indoors or behind a Burka, unable to venture forth into the world without a male relative being present, and to allow them to be stoned to death because they happened to be outside when a male came by. I believe it is wrong to allow the state to utterly subjugate a portion of their population to third class status merely because they are Christian, or to force them to go on trial for their life because a neighbor alleged they said or wrote something defamatory about the prophet. I believe that to allow the enforced darkness that hangs over so much of the Middle East to remain or to grow is in itself evil. I also believe it would be wrong for the West to turn their back on the "Never Again" promise made to the Jews at the end of the Second World War and by abandoning Israel to open them up to the tender mercies of nations and peoples bent on enforcing the "repent or perish" rule first handed to them by the Prophet and constantly recapitulated by groups like Hamas. We don't have to agree with every action taken by the Knesset, but to utterly abandon the state of Israel would in fact be to say "Ok, Again." Additionally to disengage would be to capitulate to the demands of the Islamists effectively surrendering to their demands, this would be to hand them a victory and GREATLY encourage the rest of their ambitions, which is in itself evil.
3) You may decide to stop going to them, but they are bent on coming to you: Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe, and driven by Saudi money and Wahabbi resources is also making major inroads in the USA. Immigration is admittedly the major factor, but the Muslim populations of Western nations are growing by leaps and bounds. As has been stated before, by and large they don't assimilate they effectively take over the areas into which they move. So that, for instance, Dutch politicians are amazed to learn that their are portions of their districts they cannot be allowed to enter because they are infidels and the police "cannot assure their safety." In 2002 Holland was already 5.5% Muslim, and that percentage has already begun to climb towards 10% which in a nation of only 16.5 million is enormous. France has an even higher proportion (which census takers cannot correctly assess due to an inability to enter the sub-culture).
So, you may wish to pull back to your "safe zone" but it no longer exists. Either you confront that ideology or it will eventually prevail in Europe and cause misery and chaos in the meantime.
For instance, in the UK, many Britons are "discovering" that there are active anti-democratic Islamic movements in the midst of most of their major cities (can you imagine how long a public anti-Sharia Christian movement would survive in say, Yemen?) For instance in comparing two popular Islamic organizations in the UK (the government is only attempting to dismantle one of them), the Telegraph commented:
"Both groups are extreme, aiming to achieve worldwide domination by Islam. Both preach that Muslims should not take part in democratic politics. They are against Western governments and object to their foreign policies, particularly over Iraq.
But one crucial difference is that Hizb ut-Tahrir is against violence, while Al-Muhajiroun has supported "physical" means to fight jihad, or holy war.
In cities across the country, Al-Muhajiroun has set up weekly meetings such as this, which, it says, are needed to give Muslims the support and guidance which will help them continue to live in a western society according to Islamic rules.
Members also try to spread the word by handing out leaflets and have a regular stall in Normanton Road on Saturday afternoons.
We see the immediate threat from Al-Muhajiroun, but not the equally dire threat from Hizb ut-Tahir because they don't have direct links to the bomb makers. But in the end, both groups share the same ideology and objectives.
The left in Holland is gradually waking up to the threat, but only when it is probably already too late to reverse the trend, and when they have little or nothing to offer as an alternative. The left in the UK is becoming vaguely alarmed as well, but has no grasp of the proportions of the problem, and no desire to do anything to deal with the problem at the source only to try to treat some of the symptoms. A catch and relocate program is not going to win this war. I'm just glad that there are men and women throughout the world determined to bring light where darkness has reigned for so long and who care enough not to listen to calls of "Don't upset them, they'll do what they are already doing more aggressively."
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon maybe you are right total disengagement wouldn't in reality work. But should we be imposing our world view at the point of a gun? I firmly believe you lead by example and the example we are setting is not exactly having the desired result is it!
You are quite right about Islamic fundamentalism in Europe. For too long our govt has allowed these people safe haven. Often I feel because we had a vested interest in letting them destabilise the regimes they came from. A political game that has backfired.
My basic premise though is that we cannot "defeat" Islam and impose our will on those parts of the world. We have to work with them. You have to give to recieve. Why should we expect states to comply with our directive not to develop Nuclear technology either peacefull of millitary if we are holding the nuclear sword ourselves. Its hypocracy plain and simple. There realy is no other word for it. If a man asks me to put down my club I'm not going to do it if he is holding one also with nails in it!
I don't belive in "do as I say not as I do"
I am not a christian as you are. I do not believe in the inevitable rightness of one system over another. There are many things to be admired in Islam as there are in Christianity or even the basic principles in communism. There are also many things to be reviled in all of them too. What I do believe in is human decency and I'm afraid asserting that only your faith view whatever is the correct one and then insisting others agree is not going to bring peace only conflict and war.
(By the way I do believe you are a gent and a scholar and one of the few who will debate without resorting to insult or attempting to belittle the other person. Quite rare ! )
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Its hypocracy plain and simple. There realy is no other word for it. If a man asks me to put down my club I'm not going to do it if he is holding one also with nails in it!
If a man is holding a gun on you and yours is at your feet, do you bend down to pick it up?
Non-proliferation is more like the unarmed picking up a gun rather than the armed putting it down.
-
Either 'fundamentalist' Islamics develop tolerance or the 'west' will exterminate them.
We've already had it explained to us by their clerics in no uncertain terms that we are to be destroyed.
The moment they put that policy in action will be the moment those nations that embrace 'fundementalist islamic extremism' cease to exist.
If we let any nation/state that expounds radical islam as the 'law of man', to have or develop nuclear weapons, we've had our death warrants signed, to be served at their convienience.
They know it... and are happliy laughing up their sleeves while we hold on to hope for an 'agreement'. They need not worry, for the west will not act without provocation
The radical islamics know the true nature of diplomacy.. they're buzy saying 'nice doggie' while they contiue to look for (and devlop) the 'big stick'.
-
skyprancer... what views are we enforcing at the point of a gun? Seems we are only allowing the people to choose...
perhaps you feel that it is their right to opress their women as an example? How does us giving the women equal rights force our will? It is hard to understand what you want.
lazs
-
when a group believes that the best way to eternal happiness, with a couple of virgins thrown in ( is there an endless supply of them in heaven? forever is a long time and they are only good for a single pop:)), all we can do is limit the amount of damage the cheekbones is able to accomplish on his way to visit allah
if one thinks it is ok for Iran to have nukes, they have been smoking some pretty good stuff...
-
Point of clarification.
I don't think its a good idea for anyone to have nukes! I'm not saying let em have nukes I'm saying lead by example. Get rid of ours. technology has given us far more effective ways to attack in the last resort anyhow!
-
But Lazs only if they choose American style democracy. If they choose fundamental Islam will the US allow that? I think not!
Islamic states wouldn't be my choice for govt either but I think we tried enforcing our model on people and all it got us was an expensive empire and a whole lot of problems that haunt us still. Seems the US doesn't realy learn from history either that or an enemy is created in order to hold you crazy buch of people together. Not all Moslems are the enemy. Not all Clerics are evil Islamists just like not all pastors are fundamentalist bible bashing loonys.
