10,000 Britons are stranded in Lebanon

[DodgyAgent]

I see the guilt ridden liberals are out in force today. The Israelis are united in their desire to survive. They will live peacefully with their neighbours if they are allowed to do so but they will nuke anyone if they have to. I am sure that if they become a pariah state and start threatening London and the West they will all of a sudden become victims worthy of sympathy

[Fungus]

I see the guilt ridden liberals are out in force today. The Israelis are united in their desire to survive. They will live peacefully with their neighbours if they are allowed to do so but they will nuke anyone if they have to. I am sure that if they become a pariah state and start threatening London and the West they will all of a sudden become victims worthy of sympathy

Sounds reasonable ... until we recall that they are forcibly removing West Bank Palestinians from their homes, so that Jews can occupy the land instead. And you forget that a million or more Arabs in Lebanon, the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan are 1st and 2nd generation refugees forced from their homes by the creation of Israel. That is the root cause. All this Islamic fundamentalist balls is just exploiting a real grievance. Oh yes and the Palestinians have scarce water resources that the Israelis are taking under guise of dealing with terrorists.

Actually my objection to what is happening is that huge numbers of Lebanese and Israelis are dying for naff all. I doubt this will solve anything.

[AlfredJPruffock]

There is a very grave danger that this conflict could escalate causing widespread suffering throughout the Middle East.

Its interesting to observe how the US Fundamental Christians such as GW Bush are happy to allow the conflict escalate thus setting the stage for their Biblical Doomsday prophesy , The Rapture.

Israel should beware that the US Fundamental Christians envisage that the entire Middle East, including Israel, will be sacrificed in order to realise their bizzare religous prophetic beliefs.

[Dundeegeorge]

So how do I vote for you, Xog?

In other situations I would tend to agree that effectively starting a war over an attack and a couple of kidnappings was a totally disproportionate response and would boringly suggest that such a course should not be embarked on until all options for negotiation had been exhausted.

But when the opposition are an Islamic militant group it should be perfectly clear that any attempts at serious negotiation would be a total waste of time.

Early and often, I suppose!

[AlfredJPruffock]

Early and often, I suppose!

Well I did read that Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 did away with the PLO and produced Hizbullah instead, the incarceration and elimination of Arafat only served to strengthen Hamas.

The wars in Afghanistan, the Gulf and Iraq gave birth to Bin Ladenist terrorism and extended its reach and appeal.

And we should not be surprised if the summer of 2006 produces more of the same.

But its certainly good news for the Oiligarchy, seen the price of Oil recently?

Im sure this is just a coincidence though.

Nobody could sink so low as to profiteer by engineering Wars.

Would they now ?

[NickIT]

Sadly it seems that both sides youth are getting involved.

[Dundeegeorge]

Alf, you cynic!!!!!!!!!!

Well I did read that Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 did away with the PLO and produced Hizbullah instead, the incarceration and elimination of Arafat only served to strengthen Hamas.

The wars in Afghanistan, the Gulf and Iraq gave birth to Bin Ladenist terrorism and extended its reach and appeal.

And we should not be surprised if the summer of 2006 produces more of the same.

But its certainly good news for the Oiligarchy, seen the price of Oil recently?

Im sure this is just a coincidence though.

Nobody could sink so low as to profiteer by engineering Wars.

Would they now ?

Yes, you're absolutely right Alf, it is all our fault. We should never have stopped the crusades until every last muslim was converted to
1. christianity
2. catfood

(NOTE FOR THE HARD OF THINKING, THE ABOVE WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, BUT WAS RATHER A HEAVY-HANDED ATTEMPT AT CRUEL HUMOUR)

[AlfredJPruffock]

Yes, you're absolutely right Alf, it is all our fault. We should never have stopped the crusades until every last muslim was converted to
1. christianity
2. catfood

(NOTE FOR THE HARD OF THINKING, THE ABOVE WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, BUT WAS RATHER A HEAVY-HANDED ATTEMPT AT CRUEL HUMOUR)

Even if everybody was a Christian then they would be fighting over the Catholic Protestant interpretations ...thank goodness Im a Taoist.

Altough he whom claims to be a Taoist is not a true Taoist.

War is economics by alternate means, in any War ask the question qui bonum , who profits ...and then you will see the reality.

