YT2095 Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Can I just ask; what are 10' date='000 Britons, 25,000 Americans and 20,000 French people doing in Lebanon???[/quote'] simple really, assume Ecoli is an American citizen with an American passport (he might even be for all I know), and then he decides to spend a few summer months with his mother over in Israel. he Also would be counted as an American. similar if his mother was living in Lebanon instead. that`s all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 MM: Meaning what exactly. If you compare the overwhelmingly support with that they have today, it still would amount to a solid base. The important thing is the recruiting and the counter productive actions taken by Israel. Ponder if Hezbollah ceased to exist or was nearly wiped out. The mind set and the situation of the Lebanese people are connected therefore the void that Israel would have created would be filled again. History tells us that this would create an even more radical group. To defeat the resistance you have to bargain, there is simply no other alternative.I am saying they do not have as much support as they once did because many Lebanese people are not happy being bombed and some blame Hezbollah. I'm not saying they don't have support, of course they do, they've got thousands, but not as many as they originally did. Israel does not want to occupy. Israel has clearly stated, and diplomatic talks are currently active, to get the Lebanese army to secure Lebanon, because currently Hezbollah is everywhere. The UN is also thinking of installing a UN force between Lebanon and Israel to help the Lebanese army keep the Israel/Lebanon border terrorist (Hezbollah) free. I didn't think you were serious when you implied that the civilians that died as the result of Israeli bombings of heavily populated city blocks were in fact terrorists or the chance that they were. I mean it's hard to disguise on self as a child or elderly. Therefore I would assume that you meant civilians that support Hezbollah are terrorists themselves. To this I strongly disagree.I did not mean that. I was referring to the working class generation. And besides, you can get old terrorists and kids in their early teens are taught how to use guns by groups like Hezbollah, it is a sad fact. This is not my point though. Hezbollah is not an official army. They do not wear uniform. They live with their families, in civilian cities with civilian every day jobs, that's a fact. If you saw a dead middle aged man you think a civilian was killed, my point is that a dead terrorist would look exactly the same, you cannot differentitate. That's my point. What you think is a dead civilian could be a dead terrorist. Phil: Maybe you have never seen those massive pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian marches or campaigns that we have in the UK every few years when some big event happens in the Mid East. You don't get them often, but when you do you get thousands and thousands of people turning up. Maybe you can't see how a connection can exist between UK citizens and people in the Middle East, but many thousands of UK citizens can see a link and do turn up at these rallies to show their support. Similarly people in the USA and Europe sometimes feel a connection. Sometimes through religion. Sometimes they are pro-Israel because of what Islamic militants did on 9/11, the UK bus/train bombings, other attacks across the world etc. sometimes they are anti-semetic so hate Israel and therefore support the militants. Sometimes they went to the country on holiday and liked it. Maybe they have family/friends there. Maybe they were born there. Or maybe in this conflict they have made their mind up and supported one side, for whatever reason. People do feel connections. YT2095 So you're saying that there are currently 10,000 Britons, 25,000 Americans and 20,000 French on holiday in Israel or Lebanon? Sounds too many! Hey look, maybe you're right, I don't have a clue what the real answer. I just don't think "holiday" can account for all of those. I suppose there will be some people there on business too. walrusman Can you run a similar bombing campaign over London, just so I don't feel left out ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 I believe there is approximately 30% iranians in Iran who are anti-government and against the leaders. I have no proof, i searched google and asked some persians familiar with politics, they said approximately 30 %. I suspect more than 30% of Germans never supported Hitler but appeals to resurgent national pride after the humiliation of WWI, the power of hate in the form of anti-Semitism and a highly charismatic leader allowed Nazism to crystallize. Once Hitler was elected as Chancellor and the apparatus of the state was at his disposal a few Sophie Scholls were not going to take him out. If Hitler had not survived his attempted assassination, a military coup might have succeeded in taking down the Nazis. Maybe. The problem is that combining fascism with religion yields a much more stable and survivable strain of tyranny. Hitler tried to brew this potent mix with a mishmash of mysticism but it was a weak version. Iran is the real deal. I think Lewis is right. We will never have peace until real democratic traditions are established world wide. There has been some success with democracy in the area but it