I don't know. First it was those evil communists! now its the evil Islamists. Can't you guys find a way to get along in the world without making enemies!
;)
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Point of clarification.
I don't think its a good idea for anyone to have nukes! I'm not saying let em have nukes I'm saying lead by example. Get rid of ours. technology has given us far more effective ways to attack in the last resort anyhow!
By number of warheads, the US stockpile is 1/3 of what it was at the peak.
(http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/fig9.gif)
bulletin of atomic scientistsThe total U.S. nuclear arsenal is now equal to the 1959 level; Russia (as best as can be determined) is at its 1977 level. U.S. megatonnage is lower today than at any time since 1955. Yet numbers tell only part of the story, for each strategic warhead can be delivered more accurately, swiftly, and reliably than in decades past.
we are alot closer to zero than we used to be...
-
True but closer to zero is meaningless when one Trident Sub can take out so many tgts.
Honestly If I was being asked not to develop nukes by a power that had em in abundance I'd say OK give up yours then!
It ain't rocket science. Tell me if the situation was reversed the US and Britain wouldn't be scrambling as quick as possible to obtain nuclear technology.
For years the US has been making aggressive statements about Iran. Axis Of Evil anyone? No wonder they believe the US and its allies are the enemy. Your leaders told em they were! Is it realy suprising that faced with a nuclear superpower that calls them the enemy they thought hmmmm perhaps we better get some nuclear weapons too.
Again if the situation was reversed you'd be damn sure that the US would be going flat out to build nukes.
Why the heck are we so up in arms. LEAD BY EXAMPLE. Don't they teach that in the Millitary?
-
skyprancer... You are talking out your butt... you have no idea what we would "allow". If the people of iraq voted for islamic fundamentalism we would have no choice... so long as it met with their constitution.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
For years the US has been making aggressive statements about Iran. Axis Of Evil anyone? No wonder they believe the US and its allies are the enemy. Your leaders told em they were! Is it realy suprising that faced with a nuclear superpower that calls them the enemy they thought hmmmm perhaps we better get some nuclear weapons too.
Iran has been persuing Nuclear technology secretly for the last 18 years(they publicly have admited this), which puts it well ahead of Bush's statement made...You're also conviently ignoring statements made by Iran publicly over the last 25 years. I think Bush's statement was made to point out the pink elephant and he did it in a way to get peoples attention.
-
Ok I agree The US and Iran have been waging a war of words ever since the Shah was deposed but I ask again
If the situation was reversed the US and Britain wouldn't be scrambling as quick as possible to obtain nuclear technology?
Lazs I'm pretty sure the US govt intends to keep a permanent Military presence in Iraq. Its empire building under any other name.
Difficult to do If they vote for Islamic state.
-
Hello Skydancer,
While I am wary of jumping into this thread, your comment about Israel being a major source of the problems of the Middle East warrants a comment or two.
Its blind support for Israel over the interests of the arab world that has caused this mess anyhow!
The turmoil in the Middle East that has spilled out into the West has less to do with Israel, and more to do with the indigenous "civilization" here than anything.
The bloody eight year Iran-Iraq war of a million casualties had NO CONNECTION WITH ISRAEL.
In 1990 Saddam brutally invaded his brothers in Muslim Kuwait, for oil and national prestige. No connection with Israel.
1982 Syria crushed Muslim Brotherhood in Hama with up to 10,000 people dead. No connection with Israel.
Lebanon's mid-1970's civil war between Druze, Christians and Moslems in which deaths may have approached 44,000, with about 180,000 wounded. No connection with Israel.
Turkey's continued war against the Kurds. No connection with Israel.
Saddam's past war against the Kurds. No connection with Israel.
In Nov., 1979, Muslim fundamentalists occupied the Great Mosque in Mecca; after a 2-week siege, more than 100 rebels were killed. No connection with Israel.
Iranian pilgrims in Mecca rioted in July, 1987, during the hajj, clashing with Saudi troops and ending with the death of more than 400 people. No connection with Israel.
The hajj pilgrimage of Muslims to Mecca continues to be well-monitored by Saudi Arabia, yet remains a turbulent religious and increasingly political event. No connection with Israel.
For those who don't know, Sunni's and Shi-ite's are not buds. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States do not feel secure in the face of Iranian military might. They may not like infidels on their soil (like my brother-in-law a few years ago who is a USAF F-15 pilot) but they prefer the West to Iran. No connection with Israel.
Iran has missiles that will reach Europe - not sure about Portugal and Ireland. If it's only Israel that's the problem, then why do they need that kind of range?
If it's all Israel's fault, then why do Jordan and Egypt have peace treaties with Israel? They could have gotten aid without treaties. King Hussein of Jordan's Hashemite kings, put in place by you Brits, actually warned Golda Meir of Israel of an imminent invasion, without any US bribes.
The kings of Saudi Arabia, put in place by you Brits (cf. T.E. Lawrence of Arabia) fund who knows what terror organizations around the world to keep them out of the kingdom. But the kings of Egypt and Iraq, put in place by you Brits, are forgotten in the dustbins of Middle Eastern history.
Mate, you said the situation is complex over here. I agree. So don't point your finger only at Israel, please.
Cement
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
If the situation was reversed the US and Britain wouldn't be scrambling as quick as possible to obtain nuclear technology?
Iran is doing this not because it is threatened by our military, but because we are threatening it's culture. They are willing to die to protect it which is noble, but they are also willing to die to spread it...
As long as the West exists, it will always be threatened. No reduction in our arms will change this.
-
How do you know their motivations Soda?
-
Originally posted by hacksaw1
Hello Skydancer,
While I am wary of jumping into this thread, your comment about Israel being a major source of the problems of the Middle East warrants a comment or two.
The turmoil in the Middle East that has spilled out into the West has less to do with Israel, and more to do with the indigenous "civilization" here than anything.
The bloody eight year Iran-Iraq war of a million casualties had NO CONNECTION WITH ISRAEL.
No Israel wasn't much involved in that war, but WE were! Saddam was our man in the ME back then.
Originally posted by hacksaw1
Lebanon's mid-1970's civil war between Druze, Christians and Moslems in which deaths may have approached 44,000, with about 180,000 wounded. No connection with Israel.
Oh I assure you Israel was plenty involved in Lebanon. So much in fact that they invaded southern Lebanon and occupied it for 20 years, to say nothing of financing and supporting the Lebanese Christian militia.
-
Originally posted by hacksaw1
Iran has missiles that will reach Europe - not sure about Portugal and Ireland. If it's only Israel that's the problem, then why do they need that kind of range?
What missile would that be? I know Turkey is technically part of Europe, but that's as far as Iran's missiles can go (as far as I know).
-
Hello FalconSix,
The Federation of American Scientists lists missiles being developed with their ranges at this link:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/ (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/)
Oh I assure you Israel was plenty involved in Lebanon. So much in fact that they invaded southern Lebanon and occupied it for 20 years, to say nothing of financing and supporting the Lebanese Christian militia.
