The Middle East part 2

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

so what? israel gets its arms off the USA so its open game if you ask me.

[Nemesis6 0]

Israel is a country. Supplying a country as a whole is not the same as supplying a terrorist militia with personel, rockets, rifles, RPGs, etc. Iran and Syria helping this terrorist militia in these ways are direct acts of war/aggression against Israel, and Israel should strike the puppeteers, not the puppet.

[*Pete* 0]

Israel is a country. Supplying a country as a whole is not the same as supplying a terrorist militia with personel, rockets, rifles, RPGs, etc. Iran and Syria helping this terrorist militia in these ways are direct acts of war/aggression against Israel, and Israel should strike the puppeteers, not the puppet.

if i am not incorrect, Israel was supplying a lebanese faction with weapons and military assistance during the lebanese civil war....

the one that is famous for the massacre at Shabra/Shattila, wasnt Ariel Sharon directly part of that operation as well?

i quess that the point you are trying to set is that, who ever supplies weapons to the enemies of israel, or potential enemies of israel, is helping the terrorists.

and israel doing the same is.."well, shit happens and we are not responsible of what the barbarians fo with our weapons...."

[Garcia 0]

Israel is a country. Supplying a country as a whole is not the same as supplying a terrorist militia with personel, rockets, rifles, RPGs, etc. Iran and Syria helping this terrorist militia in these ways are direct acts of war/aggression against Israel, and Israel should strike the puppeteers, not the puppet.

Does that mean that Soviet had the right to (and should have) attack USA during the Afghan war? Does that mean that Iran had the same right to attack USA during the Iraq/Iran war? Does that mean that Soviet should have gotten those nukes to Cuba so Cuba could have nuked USA? How many times haven't your beloved USA supplied militas with weapons and training?

[Bernadotte 0]

I mean, seriously, "Made in Tula, Russia.

Supplying a country as a whole is not the same as supplying a terrorist militia with personel, rockets...

You do realise that making is not the same as supplying, don't you?  

[Nemesis6 0]

the one that is famous for the massacre at Shabra/Shattila, wasnt Ariel Sharon directly part of that operation as well?

Nope, and he was cleared of responsibility for it. He is however blamed for not anticipating that something like that could happen and not taking steps to prevent it from happening.

[turms 0]

Nope, Shraon was held personally responsible.

quote from the Kahan comission:

Quote[/b] ] We have found, as has been detailed in this report, that the Minister of Defense [Ariel Sharon] bears personal responsibility. In our opinion, it is fitting that the Minister of Defense draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office - and if necessary, that the Prime Minister consider whether he should exercise his authority under Section 21-A(a) of the Basic Law: the Government, according to which "the Prime Minister may, after informing the Cabinet of his intention to do so, remove a minister from office."

Get your "facts" straight. Report

[theavonlady 2]

Nope, Shraon was held personally responsible.

quote from the Kahan comission:

Quote[/b] ]    We have found, as has been detailed in this report, that the Minister of Defense [Ariel Sharon] bears personal responsibility. In our opinion, it is fitting that the Minister of Defense draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office - and if necessary, that the Prime Minister consider whether he should exercise his authority under Section 21-A(a) of the Basic Law: the Government, according to which "the Prime Minister may, after informing the Cabinet of his intention to do so, remove a minister from office."

Get your "facts" straight. Report

Pete's original claim was:

Quote[/b] ]the one that is famous for the massacre at Shabra/Shattila, wasnt Ariel Sharon directly part of that operation as well?

If YOU would read the report, you would see that Nemesis answered Pete correctly:

Quote[/b] ]It is our view that responsibility is to be imputed to the Minister of Defense for having disregarded the danger of acts of vengeance and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population of the refugee camps, and having failed to take this danger into account when he decided to have the Phalangists enter the camps. In addition, responsibility is to be imputed to the Minister of Defense for not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the danger of massacre as a condition for the Phalangists' entry into the camps. These blunders constitute the non-fulfillment of a duty with which the Defense Minister was charged.

We do not believe that responsibility is to be imputed to the Defense Minister for not ordering the removal of the Phalangists from the camps when the first reports reached him about the acts of killing being committed there. As was detailed above, such reports initially reached the Defense Minister on Friday evening; but at the same time, he had heard from the Chief of Staff that the Phalangists' operation had been halted, that they had been ordered to leave the camps and that their departure would be effected by 5:00 a.m. Saturday. These preventive steps might well have seemed sufficient to the Defense Minister at that time, and it was not his duty to order additional steps to be taken, or to have the departure time moved up, a step which was of doubtful feasibility.

Ariel Sharon was neither personally nor certainly not "part of the operation" of the massacre, as Pete incorrectly claimed.

Get your facts straight.

[turms 0]

Oh so he wasnt directly involved in the operation? Why did he get sacked then? Was it just random?