takes time to build a democratic tradition and voters can make stupid decisions with their power such as electing Hitler, Hezbollah or Hamas. Over time, the hope is that they come to realize Uncle Ben was right - with great power comes great responsibility. Realistically, I do not see much evidence of a willingness to separate religion from politics in these cultures. There are a lot of reasons that go into these cultural differences. Christians were initially persecuted by government and its founder advocated the separation. Jesus is not quoted as saying, "go into all of the world and set up governments (or PACS even)." His was not even an earthly kingdom so he had no problem with rendering unto the government its due so long as God received His due. These wonderful doctrines have been subverted at times and thank God, literally or figuratively as is your preference, that we no longer have a Holy Roman Empire. It hasn't been easy but we are to this point where this separation does enhance our freedom and make us considerably less dangerous than would be the world's only theistic superpower. I admire Muslims who understand all of this and I do not underestimate their numbers or courage. However, they have a long way to go in Iran and we all have a dangerous path ahead of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 We need to send a constant stream of B-52's dropping Ipods, X-Box's, porn, fast food, pot, computers - we need to bring America to them.Leave out the pot and the porn. Lebanon is like the hashish capital of the world, isn't it? And don't give the mullahs anything obvious to rail against like pictures of nude women. Victoria's Secret catalogs, on the other hand.... Otherwise it's a fantastic idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrusman Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Democracy really doesn't have anything to do with it in my opinion. Well maybe a little, but it's obsession with death and religion. Even if this part of the world was as rich and free as america they would still bomb and terrorize. It's how they please their god. Watch some of those specials where the reporters talk with some of these people. These people are romantic about dying in service of Allah. How do you die in service of Allah? You suicide bomb the infadels. And I hope nobody is making too much of the 72 virgins thing, because that's a western hangup. That's just one aspect of their heavenly treatment offered by Allah after they "target and kill innocent people" that CNN doesn't want to talk about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 You made me laugh.... :-) Thanks. But this is what I've always thought too... except for the porn and pot. Magazines with pictures would be a great idea for them to see what their government is not allowing them to see or have. I like that idea... Bee I think Lebanon is less in need of that then some other countries in the middle east. simple really' date=' assume Ecoli is an American citizen with an American passport (he might even be for all I know), and then he decides to spend a few summer months with his mother over in Israel.he Also would be counted as an American. similar if his mother was living in Lebanon instead. that`s all [/quote'] You mean I can be a tourist?? Yea!!! Actually, the numbers don't surpirse me much. The historical significance of the region + varied landscapes make for a great vacationing spot. Democracy really doesn't have anything to do with it in my opinion. Well maybe a little, but it's obsession with death and religion. Even if this part of the world was as rich and free as america they would still bomb and terrorize. It's how they please their god. Oh really? Then how come there are plenty of religious Muslims who denounce terrorism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr d Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 hello do recall the released terror suspect, who stated he was held in tunisia and tortured by the americans. amoung the torture was parading naked women in front of him whom posed in naughty fashions. and offence to an islamic fellow. as to all those foriengers in the area, lebanon still handles quite a bit of banking for the region, and is considered a moderate country for western business to base some operations out of. you hear about radical groups like hezbollah causing much grief, but not much coming actually from the lebanese. in a region now where if you kill 100 people a day your a fanatic, if you kill 30 your a moderate. being older than must of you i think, i still remember when lebanon was an influential banking center. like the caymans now, a fine place to put money you didn't like questions being asked about. it was also a tourist destination with beautiful beaches, and was considered canne' for the middle east. that harbor you now see isreali boats patroling was once filled with the yahts of millionaries, for lebanon was a party destination. if you looked at it, even now to and extent, it was one of the few places in the middle east where islamics (sunni's north shi'ites south), jews, and christians tended to live together with any sense of co-operation. mr d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Once Hezbollah is out of the picture, I have no doubt it will be like that again, Mr. D. Beirut will once again be the 'Paris of the Middle east' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Leave out the pot and the porn. Lebanon is like the hashish capital of the world, isn't it? Ah, now the 25,000 number makes sense.