My friend, Israel did not start, nor contribute to the first three years of the Lebanese Civil War.
When attacked Israel responded.
Lebanese Civil War
On the morning of April 13, 1975, unidentified gunmen in a speeding car fired on a church in the Christian East Beirut suburb of Ain Rammanah, killing 4 people, including two Maronite Phalangists. Later that day Phalangists led by the Gemayels, killed 27 Palestinians travelling on a bus in Ein Al-Rumaneh. In December, 1975, four Christians were killed in east Beirut, and in growing reprisals, Phalangists and Muslim militias subsequently massacred at least 600 Muslims and Christians at checkpoints, igniting the 1975-1976 civil war.
The Civil War, Civilian Massacres, and Syrian intervention 1975–81
In January 1976, the Saika (a Pro-Syrian Palestinian militia) attacked the Christian city of Damour. When the city fell on 20 January, the remaining inhabitants were subject to rape, mutilation and brutal assassination. The civilain dead numbered at least 300, with one estimate being as high as 582. As a result of the massacre, most Christians began to see the Palestinian presence as a short-term threat to their survival. Moreover, the Lebanese left (that enjoyed some popularity in the Christian community and especially in the poorest classes) lost most of its legitimacy because of its support for the Palestinian cause.
The fighting eventually spread to most parts of the country, precipitating President Suleiman Franjieh's call for support from Syrian troops in June 1976, to which Syria responded by ending its prior affiliation with the Rejection Front and supporting the Maronites. This technically put Syria in the Israeli camp, as Israel had already begun to supply Maronite forces with arms, tanks, and military advisors in May 1976. (Smith, op. cit., 354.)
Meanwhile, Arafat's Fatah movement joined the war on the side of the National Movement.
In June, 1976, with fighting throughout the country and the Maronites on the verge of defeat, the President called for Syrian intervention. The Damour massacre made Frangieh fear further massacres and he thought that only Syria could save the Christians from a slaughter. Syria had its own political and territorial interests in Lebanon, which harbored the fundamentalist anti-Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Syrian troops subsequently entered Lebanon, occupying Tripoli and the Bekaa Valley, and imposed a ceasefire (Fisk, pp. 78-81) that ultimately failed to stop the conflict.
After the arrival of Syrian troops, Christian forces massacred 2,000 Palestinians in the Tel al-Za'atar camp in East Beirut. Other massacres by both sides were committed at Karantina and Damour, where the PLO murdered 350 Christian civilians (Fisk, 99). the nation was informally divided, with southern Lebanon and the western half of Beirut becoming bases for the PLO and other Muslim militias, and the Christians in control of East Beirut and the Christian section of Mt. Lebanon. The main confrontation line in divided Beirut was known as the Green Line.
In October 1976, an Arab League summit in Riyadh gave Syria a mandate to keep 40,000 troops in Lebanon as the bulk of an Arab Deterrent Force charged with disentangling the combatants and restoring calm. The Lebanese Civil War was officially ended at this point, and an uneasy quiet settled over Beirut and most of the rest of Lebanon. In the south, however, the climate began to deteriorate as a consequence of the return of PLO combatants, who had been required to vacate central Lebanon under the terms of the Riyadh Accords.
Israeli military offensive, 1978 and 1981-82
On 11 March 1978, eight Fatah militants landed on a beach in northern Israel and proceeded to take control of a passenger bus and head toward Tel Aviv. In the ensuing confrontation with Israeli forces, 34 Israelis and six of the militants died. In retaliation, Israel invaded Lebanon four days later in Operation Litani in which the IDF occupied most of the area south of the Litani River, resulting in the evacuation of at least 100,000 Lebanese (Smith, op. cit., 356), as well as approximately 2,000 deaths (Newsweek, 27 March 1978; Time, 3 April 1978; cited in Chomsky, Towards a New Cold War, p. 485 n115). The UN Security Council passed Resolution 425 calling for an immediate Israeli withdrawal and creating the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), charged with maintaining peace. Israeli forces withdrew later in 1978; however, Israel retained de facto control of the border region by turning over positions inside Lebanon to the South Lebanon Army (SLA) under the leadership of Major Saad Haddad.
My point again is that much of what happens in the Middle East, or in the West by Middle Easterners, has nothing to do with Israel.
Israel does defend itself.
Cement
-
Ok Hacksaw. You do have a point. Its not all just about Israel.
What I realy don't understand though ( and please enlighten me as I only have a basic understanding ) is how a nation with your history can take other peoples land, bulldoze their homes and villages, put them into ghettos or drive them out, and now build a wall around them!! And not expect them to be just a bit fed up with you? It seems a bit strange.
I watched a program the other night made by an ex CIA guy about the history of suicide bombing. He went to Hebron. A palistinian town settled by Israelis. The centre was closing down as arab shopkeepers had been abused. They could no longer live there. There was racist graffiti against the arabs all over the walls. How can this be done by a people so greviously mistreated as the Jews were. To me it beggars belief.
In my line of work I deal with YP who have been abused. Its a fact that often those who are abused go on to become the abusers of others. It seems that this is what has happened in the case of Israel. I may be wrong but from the outside it seems like a mighty strange and sad situation.
-
Originally posted by hacksaw1
Hello FalconSix,
The Federation of American Scientists lists missiles being developed with their ranges at this link:
So Iran does NOT have missiles that can reach Europe. Thanks for clearing that up.
-
Sky, it's not about a war against any paticular middle east country.
It's about a ideology that is at war against everyone else.
Thats what you have to understand.
The worse part is that by the very nature of "our" way of life (i.e. worship who you want, goverment by the people etc.) is letting "them" invade our country and set-up bases of operation that most of "us" don't even recognize for what they are.
-
Hello Skydancer,
First of all, I have never said Israel is blameless in all it does. I was responding to your blanket statement.
Its blind support for Israel over the interests of the arab world that has caused this mess anyhow!
Maybe instead of that, it is actually all GB's fault for its snooty colonial rule, i.e. "The sun never sets on the British Empire." But I don't believe that either. Things are way too complex.
And while you probably didn't hear it on the BBC, recently a number of Arab Israelis made known their desire to stay within Israel in the final-settlement boundary and not be put under the Palestinian Authority. They said, "The 'hell' of Israel is better than the 'paradise' of Arafat."
You mention Hebron being "a palistinian (sic) town settled by Israelis."
Sorry, but this again seems to indicate a lack of understanding of history here.
Jews continued to live in Hebron after the city's conquest by the Arabs (in 638 AD), whose generally tolerant rule was welcomed, especially after the often harsh Byzantine rule -- although the Byzantines never forbade Jews from praying at the Tomb. The Arabs converted the Byzantine church at the Tomb of the Patriarchs into a mosque.
Upon capturing the city in 1100, the Crusaders expelled the Jewish community, and converted the mosque at the Tomb back into a church. The Jewish community was re-established following the Mamelukes' conquest of the city in 1260, and the Mamelukes reconverted the church at the Tomb of the Patriarchs back into a mosque. However, the restored Islamic (Mameluke) ascendancy was less tolerant than the pre-Crusader Islamic (Arab) regimes -- a 1266 decree barred Jews (and Christians) from entering the Tomb of the Patriarchs, allowing them only to ascend to the fifth, later the seventh, step outside the eastern wall. The Jewish cemetery -- on a hill west of the Tomb -- was first mentioned in a letter dated to 1290.
The Ottoman Turks' conquest of the city in 1517 was marked by a violent pogrom which included many deaths, rapes, and the plundering of Jewish homes. The surviving Jews fled to Beirut and did not return until 1533. In 1540, Jewish exiles from Spain acquired the site of the "Court of the Jews" and built the Avraham Avinu ("Abraham Our Father") synagogue. (One year -- according to local legend -- when the requisite quorum for prayer was lacking, the Patriarch Abraham himself appeared to complete the quorum; hence, the name of the synagogue.)
Despite the events of 1517, its general poverty and a devastating plague in 1619, the Hebron Jewish community grew. Throughout the Turkish period (1517-1917), groups of Jews from other parts of the Land of Israel, and the Diaspora, moved to Hebron from time to time, joining the existing community, and the city became a rabbinic center of note.
In 1775, the Hebron Jewish community was rocked by a blood libel, in which Jews were falsely accused of murdering the son of a local sheikh. The community -- which was largely sustained by donations from abroad -- was made to pay a crushing fine, which further worsened its already shaky economic situation. Despite its poverty, the community managed, in 1807, to purchase a 5-dunam plot -- upon which the city's wholesale market stands today -- and after several years the sale was recognized by the Hebron Waqf. In 1811, 800 dunams of land were acquired to expand the cemetery. In 1817, the Jewish community numbered approximately 500, and by 1838, it had grown to 700, despite a pogrom which took place in 1834, during Mohammed Ali's rebellion against the Ottomans (1831-1840).
In 1870, a wealthy Turkish Jew, Haim Yisrael Romano, moved to Hebron and purchased a plot of land upon which his family built a large residence and guest house, which came to be called Beit Romano. The building later housed a synagogue and served as a yeshiva, before it was seized by the Turks. During the Mandatory period, the building served the British administration as a police station, remand center, and court house.
In 1893, the building later known as Beit Hadassah was built by the Hebron Jewish community as a clinic, and a second floor was added in 1909. The American Zionist Hadassah organization contributed the salaries of the clinic's medical staff, who served both the city's Jewish and Arab populations.
During World War I, before the British occupation, the Jewish community suffered greatly under the wartime Turkish administration. Young men were forcibly conscripted into the Turkish army, overseas financial assistance was cut off, and the community was threatened by hunger and disease. However, with the establishment of the British administration in 1918, the community, reduced to 430 people, began to recover. In 1925, Rabbi Mordechai Epstein established a new yeshiva, and by 1929, the population had risen to 700 again.
On 23 August 1929, local Arabs devastated the Jewish community by perpetrating a vicious, large-scale, organized, pogrom. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica:
"The assault was well planned and its aim was well defined: the elimination of the Jewish settlement of Hebron. The rioters did not spare women, children, or the aged; the British gave passive assent. Sixty-seven were killed, 60 wounded, the community was destroyed, synagogues razed, and Torah scrolls burned."
59 of the 67 victims were buried in a common grave in the Jewish cemetery (including 23 who had been murdered in one house alone, and then dismembered), and the surviving Jews fled to Jerusalem. (During the violence, Haj Issa el-Kourdieh -- a local Arab who lived in a house in the Jewish Quarter -- sheltered 33 Jews in his basement and protected them from the rioting mob.)
However, in 1931, 31 Jewish families returned to Hebron and re-established the community. This effort was short-lived, and in April 1936, fearing another massacre, the British authorities evacuated the community.
Following the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, and the invasion by Arab armies, Hebron was captured and occupied by the Jordanian Arab Legion. During the Jordanian occupation, which lasted until 1967, Jews were not permitted to live in the city, nor -- despite the Armistice Agreement -- to visit or pray at the Jewish holy sites in the city. Additionally, the Jordanian authorities and local residents undertook a systematic campaign to eliminate any evidence of the Jewish presence in the city. They razed the Jewish Quarter, desecrated the Jewish cemetery and built an animal pen on the ruins of the Avraham Avinu synagogue.
So, as I said, things over here are complex.
Best Regards,
Cement
-
they are not complex for all the anti semite euros on this board.
lazs
-
So Iran does NOT have missiles that can reach Europe. Thanks for clearing that up.
Shahab-5
Country: Iran
Associated Countries: North Korea
Class: IRBM or SLV
Basing: Surface based
Warhead: Single warhead
Propulsion: 2 or 3-stage liquid/solid
Range: 4,000 km
Status: Development
In Service: Exp. 2005
Details
The Shahab-5 is a multiple-stage fuel rocket claimed as an intermediate-range missile. The missile is believed to be based on the North Korean Taep’o-dong 2. As a result of its likely inaccuracy, the missile’s utility is probably restricted to attacking population centers or spreading radiation rather than hitting military targets. The missile is thus probably more of a blackmail or terrorist weapon than a military asset.
The Shahab-5 is still in development and is not slated to enter service in Iran until around 2005. There is little concrete information regarding its capabilities, other than that it will most likely consist of two or three liquid/solid propellant stages. Some reports claim that the missile’s range will be around 4,000 km (2,485 miles). If these report are accurate, they place the Shahab-5 among the new class of long range missiles being produced by Iran in conjunction with North Korea. Like the Shahab-6, the Shahab-5 owes most of its technology to the North Korean Taep’o-dong 2, which in turn is largely derived from Chinese technology.
The integration of technology from the North Korean Taep’o-dong 2 missile into the Shahab-5 represents a substantial security concern for the U.S., as it is the stepping stone to the development of an Iranian ICBM. If its 4,000 km reported range is accurate, the Shahab-5 will be able to target most of Europe, Russia, and Asia. The United Kingdom, a staunch ally of the U.S., will be completely vulnerable to an attack, as will be a number of other key U.S. allies. In addition, the possibility exists that Iran will give or sell its missile technology to rogue states or terrorist groups antagonistic to the U.S. Iran’s military is known to support terrorist groups and the Iranian government has little control over its own missile force.(1)
http://www.missilethreat.com/missiles/shahab-5_iran.html (http://www.missilethreat.com/missiles/shahab-5_iran.html)
Okay, so expected operation by, eh, 2005.
All the best.
Cement
-
what's all the talk bout range of missiles?
the next nuke will be hand delivered, arrive by boat, plane, train or auto - no rocket needed
-
Ok fair enough hacksaw1. I did say that I only get what I see on the news! Thanks for the history lesson. I still think that its a pity that two peoples who have an equal claim on the land can't live together, govern together, etc. It also seems a bit wrong that one group own most of the territory and the other live in walled off enclosures.