Nemesis said

Quote[/b] ]he was cleared of responsibility for it

, which he was obviosly not, otherwise the report wouldnt say this:

Quote[/b] ]We have found, as has been detailed in this report, that the Minister of Defense bears personal responsibility. In our opinion, it is fitting that the Minister of Defense draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office - and if necessary, that the Prime Minister consider whether he should exercise his authority under Section 21-A(a) of the Basic Law: the Government, according to which "the Prime Minister may, after informing the Cabinet of his intention to do so, remove a minister from office."

[mp_phonix 0]

Oh so he wasnt directly involved in the operation? Why did he get sacked then? Was it just random?

You talking about sharon ? he didn't get sacked, he got Coma, fell asleep and never woke up

[turms 0]

Oh so he wasnt directly involved in the operation? Why did he get sacked then? Was it just random?

You talking about sharon ? he didn't get sacked, he got Coma, fell asleep and never woke up

if you cant follow the conversation, its better not to comment.

[theavonlady 2]

Oh so he wasnt directly involved in the operation? Why did he get sacked then? Was it just random?

No. He was indirectly responsible. Read your own quote.

Quote[/b] ]

Nemesis said

Quote[/b] ]he was cleared of responsibility for it

, which he was obviosly not, otherwise the report wouldnt say this:

Quote[/b] ]We have found, as has been detailed in this report, that the Minister of Defense bears personal responsibility. In our opinion, it is fitting that the Minister of Defense draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office - and if necessary, that the Prime Minister consider whether he should exercise his authority under Section 21-A(a) of the Basic Law: the Government, according to which "the Prime Minister may, after informing the Cabinet of his intention to do so, remove a minister from office."

Again, Nemisis was replying to Pete, who associated Sharon with knowledgeable complicity in the massacre. Indeed, Nemisis is again correct that Sharon was cleared of any direct responsibility for the massacre.

[*Pete* 0]

doesnt matter, and it was not my point though....i wanted to say that Israel WAS supplying a militia group in a foreign country with military assistance, in the form of weapons, inteligence and "indirect" control.

it is funny, but there is nothing unusual about this...big countries make there own rules, just the same as big people (with political, economical or muscular strenght) make there own rules.

[Bernadotte 0]

Nemisis was replying to Pete, who associated Sharon with knowledgeable complicity in the massacre.

Oh really?  I think you'll find that Pete asked about Ariel Sharon having direct part in the operation, not massacre.  Please read it again:

Israel was supplying a lebanese faction with weapons and military assistance during the lebanese civil war....  the one that is famous for the massacre at Shabra/Shattila, wasnt Ariel Sharon directly part of that operation as well?

And according to a document from the office of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, cited in the report of the Kahan Commission:

Quote[/b] ]Only one element, and that is the I.D.F., shall command the forces in the area. For the operation in the camps the Phalangists should be sent in.

How much more directly can a Minister of Defense be part of an operation?

[theavonlady 2]

Nemisis was replying to Pete, who associated Sharon with knowledgeable complicity in the massacre.

Oh really?  I think you'll find that Pete asked about Ariel Sharon having direct part in the operation, not massacre.  Please read it again:

Israel was supplying a lebanese faction with weapons and military assistance during the lebanese civil war....  the one that is famous for the massacre at Shabra/Shattila, wasnt Ariel Sharon directly part of that operation as well?

And according to a document from the office of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, cited in the report of the Kahan Commission:

Quote[/b] ]Only one element, and that is the I.D.F., shall command the forces in the area. For the operation in the camps the Phalangists should be sent in.

How much more directly can a Minister of Defense be part of an operation?

You are correct. I read the quoted text Nemesis listed from Pete at the top of this page, which made the incomplete statement out of context, seeming to refer to the massacre as the operation.

Is everybody happy?!

[*Pete* 0]

You are correct. I read the quoted text Nemesis listed from Pete at the top of this page, which made the incomplete statement out of context, seeming to refer to the massacre as the operation.

Is everybody happy?!

everybody but me...all i wanted to do was to point out that it is nothing unusual to support a militia/querilla organisation in a foreign country.

i didnt want to drag Ariel Sharon into the discussion as the main theme.

what i wanted to say was pretty much like this.

Iran/Syria supports/supported Hezbollah.

China supported the Vietcong and the NVA.

The allies during WW2 supported the partisans in France, Italy, Balkans...

Israel supported the Phalangists.

USA supported the Mujahedeen (afganistan) and the even more infamous Contras (Nicaraqua),

and most recently, the Shia uprising in Iraq after GW1.

the list is long...

it is, for me, difficult to justify support for many of those above mentioned.

and some of those that are easy to justify, as the french resistance, are on the same terms as for example the support for Hezbollah...resistance against an occupation.

even if i personally feel uncomfortable about supporting a group as Hezbollah, i do understand why they do get such support.

historically, very very few have gotten what is rightly theirs, without a fight and/or making the enemy pay (with blood) for the taken territories.

[b_ringer25 0]

even if i personally feel uncomfortable about supporting a group as Hezbollah, i do understand why they do get such support.