How quick you all seem to be to accept the mainstream media story of the kidnapped soldiers being the reason for this conflict , didnt the WMD fiasco teach you anything at all ?


Of War and Peace the truth just twists
Its curfew gull just glides

The savage soldier sticks his head in sand
And then complains

Leaving men wholly, totally free
To do anything they wish to do but die

And there are no trials inside the Gates of Eden

[DodgyAgent]

A law for Iraq and another for Israel

it is interesting to see the general condemnation of US/UK forces in attacking and invading Iraq. it is as many of you argue perfectly legitimate for Iraqi insurgents to attack Britis and American targets inside or outside of Iraq. This despite the arguments that Saddam's regime was a legitimate target for such action.
So when Israel decides to defend itself in a similar manner, i.e retaliating against offensive strikes by neighbouring forces it is condemned for doing so.
You cannot have it both ways, so which is it?

Either it is a regime that is entitled to behave as it likes and that whatever it does is no one elses business, so woe betide anyone who attacks or invades it they are asking for retaliation.

Or is it that a regime cannot get away with imperialist activities and the suppression of its people and should therefore be subject to disciplining from outside.

My view is that Israel poses a neat opportunity for the liberals to assuage their guilt (because they are rich, democratic and strong)whilst at the same time the self same liberals can further ease their guilt by patronising the poor downtrodden "forced to be terrorist" terrorists.

Whether you like it or not Israel represents our own idealogies of freedom, democracy and tolerance, whereas the forces aligned against it represent the exact opposite. So you can pledge as much support as you like for Iraqi insurgents, Hezbollah,etc. You can even morally equate the bombings of Hamas with the bombings of Israel but there is essentially a battle going on here between two contrasting ideologies and I know which one I want to win.

[DaveB]

it is interesting to see the general condemnation of US/UK forces in attacking and invading Iraq. it is as many of you argue perfectly legitimate for Iraqi insurgents to attack Britis and American targets inside or outside of Iraq. This despite the arguments that Saddam's regime was a legitimate target for such action.
So when Israel decides to defend itself in a similar manner, i.e retaliating against offensive strikes by neighbouring forces it is condemned for doing so.
You cannot have it both ways, so which is it?

Either it is a regime that is entitled to behave as it likes and that whatever it does is no one elses business, so woe betide anyone who attacks or invades it they are asking for retaliation.

Or is it that a regime cannot get away with imperialist activities and the suppression of its people and should therefore be subject to disciplining from outside.

My view is that Israel poses a neat opportunity for the liberals to assuage their guilt (because they are rich, democratic and strong)whilst at the same time the self same liberals can further ease their guilt by patronising the poor downtrodden "forced to be terrorist" terrorists.

Whether you like it or not Israel represents our own idealogies of freedom, democracy and tolerance, whereas the forces aligned against it represent the exact opposite. So you can pledge as much support as you like for Iraqi insurgents, Hezbollah,etc. You can even morally equate the bombings of Hamas with the bombings of Israel but there is essentially a battle going on here between two contrasting ideologies and I know which one I want to win.

The issue here is not of Israels right to respond to attacks on its territory. It has every right. The issue is whether that response is proportional to the threats against it. No other country in the world - USA included despite their Gung Ho attitude - would regard a full scale military invasion and bombardment of civillian targets as a proportionate response to the kidnapping of a small number of military personel.

Either
A) Israel does not have the intelligence capability to locate its soldiers for a targetted response to secure their release so it is using brute force to try and coerce the Lebanese and Syrian govts into excerting pressure on Hezbollah.

Or more likely

B) They are using it as an excuse to target southern Lebabanon and Gaza in order to gain military control of areas they had previously relinquished and to try and degrade the ability of Hezbollah / Hamas to operate in those areas.

On a personall level Israel in no way represents my idea of freedom, democracy or tolerance. Israel is neither free, democratic nor tolerant if you happen to be of Arab descent. Arab Israelis make up almost 25% of the population.

Israeli democracy has succeeded in disenfranchising almost a quarter of the Israeli population, who mostly continue to live in segregate, gated, and over crowded ghettos that are plagued with high unemployment rate and suffers from lack of basic services. In fact, there are over forty plus unrecognized Palestinian-Israeli villages (within the "Green Line") that receives no public services whatsoever , such as roads, sanitation, electricity, schools, ...etc.