It also saddens me that from the terrible events of recent history the group of people I would've expected to never want to see Racism, segregation, and subjugation repeated again are involved in those very actions.
I'm not an anti semite for the record ( thanks Lazs. In my book that counts as personal insult ) But I realy don't understand why history has to repeat itself especialy in Israel.
I'm not saying that blowing up kids and women on busses is right either. But I can see why the Palistinian population might be just a tad annoyed about their current lot in life and some might resort to fighting back in the only way they think is left to them.
Why couldn't the governance of that part of the ME be a shared thing rather than a segregated thing? As I see it the only alternative is perpetual war and bloodshed. Not a very satisfactory situation for either side. Where are the men of real vision in that part of the world. Prepared to stick their neck out and do something radicaly different from the years of hatred and bitterness I see on my TV screen?
( by the way this is not an attack. thisd is a genuine question )
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
I'm not saying that blowing up kids and women on busses is right either. But I can see why the Palistinian population might be just a tad annoyed about their current lot in life and some might resort to fighting back in the only way they think is left to them.
It isn't the only way to fight.
(http://www.petama.ch/images/Mahatma%20Ghandi-B.jpg)
And this man showed it is effective from a minority population
(http://photos1.blogger.com/img/229/2161/640/El%20Dorado%20Ks%20martin%20luther%20King.jpg)
Neither blew up busses, instead we have Hamas, Hezbolla, and Islamic "Holy men" in suburban London.
-
Yes you have a good point.
I don't think those guys will be here for too much longer. At least they might be but they'll be behind bars untill we find somewhere for em.
-
I like SkyDancer.
He may be a left-wing Blairite pinko, but he's not afraid to express what he believes in, and is honest about it. :aok:cool:
-
It isn't the only way to fight.
And this man showed it is effective from a minority population
Minority population? AFAIK, Indians made up the vast majority of India's population.
The reason non violent protest worked in India is because Britain only ever had a very small number of people there. As of 1901, for example, there were 295 million people in India, less than 100,000 were British.
Indians were the soldiers, the farmers, the railway workers, the beaurercrats, the tax collectors.
The reason non violent protest won't work in Palestine is because Palestinians are a smaller population than the Israelis, they do not do the vital work (in fact many are unemployed and do no work at all).
When Indians stopped work, India came to a halt. If the Palestinians stop work, Israel doesn't even really notice.
-
"This man" referred to ML King, and King led protests were highly effective.
-
How much would a coal derived gallon of oil/gas cost to the consumers?
My bet is a hell of a lot more than $3 youre paying now.
Europeans have been paying over $3/gallon for a decade already, your gas is still dirt cheap. I can't understand all the crying.
-
Estimates of the cost of producing oil from coal vary. But the range is between $25-$40/barrel.
If someone produced to $40 / bbl, they could make 45% profit and still undercut the world price of crude by $2 / bbl
-
What I do not understand is why the world want Israel to take out the garbage for them.
You think Israel is "straining uppon their stripes" (if you insist on refering to us as hounds), eager to attack Iran?
Wars in Israel do not work like american wars - 1000s of miles from your borders, your "brave soldiers on the front", put your leg up and turn on CNN for the action. Here wars are personal, it's not your brave soldiers on the front, it's YOU on the front. YOU, your brother, your friends. When Israel is at war everything shuts down, that's why they are short and bloody - we can't keep them up for long.
It would be very easy for europe and US if we did attack Iran. Then your could still sit on your fat ass, roll your eyes, lit your holy aura and condemn us for our brutality.
do your own dirty work!
damn.
Bozon
-
Not condemning Bozon. Just trying to get it. And actualy I think you are bang on. its easy to preach war when the closest you come is CNN or News 24.
I'm generaly against war unless it is the very last resort. Sometimes I get asked why I'm such a WW2 Anorak yet I still hold these views. I think the more I learned about that war the more I realised I'm damn lucky not to be living then and that war is brutal bloody dehumanising and to be avoided unless there realy is no other choice.
Thanks for the vote of confidence Beet you ole tory git;) ;) :aok
-
Originally posted by hacksaw1
"As a result of its likely inaccuracy, the missile’s utility is probably restricted to attacking population centers or spreading radiation rather than hitting military targets. The missile is thus probably more of a blackmail or terrorist weapon than a military asset."
LOL! Are these guys for real? They're defining a strategic missile as a "blackmail or terrorist weapon"? Does that mean we have hundreds of "terrorist weapons" in our own arsenal? If so why did we make them, we're not terrorists are we?
Why does Iran want them? Probably for the same reason why we made them for the last 50 years: Deterrent.
-
Hello Skydancer,
Many Israelis, Jewish and Arab, heartily agree with you and would like to see peaceful coexistence here. And the Palestinians I've met are decent (course, I've never been the target of an attack to this point). One of the last times I did IDF reserve duty of patrolling the border, a 19 year old Arab Bedouin tracker in the regular IDF was assigned to the vehicle. (The IDF has Jewish, Druze and Bedouin units.) Two weeks after my reserve duty was over, there was an attack on the border by Arab infiltrators, and the 19 year old Bedouin tracker was killed in the firefight. I read in the paper that he charged into the ambush, gun blazing, like we were taught in the Marines and in the IDF. So please realize that Israel is not strictly a homogeneous Jewish nation, nor is it defended only by Jews.
During Gulf War I, I had the excruciating experience of witnessing about two dozen of the 40 or so unprovoked Scuds fired from Iraq falling on Tel Aviv (as well as the highly accurate but ineffective Patriot interceptions). Many Palestinians were dancing on their roofs, watching the Scuds go by overhead. Israel made sure that the Palestinians got gas masks, just like Israeli Jews and Arabs. The elderly mother of a friend of mine was unable to cope with the increased tension of Scud missiles fired randomly at population centers and passed away due to stress.
More than ten years ago Israel changed its stance regarding an arch enemy, Yasser Arafat and his PLO, hoping for peace, and signed the Oslo Accords. One of the Israeli leaders involved, Shimon Peres, would be the man of vision you are looking for. But even Peres has said, "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." And only about 5 years ago, Israel's PM, Barak, met Arafat and Clinton at Camp David, and put a serious offer on the table that made even Israelis on the left cringe.
For the record, in 1967, when Egypt and surrounding nations took belligerent steps against Israel, Israel struck in the Six Day War and captured the "Old City" including the Temple Mount. The Israelis immediately returned jurisdiction of the Temple Mount, the holiest of places for the Jewish people, back to the Muslim Waqf, lest there be permanent offence to the Muslim world.
Is everything perfect in Israel? Not yet, not even for a lot the Jewish population.
As far as the actual topic of this thread goes, Bozon has hit the nail on the head for Israelis.
Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem.
Cement
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
LOL! Are these guys for real? They're defining a strategic missile as a "blackmail or terrorist weapon"? Does that mean we have hundreds of "terrorist weapons" in our own arsenal? If so why did we make them, we're not terrorists are we?
Why does Iran want them? Probably for the same reason why we made them for the last 50 years: Deterrent.
Interesting.
They make it plain they support Jihad, you say they got 'em as a 'deterrent'... so beyond positioning youself an advocate for fundamentalist islamic governments having nukes yer point is???
Clue.. a strategic nuclear weapon without a pinpoint guidance system is a terror weapon since it's effectiveness against a hardened military target is negligable. As a military deterrent against a nuclear armed foe WITH pinpoint accuracy it's ludicrious.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Interesting.
They make it plain they support Jihad, you say they got 'em as a 'deterrent'... so beyond positioning youself an advocate for fundamentalist islamic governments having nukes yer point is???
Clue.. a strategic nuclear weapon without a pinpoint guidance system is a terror weapon since it's effectiveness against a hardened military target is negligable. As a military deterrent against a nuclear armed foe WITH pinpoint accuracy it's ludicrious.
Military deterrent? You mean all our ICBMs throughout 50 years pointed at eastern block cities were actually targeted at some "hardened military target"?. Surely you're kidding. We pointed them at millions of defenseless civilians (and still are). You don't need pinpoint accuracy to hit a city, even the old V2 managed that.
Ok, lets look at precedents: Iran you say supports "Jihad". Interesting since I can't remember a single country Iran has ever invaded or overtly attacked. If Iran develops medium-long range missiles you think they'll use them against israel and europe? Why then haven't Iran attacked Israel already? They already have missiles that can reach Israel.
Oh that's right, Israel has nukes and Iran knows it is suicide to attack them ... but then you have to admit it also means the Iranians are rational creatures who don't want to die. So much for paranoid demonizing.
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
Military deterrent? You mean all our ICBMs throughout 50 years pointed at eastern block cities were actually targeted at some "hardened military target"?. Surely you're kidding. We pointed them at millions of defenseless civilians (and still are). You don't need pinpoint accuracy to hit a city, even the old V2 managed that.
Ok, lets look at precedents: Iran you say supports "Jihad". Interesting since I can't remember a single country Iran has ever invaded or overtly attacked. If Iran develops medium-long range missiles you think they'll use them against israel and europe? Why then haven't Iran attacked Israel already? They already have missiles that can reach Israel.
Oh that's right, Israel has nukes and Iran knows it is suicide to attack them ... but then you have to admit it also means the Iranians are rational creatures who don't want to die. So much for paranoid demonizing.
Really? Gee, had no idea our successive american goverments have been so bloodthirsty over the years as to target just cites and civilian populations. Had no idea the soviet and chinese missile fields and military assets were not targeted.. whoda thunk it?
And thank you SO much for straightening me out on Iran's peaceful intentions. Obviously it's just retoric they've been spewing ever since the Ayatolla came into power.. poor Shia Mulla's sitting in their dirty little hovels don't have any ill will torwards the west, don't support slaughtering sunni's and westerners out of hand and and would never consider raising a finger towards any peaceful neighboring states attempting to establish a democracy.
So much for apologist aggrandizing.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Really? Gee, had no idea our successive american goverments have been so bloodthirsty over the years as to target just cites and civilian populations. Had no idea the soviet and chinese missile fields and military assets were not targeted.. whoda thunk it?
And thank you SO much for straightening me out on Iran's peaceful intentions. Obviously it's just retoric they've been spewing ever since the Ayatolla came into power.. poor Shia Mulla's sitting in their dirty little hovels don't have any ill will torwards the west, don't support slaughtering sunni's and westerners out of hand and and would never consider raising a finger towards any peaceful neighboring states attempting to establish a democracy.
So much for apologist aggrandizing.
You care to quote some of the ayatollah's "rhetoric"? I bet you don't even know his name, let alone what he has said.
What "anti-west rhetoric" has the ayatollah "spewed"?
When did Iran or the ayatollah support "slaughtering sunnis and westerners"?
When has Iran "raised a finger" toward any peaceful neighboring states attempting to establish a democracy?
On what do you base your opinion of the Iranians and their intentions?
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
Surely you're kidding. We pointed them at millions of defenseless civilians (and still are). You don't need pinpoint accuracy to hit a city, even the old V2 managed that.
Ok, lets look at precedents: Iran you say supports "Jihad". Interesting since I can't remember a single country Iran has ever invaded or overtly attacked. If Iran develops medium-long range missiles you think they'll use them against israel and europe? Why then haven't Iran attacked Israel already? They already have missiles that can reach Israel.
1) You sure we still point our nukes at cities?
"In May 1994 the U.S. de-targeted its ICBMs for the first time in 15 years as a belated acknowledgment of the Cold War’s end."
2)Hezzbollah
-
Originally posted by Raider179
1) You sure we still point our nukes at cities?
"In May 1994 the U.S. de-targeted its ICBMs for the first time in 15 years as a belated acknowledgment of the Cold War’s end."
Yes I'm sure. We just have to push two buttons now instead of one. [SELECT TARGET] *click* [LAUNCH] *click*
Or you can click and drag the selected city into the recycle bin. ;)
-
Originally posted by Raider179
2)Hezzbollah
What about Hezbollah?
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
You care to quote some of the ayatollah's "rhetoric"? I bet you don't even know his name, let alone what he has said.
What "anti-west rhetoric" has the ayatollah "spewed"?
When did Iran or the ayatollah support "slaughtering sunnis and westerners"?
When has Iran "raised a finger" toward any peaceful neighboring states attempting to establish a democracy?
On what do you base your opinion of the Iranians and their intentions?
Oh, nothin special. Just 444 days of joy and bliss for 52 Americans, mostly diplomats and the staff of an american embassy. As for Ayatollah Khomeini's policy towards the west.. hey; he's an OK guy, right? Really. He's just misunderstood! And the current secular leadership.. well, they're much more inclined to allow their good friends the Sunni's and the Kurds in Iraq a shot at a democracy next door than the old Ayatollah.
Falcon, yer REALLY impressing me.. never knew I didn't know so much!
(http://www.capmag.com/images2y346y/comics/cf/IransProxyWar-X.gif)
-
Just what I thought, you got nothing. Nice propaganda poster though.
-
Ok.. how about 241 dead marines in Lebanon? The bombing of the USS Cole? Kidnapings, executions, airline hijackings...
Or how about attacks right here? The US Ambasador shot to death in his Bethedsta home? The Captain of the Vincennes.. whose wife was murdered in San Diego by a car bomb?
Oh, the list is long, the facts clear.. and apologists like yerself are frankly disgusting. Iran declared war on America Nov 4th 1979 and has waged an Islamiscist Crusade against America that has grown into a Jihad.
You go ahead.. stick yer head in the sand and wait.
(http://www.capmag.com/images2y346y/comics/cf/WeaponsofMassDistraction-X.gif)
Don't expect my to say 'I told yah so' when a Mullah punts yer obliging apologist bellybutton into oblivion.