I would support them too if I lived in a 4th world house and they provide a hospital, construction, schools, and give me money (counterfeit USA dollars).

[*Pete* 0]

even if i personally feel uncomfortable about supporting a group as Hezbollah, i do understand why they do get such support.

I would support them too if I lived in a 4th world house and they provide a hospital, construction, schools, and give me money (counterfeit USA dollars).

yes, exactly.

the main strenght of Hezbollah (and hamas) is to take care of the poor and the weak and to have a organisation that is not corrupted.

also seeing how well they "defended" lebanon in the latest war will give them even more support, atleast among those who will get the houses repaired by the Hezbollah.

what i meant by me not being very willing to support them, is that i am an european, a part of the "western people", and therefore a possible future enemy of that group if they become more radical/fanatical.

id feel much better if it was the lebanese army that got such weapons and support as hezbollah gets, it would help solving many problems, instead of creating new ones....in the political arena Lebanon would be stronger against Israel in negotiations about occupied areas and the prisoners.

also it would be strong enough to not need/to remove Hezbollah from within the nation.

...a nation just feels safer and more responsible, than a militia.

[Donnervogel 0]

Hesbollah is not only "a militia" it is a relatively strong shia political party in Lebanon and as such also participates in the government of Lebanon. IIRC they have two ministers in the cabinet.

Maybe you also forgot that most of the strong parties in Lebanon emerged from the civil war where they all had their armies/militias. So the other parties have the same background as hesbollah with the very important difference that they disarmed their forces and now are only political parties.

Hesbollah on the other hand, favoured by Syria (which basicly controled the Lebanese politics for a long time), was supported in remaining armed and building something like a country inside a country in souther Lebanon.

Anyway. It is unrealistic that you could destroy/eradicate/disolve Hesbollah. Any realistic plan for Lebanon aims to put the Hesbollah to the same terms as the other parties in Lebanon. Disarm them and make the political organisations only.

[*Pete* 0]

i understand that there has been talk about integrating Hizbollah into the lebanese military, the idea is to get full use of its weaponry, tactics and military experience and the same time to have it under goverment controll as a part of the national army.

i dont know how it is to be practically achieved, but it sounds good.

[.kju 3244]

At least for some this might be a nice documentary to shed a bit of light on the whole issue.

Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land

Quote[/b] ]Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land provides a striking comparison of U.S. and international media coverage of the crisis in the Middle East, zeroing in on how structural distortions in U.S. coverage have reinforced false perceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This pivotal documentary exposes how the foreign policy interests of American political elites--oil, and a need to have a secure military base in the region, among others--work in combination with Israeli public relations strategies to exercise a powerful influence over how news from the region is reported.

Through the voices of scholars, media critics, peace activists, religious figures, and Middle East experts, Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land carefully analyzes and explains how--through the use of language, framing and context--the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza remains hidden in the news media, and Israeli colonization of the occupied terrorities appears to be a defensive move rather than an offensive one. The documentary also explores the ways that U.S. journalists, for reasons ranging from intimidation to a lack of thorough investigation, have become complicit in carrying out Israel's PR campaign. At its core, the documentary raises questions about the ethics and role of journalism, and the relationship between media and politics.

To be found in p2p networks..

[Rg 0]

I watched that when someone posted it a while back. I think it was deanosbeano?

Anyway, very good documentary.

http://video.google.com/videopl....d&hl=en

[walker 0]

Hi all

A point of information.

The Video is available on google video.

http://video.google.co.uk/videopl....Land%22

As well as Peer to Peer. I have not checked but there is probably a Youtube of it too.

Kind Regards walker

[Baff2 0]

Hesbollah is not only "a militia" it is a relatively strong shia political party in Lebanon and as such also participates in the government of Lebanon. IIRC they have two ministers in the cabinet.

Maybe you also forgot that most of the strong parties in Lebanon emerged from the civil war where they all had their armies/militias. So the other parties have the same background as hesbollah with the very important difference that they disarmed their forces and now are only political parties.

Hesbollah on the other hand, favoured by Syria (which basicly controled the Lebanese politics for a long time), was supported in remaining armed and building something like a country inside a country in souther Lebanon.

Anyway. It is unrealistic that you could destroy/eradicate/disolve Hesbollah. Any realistic plan for Lebanon aims to put the Hesbollah to the same terms as the other parties in Lebanon. Disarm them and make the political organisations only.

I don't think they disarmed them at all. The Lebanese Army is presumably another of these militia's. Not so much disarmed as officially sanctioned and supported.

A third military faction might have been the recently removed Syrian Army. Creating a power vacuum perhaps.

[Nemesis6 0]

Better video - http://video.google.com/videopl....session

Obsession - Radical Islam's War Against the West

By the way: The Lebanese Army is weaker than HizbAllah, and it's in no shape to do anything. And of course HizbAllah hasn't been disarmed. No-one has said they wanted to do that. Not even the Useless Nerds.