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Once Hezbollah is out of the picture, I have no doubt it will be like that again, Mr. D. Beirut will once again be the 'Paris of the Middle east' Hope you're right, but sadly, I don't believe that. I think that Hizbullah will be replaced by something else, like El Qaeda or Hammas. Beirut is a stronghold to the Meditterenean (Egypt is harsh on terrorism and smuggling, which is why terrorists use it less), I think that Hizbullah out of the picture, without the lebanese government being very strong (which it is doubtedly will be, because of the fragile state of affairs of the state, a constant near-civil-war), another organization will take over. Syria was a permanent presence there, and Iran slowly took root too.. Hizbullah is just a "messenger" to the Iranians now. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrusman Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Oh really? Then how come there are plenty of religious Muslims who denounce terrorism? I didn't say there wouldn't be any of those. I said democracy has very little to do with fixing the problem with terrorism. I think you go out of your way to disagree with me. I haven't met a single muslim who will tell me that a suicide bomber will go to hell for killing Israeli citizens. And I'm not even talking about terrorists yet. The only point I'm making here is that their religion doesn't really have a problem with killing infadels. They denounce it, but I don't see much passion behind it. Just my own observations. There was a radio talk show host here in Kansas City that asked a group of "peaceful" Muslims to denounce the killing of innocent civilians - none of them would do it without a qualifier. There's always a "but", "if" something - because it's bad for the peace process, not bad for Allah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pHoToN_gUrL Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 I heard all this is the beggining of the world war 3. Is this true? ... very scared Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 I heard all this is the beggining of the world war 3. Is this true? ... very scared Someone is always preaching the beginning of Armageddon or WWIII. Korea and Vietnam indirectly involved China, the Cold War and the Soviet Union, the first Gulf War in '90 in the Middle East, they were all supposed to be the beginning of WWIII. Don't make yourself crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrusman Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 I heard all this is the beggining of the world war 3. Is this true? ... very scared I'm sorry you're scared. It's all a matter of opinion. Some people are of the opinion WWIII is here, some people think it's been here for awhile and we're just now coming around to notice and some people think it's yet to start. I guess it just depends on perspective. Sure looks like things are about to spiral out of control. But there's a lot of times when things look really bad, alot of tough talk, armies mobilize - but nothing happens. I'm not talking about Israel and Lebanon, but rather the US, Europe, Canada and Iran, Syria. I fear for Israel's safety and existence if Iran or Syria is attacked by any of us. Even if we just take out their nuclear facilities. But then I fear for Israel's safety even more if we allow Iran to make nuke warheads. How do you deal with them then? Yikes...that's really scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 I really doubt it will become WW3. If Iran and Syria declare war on Israel, and America backs up Israel etc. then it could turn into a WW3... so we have the "is it WW3?" question in the hands or the Iranians and Syrians, whom I do not trust. Having said that I don't think there is much in it for them to start a war now. So hopefully they will not. Also by next week many people are saying that there will be a lot more political pressure on Israel to stop the bombings. If the bombings ease it may signal the beginning of an end to this. Although there is still the matter of the kidnapped soldiers and the rockets being fired into Israel. If those two continue Israel will not stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrusman Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 What do you all think about this talk of hitting Iran before they get "nuked up"? McCaine said the only thing worse than striking Iran before they get nukes, is striking Iran after they get them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 If Israel has definite proof that Iran is about to make nukes then, just as they did in the 80s with Iraq, I belive they would strike the nuclear installations and ensure Iran does not get nukes. However, unless there is definitive proof I don't think Israel can because the region is too unstable and due to political pressure. Starting a war with Iran doesn't sound such a good idea at the moment. However like you said, if Iran manages to get nukes then we have a whole new (and bigger) problem on our hands, it must not get to this stage. If any other country (other than Israel) would attack Iran it would be America, but seeing as they're in both Afghanistan and Iraq already I don't think they can/will do anything about it until it is too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 What do you all think about this talk of hitting Iran before they get "nuked up"? McCaine said the only thing worse than striking Iran before they get nukes' date=' is striking Iran after they get them.