-
I don't need to stick my head in the sand. Funny ... I though it was Saudi terrorists that we've had most trouble with, and Libyan terrorists of course. Iran didn't kill a single US Marine. Iran didn't hijack a single airliner. If Iran has waged an "Islamiscist (what the hell is 'Islamiscist'? lol) Crusade against America that has grown into a Jihad" as you say they've not been much successful have they? No Iranians flying planes into our buildings. No Iranians blowing up our ships. No, that was the Saudis. You know, our friends in the ME.
You sure you're not confusing Iran with Al Quada? Oh yeah, I'm sure the Shi'ite Ayatollah supports Bin "Sunni" Laden.
-
Kid, yah shouldn't come to class without yer homework.
On October 23, around 6:20 AM, a yellow Mercedes delivery truck drove to Beirut International Airport, where the United States Marines had their headquarters. It turned onto an access road leading to the compound and circled a parking lot. The driver gunned his engine, crashed through a barbed-wire fence in the compound parking lot, passed between two sentry posts, crashed through a gate, and barreled into the lobby of the Marine headquarters building. The Marine sentries did not have loaded weapons, therefore were not able to shoot the driver. According to one Marine, the driver was smiling as he sped past him.
The suicide bomber detonated his truck, which contained 12,000 pounds (about 5,400kg) of TNT. The force of the explosion collapsed the four-story cinder-block building into rubble, crushing to death many inside. The FBI later concluded that the blast was the largest non-nuclear explosion they had ever seen.
About twenty seconds later, an identical attack occurred on the French Paratrooper barracks. A truck bomb drove down a ramp into the building's underground parking garage and exploded, leveling the headquarters.
Rescue efforts continued for days. While some was hindered by sniper fire, some lucky survivors were pulled from the rubble, and were air lifted to Cyprus or West Germany.
Death toll
The death toll was 241American Servicemen for the Marine Barracks attack: 220 Marines, 18 Navy Personnel, and 3 Army soldiers. 60 Americans were injured. In the attack on the French barracks, 58 paratroopers were killed, and 15 injured. In addition, one Lebanese died in the Marine barracks attack and two Lebanese died in the French bombing.
The attack caused the deadliest single-day death toll for the American military since World War II. The attack remains the deadliest terrorist attack on Americans overseas, and today it is the fourth-deadliest terrorist attack ever.
Response
President Ronald Reagan called the attack a "despicable act" and pledged to stay in Lebanon. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said there would be no change in the US's Lebanon policy. On October 24 French president François Mitterrand visited the French bomb site. It was not an official visit, and he only stayed for a few hours, but he did declare: "We will stay." US Vice President George Bush toured the marine bombing site on October 26 and said the US would not be cowered by terrorists.
In retaliation for the attacks, France launched an air strike in the Bekaa valley against Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions. President Reagan assembled his national security team to devise a plan of military action, and planned to target was the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon, which housed Iranian Revolutionary Guards believed to be training Hezbollah fighters. However, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger aborted the mission, reportedly because of his concerns that it would harm U.S. relations with other Arab nations. Except for a few shellings from the USS New Jersey off Lebanon, there was no real military response from the United States due to the barracks bombing; however, the US did become involved in several fights in Lebanon during their stay.
The Marines were later moved offshore where they could not be targeted, but in February 1984 the International Peacekeeping Force withdrew from Lebanon.
Aftermath
The responsibility for the bombing is uncertain. Most believe the Hezbollah militant group, backed by Iran and Syria is responsible for the two barracks bombings, as well as the April 1983 US Embassy bombing. Several *****e militant groups claimed the attacks, and one, the Free Islamic Revolutionary Movement, identified the two suicide bombers as Abu Mazen, 26, and Abu Sijaan, 24.
Along with the April 1983 US Embassy bombing, this incident prompted the Inman Report, a review of the security of US facilities overseas for the US Department of State.
Source (http://www.answers.com/topic/1983-beirut-barracks-bombing)
Possibly you could use some education on who the 'enemy' is, and who funds them... lets start with Hezbollah. Take out half a sheet of paper, there WILL be a quiz afterwards.
What is Hezbollah?
Hezbollah is a Lebanese umbrella organization of radical Islamic *****e groups and organizations. It opposes the West, seeks to create a Muslim fundamentalist state modeled on Iran, and is a bitter foe of Israel. Hezbollah, whose name means “party of God,” is a terrorist group believed responsible for nearly 200 attacks since 1982 that have killed more than 800 people. Experts say Hezbollah is also an significant force in Lebanon’s politics and a major provider of social services, operating schools, hospitals, and agricultural services, for thousands of Lebanese *****es. It also operates the al-Manar satellite television channel and broadcast station.
What are Hezbollah’s origins?
Hezbollah was founded in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and subsumed members of the 1980s coalition of groups known as Islamic Jihad. It has close links to Iran and Syria.
Who are Hezbollah’s leaders?
Hezbollah leader
Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah,
Tehran, Iran, April 2001.
(AP Photo/Hasan Sarbakhshian )
Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah is considered the group’s spiritual leader. Imad Fayez Mugniyah is considered the key planner of Hezbollah’s worldwide terrorist operations. During the Lebanese civil war in the 1970s, experts say Mugniyah trained with al-Fatah. When the Palestine Liberation Organization and al-Fatah were expelled from Lebanon by Israeli forces in 1982, Mugniyah joined the newly formed Hezbollah and quickly rose to a senior position in the organization. Hassan Nasrallah is Hezbollah’s senior political leader. Nasrallah was originally a military commander, but his military and religious credentials—he studied in centers of *****e theology in Iran and Iraq—quickly elevated him to leadership within the group. Experts say he took advantage of rivalries within Hezbollah and the favor of the head of Iran’s theocratic government, Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini, to become the group’s secretary general in 1992, a position he still holds.
Where does Hezbollah operate?
Its base is in Lebanon’s *****e-dominated areas, including parts of Beirut, southern Lebanon, and the Bekaa Valley. In addition, U.S. intelligence reports say that Hezbollah cells operate in Europe, Africa, South America, and North America. Despite Israel’s 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon, Hezbollah continues to periodically shell Israeli forces in the disputed Shebaa Farms border zone.
Hezbollah has also carried out attacks outside the Middle East. In his September 20, 2001, speech to Congress, President Bush pledged that the U.S.-led war on terror “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” Hezbollah’s cells outside the Middle East, its reported involvement in the January 2002 attempt to smuggle a boatload of arms to the Palestinian Authority, and its role in the 1992 and 1994 attacks in Argentina imply that it might meet the president’s definition, terrorism experts say. In June 2002, Singapore accused Hezbollah of recruiting Singaporeans in a failed 1990s plot to attack U.S. and Israeli ships in the Singapore Straits. Hezbollah was also among the few terrorist groups that President Bush mentioned by name in his January 2002 State of the Union address.
How big is Hezbollah?
Its core consists of several thousand militants and activists, the U.S. government estimates.
What major attacks is Hezbollah responsible for?
Hezbollah and its affiliates have planned or been linked to a lengthy series of terrorist attacks against the United States, Israel, and other Western targets. These attacks include:
a series of kidnappings of Westerners in Lebanon, including several Americans, in the 1980s;
the suicide truck bombings that killed more than 200 U.S. Marines at their barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983;
the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, which featured the famous footage of the plane’s pilot leaning out of the cockpit with a gun to his head;
and two major 1990s attacks on Jewish targets in Argentina—the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy (killing 29) and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center (killing 95).
For more info and the source (http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/hezbollah.html)
Now, Question #1: How long do you intend to keep your head in the sand?
Question #2: Have you just recently become a supporter of Iranian Terror Sponsorhips or is it hereditary?
-
Half the world supports Hezbollah including what, half of europe and many americans. At least Iran has the brains to use a third party, unlike our "intelligence" who gets caught KIDNAPPING people off the streets of europe and shipping them to our third-world allies for "interrogation". We're even into political assassinations again so yeah we really need to point a finger towards Iran for playing OUR game so well. Teh bastidges!
Italy seeks 'CIA kidnap agents'
The imam was allegedly driven to a US military base after his abduction
Italian authorities have issued arrest warrants for 13 people they claim are agents "linked to the CIA".
The suspects are accused of abducting an Islamic cleric in Milan in 2003 and flying him to Egypt for interrogation.
OTTAWA, June 30 -- Attorneys for Maher Arar said Thursday that Canadian
criminal charges should be brought against U.S. agents responsible for
spiriting the Canadian man in 2002 to Syria, where he was imprisoned and
allegedly tortured for almost a year.
Drawing parallels to the charges brought against CIA operatives by a Milan
magistrate last week, attorney Marlys Edwardh said Canadian law defined
torture as illegal wherever it occurs. Arar, 34, was seized by U.S. agents
while he was changing planes in New York, questioned for 12 days and then
transported in shackles to Syria.
Judging by the way we treat our allies it's no wonder we have enemies.
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
Judging by the way we treat our allies it's no wonder we have enemies.
Judging by the way we pursue and incarcerate terrorists, suspected terrorists and terrorist supporters possibly they (and you) should find a new hobby... regardless of what country their from or are currently in.
My; how very quickly we go from 'Iran has never lifted a finger' to 'half the world supports hezbollah' follwed by some hasty finger pointing at our counter terror 'excesses' when yer confronted with the facts regarding Iranian support for Terrorist Groups.
Whats next, another 'Guantanamo Bay' expose ...or are you just killing time by taking cheap shots at American Foriegn Policy any place you figure you can get away with it?
-
Propaganda cartoons are great aren't they! Just change the writing and they could be from Pravda, Volkischer Beobachter, where ever. :lol
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
My; how very quickly we go from 'Iran has never lifted a finger' to 'half the world supports hezbollah' follwed by some hasty finger pointing at our counter terror 'excesses' when yer confronted with the facts regarding Iranian support for Terrorist Groups.
I never said Iran didn't support terrorist groups. Considering what we helped put them trough I'm surprised they've not done worse against us. I asked when Iran ever invaded or overtly attacked anyone, and since the answer obviously is "never", why you think with such conviction that they will do so in the future?
-
Say, ain't you AWOL from the human shield program?
-
Ah, the final insults of a loser. How very satisfying.
-
I'm a 'loser' because I poked yer apologist pro-terrorist Iranian defense program? Or because I'm less inclined than you are to assume that Iran's quest for Nuclear capability is begnin?
LOL!
Kinda proud day for me.. to be branded a loser by a liberal terrorist apologist is about on par with getting a whine for a chute kill in the game.
-
Hangtime when your country openly supports country occypying areas belonging to other nations, practising apartheid and "Lebensraum" politics it's predictable that you're going to be targeted by guerillas/resistance groups/insurgents or what ever name you want to use sooner or later.
You knew it already didn't You :)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I'm a 'loser' because I poked yer apologist pro-terrorist Iranian defense program? Or because I'm less inclined than you are to assume that Iran's quest for Nuclear capability is begnin?
LOL!
Kinda proud day for me.. to be branded a loser by a liberal terrorist apologist is about on par with getting a whine for a chute kill in the game.
Hahaha, whine all you want Hangtime. You not answering my question says it all. Ad hominem is your last resort.
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
I asked when Iran ever invaded or overtly attacked anyone, and since the answer obviously is "never", why you think with such conviction that they will do so in the future?
Oh so if Iran only attacks us Covertly then that is ok. Just as long as they don't do it to our face :rolleyes:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/a...1093747,00.html
The U.S. Military's new nemesis in Iraq is named Abu Mustafa al-Sheibani, and he is not a Baathist or a member of al-Qaeda. He is working for Iran. According to a U.S. military-intelligence document obtained by TIME, al-Sheibani heads a network of insurgents created by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps with the express purpose of committing violence against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. Over the past eight months, his group has introduced a new breed of roadside bomb more lethal than any seen before; based on a design from the Iranian-backed Lebanese militia Hizballah, the weapon employs "shaped" explosive charges that can punch through a battle tank's armor like a fist through the wall. According to the document, the U.S. believes al-Sheibani's team consists of 280 members, divided into 17 bombmaking teams and death squads. The U.S. believes they train in Lebanon, in Baghdad's predominantly Shi'ite Sadr City district and "in another country" and have detonated at least 37 bombs against U.S. forces this year in Baghdad alone.
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
Hahaha, whine all you want Hangtime. You not answering my question says it all. Ad hominem is your last resort.
Look kid, I did answer.. with facts, links, and historical proofs. Your credibility in this argument went down the toilet with the 'Iran hasn't lifted a finger' post. Now, run home and tell yer mommy she loves yah, I got more interesting fish to fry than yours.
Staga if yer refering to the US supporting Israel being ample reason for Iran's sponsoring Terrorist Financial and Logistical support... fer shame. Might as well blame us for supporting the UK's claim on the Falklands, her earlier Colonial Empire or the power vaccum created in the Middle East, Africa and Iran when they folded their tents and went home.
A complete history of Iran is a bit beyond the scope of this thread.. suffice to say we ain't the only 'western' power that's had hooks in Irans recent development as the BIG player in world terrorisim.. nor are we at fault for the Iranian Islamic Revolution, despite the indignant 'well, you just got what's comin' to yah' noises being made by the apologists.
Data point.. it's fast becoming apparent that what we're really up against is a massive cultural difference centering around the western concept of a seperation between Law and Religion and the Eastern concept of Religion AS Law. Our policys of 'democratization' of states inside what Iran percives as it's sphere of influence is intolerable to the Islamic Fundamentalists, and it's also becoming exceedingly apparent that 'diplomatic' efforts will be useless in the short term and frankly very dangerous in the long term. When they can destroy us, they will.
A decent readable Iranian history can be found here: Linky (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/iran_history.asp) (start with the Pavlevi Dynasty)
-
Rule #4