[/quote'] ... a truth that I have no doubt we'll find out to our dismay, after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Here’s a interesting article written on February 16, 2004 Hezbollah, Hostages, and the United States The lopsided prisoner exchange is only the latest in a long series of Hezbollah successes. The truck bombings in the early 1980s against US installations in Lebanon that forced the US-led peacekeeping force out of Lebanon inspired bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Lebanon’s war against the Israeli presence in southern Lebanon culminated in May 2000 in Israel’s complete withdrawal and the collapse of Israel’s ally the South Lebanon Army. Israel’s withdrawal was one factor inspiring the Palestinian violence that began in September 2000. The prisoner exchange, in which Israel released over four hundred individuals held for terrorism in exchange for three bodies and one person, was unbalanced and has been interpreted throughout the Arab world as a sign of Israel’s weakness. A few voices have noted that it shows Israel’s sense of responsibility towards its citizens (one of the bodies returned was of an Israeli Arab serving in the IDF.) This is a compelling argument, but these exchanges often explode on Israel. In 1985 Ahmed Jibril, head of the PFLP-GC, traded three Israeli soldiers he had captured in the 1982 Lebanon war for over 1000 Palestinian terrorists. Jibril had prisoners from every Palestinian faction released in order to build the PFLP-GC’s profile within the Palestinian movement. One of the prisoners released was Hamas founder Sheikh Yassin. His return revitalized Hamas, allowing it to spearhead the first Intifada. Hezbollah hostage taking is not limited to Israel – the Iran-Contra scandal, which rocked the second term of the Reagan administration, was caused by Hezbollah’s taking American hostages in Lebanon (they also took British, French and other Europeans hostage). The US and France paid Iran off with cash and reduced support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, in exchange for hostage releases. As Hezbollah builds infrastructure in Iraq it is all too conceivable that taking foreign hostages will soon become part of their strategy. A 1000:3 ratio in 1982. A 400:1 in 2004. 1000:2 in 2006? Hezbollah has historically placed a disproportionate value on the lives of Israeli soldiers over their own. Israel seems to now understand that these lopsided exchanges paint a bullseye on Israeli soldiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Why wouldn't they take Hostages? We've shown time and again that the west takes a weak line on the matter. Israel has traded prisoners for dead soldiers, not to mention the live ones. Though I shudder to think what those captured soldiers are going through right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/741100.html ^ Just when I was beginning to think the Lebanese army was friendly to Israel. They do know they're fighting on the wrong side, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bettina Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/741100.html ^ Just when I was beginning to think the Lebanese army was friendly to Israel. They do know they're fighting on the wrong side' date=' right?[/quote'] What I find suspicious is that their ready to fight Israelis but wouldn't fight Hezbollah. Bee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 What I find suspicious is that their ready to fight Israelis but wouldn't fight Hezbollah. Bee Civilian support' date=' perhaps? Who knows, maybe the Lebanese gov't. was always sympathetic to Hezbollah, and was cordial to Israel to remain innocent in the eyes of the UN and international community. They didn't follow through with UN resolution 1559 because they claimed to be 'to weak' to fight the organization with over 1 million members, and that they were afraid of re-igniting a civil war. But now that public opinion is turning against Israel and their war, they show their true colors when a ground invasion occurs. [/speculation'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrusman Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 What I find suspicious is that their ready to fight Israelis but wouldn't fight Hezbollah. No kidding. Fighting Hezbollah was all that was necessary to keep this whole thing from starting in the first place. I would think the lebanese army would stand a better chance against Hezbollah than they would Israel. That ought to tell you something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 No kidding. Fighting Hezbollah was all that was necessary to keep this whole thing from starting in the first place. I would think the lebanese army would stand a better chance against Hezbollah than they would Israel. That ought to tell you something... It's just that Hezbollah is harming Lebanon in less obvious, but much more dangerous way. It's easy to watch the news and think Israel is some ruthless army, hell bent on destruction. Obviously that's not the case, but who knows how people over there see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts