Mid east

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 14 2002,15:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That was military/political expansion, not religious. For example when the Turks took the southern Balkans, the locals had a choice of converting, they were not forced. Of course the ones that did got tax reliefs and other nice things... so after a couple of hundred years of occupation, even the most stubborn converted.

If you look at European occupations from that time, you will see that we weren't that nice.<span id='postcolor'>

I love multiple choice tests!

[theavonlady 2]

And everyone lived happily ever after?

Anyone get killed in this little "expansion"? What was it's goal?

I wish my oldest boy was this good at playing Risk!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 14 2002,15<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyone get killed in this little "expansion"? What was it's goal?<span id='postcolor'>

Economic desires, Lebensraum, what else? The same as with any expansionistic war.

War has actually seldom to do anything but with that. Even our crusades were just a way of dealing with too many poor noblemen in Europe.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 14 2002,16:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 14 2002,15<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyone get killed in this little "expansion"? What was it's goal?<span id='postcolor'>

Economic desires, Lebensraum, what else? The same as with any expansionistic war.<span id='postcolor'>

Conversion, perhaps, of the infidel world to Islam?

[Guest]

Eh, as I said again.. no. I don't know about the expansions in Africa, but in Europe they didn't force the locals to be converted. They didn't burn down the Christian churches and they let people keep their religions. As an interesting side-effect several very old alternative christian movements/sects survived in Bosnia, while they were wiped out by the Vatican in the rest of Europe.

Edit: For instance the Albigensean (Paulician/Cathar) movement survived several hundred years longer in Bosnia then in France and Italy.

So again, no. Islam is per se not a intolerant religion. Religion has however always been used and abused as means of power. Why do current fundamentalist call everything 'jihad' - holy war, then? The answer is simple. The Koran explicitly forbids any form of war except for wars regarding faith (remember - the arabs were merchants - war is bad for business - simply common sense).

How this is interpreted is however another question.

Edit2: Found an interesting site dealing with the interpretation of what 'jihad' means - if it's defense or agression and so on:

http://www.al-islam.org/short/jihad/

[Bleh 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 12 2002,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and Bleh, I am not to sure if your Avatar from Private Ryan is correct. I know for sure that during the Stalingrad offensive, the germans did not have such thing as trained snipers. But anyway what about RYAN was correct?<span id='postcolor'>

I just use the avatar cos it looks pretty cool

While i've missed as lot of conversation again, i'll just say -

Eventually we (westerners) will get a better relationship with russia and eastern european countries, who given their financial crisis' are desperate to sell oil to us, and russia would probably ditch all their agreements with opec (who are just trying to raise prices and restrict supply to us to do so) to become a major oil supplier for us.

That means if we can develop the russian oil industry we gain a better source of oil - reduced distribution costs (closer to home), no opec cunts (unless they start their own evil organisation), and no tension and agression whenever an american pack of crisps moves into the middle east. Plus no getting dragged into wars (which middle eastern country would invade russia?) and the possibility of other resources (timber, minerals whatever - that the russians have plenty of) becoming cheaply available.

Financially eastern europeans could help us more than the arabs, which no dicking around.

Then, as isreal continues to (Justifiabley) wipes out palestinians, support will drop, the world will become tired of the whole thing and concentrate on something more important such as India/Pakistan - focus shifts from middle east - they're eventually forgotten - except if we invade them for being terrorists, and we have a better source of resources in eastern europe and better relations with a country who economically, can offer us a lot more than than any middle eastern country.

This is how i see it anyway, relations with russia and eastern europe generally can help western civilisation so much more than the middle east, you can look at this as econimically more businesses moving into russia - improving standard of living - more development of tourist industry - etc... or you can look at collaboration between russian and NATO military industrys, electronics industries and then the whole development of russian primary industry.

This means that we'll be helping russia and eastern europe, in the improving the quality of life of our fellow humans, more than we are helping isreal by just giving them shedloads of ordnance.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Denoir, you are judging religions like cars! You cannot approach it with a simple generalisation like that. Dont forget that chrisitianity surivived/prospered in countries with a high intellectual/educational potential. Those were countries that changed constantly and constanlty underwent a culutural evolution. Being a religion based in the most powerful countries of the world gives you incredible power and offers you to put into practice / force your most cruel ideologies. I wonder what would have happened if Gutenberg would have lived in the Arab world and the Muslim nations would have progressed faster than Europe. But I suppose they would have left the same bloody steps in history like christianity did! The inquisition definetly is a perverted piece of the christian history, but 1500 years of 'people getting stoned' (I dont mean drugs ) for having broken the most inhumane rules (e.g women get stoned for being raped) is nothing better. Less known, less dicussed but not less important.

The colonisation of the world by western countries again gave the christian religion another tool to force other cultures to adopt its ideologies, again a reason to accuse the religion. But I repeat, I wonder what other religions would have done with it.

BTW my city was the capital of the New Roman empire, the first christian empire in Europe that was bigger than that of the actual Romans. The incredible powerful King was called Kaiser Karl (something like King Carl or Corl). He was the first one with the so called Scaras which nowadays you call Knights! This guy was cruel as well, but not more cruell than any religious leader of his times!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 14 2002,19:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, you are judging religions like cars! You cannot approach it with a simple generalisation like that.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not judging. My statement was only that a religious look at the mid-east crisis made no sense. That all the 'jihad' business i just a political ploy, and didn't reflect the teachings of Islam. To illustrate that I said that christianity is actually the most expansive of the three book-religions. And that is true. Neither Islam nor Judaisam has the ambition of converting non-believers. Christianity has it as a core concept with the evangelium (gospel in english?) and the use of missionaries.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dont forget that chrisitianity surivived/prospered in countries with a high intellectual/educational potential. Those were countries that changed constantly and constanlty underwent a culutural evolution. Being a religion based in the most powerful countries of the world gives you incredible power and offers you to put into practice / force your most cruel ideologies.<span id='postcolor'>

I think you are confusing cause and effect.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Sorry, I dont get what you mean with 'cofusing cause and effect'!   My english sucks

I think that the cause: 'christianity practiced in most powerful cultures' lead to effect 'having the most powerful resources to convert and surpress others'!

However, I dont see any remark in the bible that sais that, besides praising the message of Jesus, sais you need to convert others. (But I dont realy know the bible anyway). Again like in the Muslim religion we have the problem with misinterpretations (I guess). One thing about christianity that I like it its ability to evolve. Its rules have changed and adapted to changing world pictures and practicability.

Okay, some very weird communities in this world have a strange way of dealing with a changing world, and in the US you find many people (e.g. around the state of Missisippi) that to me appear more fundamentalist than some of the palestinians, but that does not say anything about the religion.  

Unlike in the Middle East for example were the Jews in Europe not exactly disliked for their religion, but for their minority status. In the middle ages Jews were not allowed to have ordinary jobs (or noone would have bought from them) so they had to survive by making business with basically nothing, lending money for interest. Of course whenever anyone had a problem to return money, he could simply accuse all jews of being devil-like, they would have thrown them out of the village and wouldnt have to pay back a penny. Not better than hating someone for his religion.

But back to the topic! I think that Israel has been wondering around the world for generations and generations without having its own home. And they were treated badly wherever they appeared. And what could they have done against it, they were always a minority? So apart from the question of who is to blame for this conflict and how to solve it, they should understand how it is for nation to grow up without homeland and to be treated as minor-quality human (I am refering to palestinians). Most of the Israeli have lost all of the sensitivity which they have won throughout centuries of own bad experiences. I think the palestinians feel being kicked around like a football, just like european jews once did. Wherever palestinians live in the Arab worl they are always treated like poor second class people. Where can they go!

Anyway, there must be a fast solution for this conflict. I am fed up of seeing  on TV young faces of 16 year old girls that want to blow up themselves for the 'palestinian thing' and the mothers sitting next to them and smiling proudly! This is so perverted!

[ACEJim 0]

I'm not going to argue any more... but I will say this...

Avon if the israelis and the Palestinians don't stop hating each other your grandchildren will be still be getting killed in petty tit for tat violence.

You can laugh at us "stupid anti semite" europeans but we won't be the ones getting killed walking down the street...

Tanks won't stop the hate.. they'll do the opposite...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Dont talk about the europeans in general! WILL YA! Avon lives there, she has to face the cruelties on a daily basis. Something you can never imagine. I say this so biased because I dont wany anybody to judge germans in that way: from a distance!! We need SOLUTIONS and we need to understand the issue from a distance! For a european that should be the primary objective right now! I thank Avon for her comments, even if she only describes it from her point of view (and she never said that her comments reflect the total truth). Only by discussing you can get an impression of the issue. I wish people would discuss more instead of binding dynamite-belts around their waist and killing innocent children that just learned to spell their name. Please dont stop posting Avon, people are reading your comments and acknokledge you lonely fight in this forum!

Please continue the discussion, dont let an important thread like this die, cause wherever discussion stops you see arms doing the rest! (didnt want to sound like papa pope, but I did! )

[Longinius 1]

"Then, as isreal continues to (Justifiabley) wipes out palestinians, support will drop, the world will become tired of the whole thing and concentrate on something more important such as India/Pakistan - focus shifts from middle east - they're eventually forgotten - except if we invade them for being terrorists, and we have a better source of resources in eastern europe and better relations with a country who economically, can offer us a lot more than than any middle eastern country."

Hmm, did you just justify genocide? How the HELL can it be right for the Jews to kill all Palestinians but it wasnt right for Hitler to kill all the Jews? You see, not all Palestinians carry bombs. Not all Palestinians want to kill Israelis. But with the recent conflict, I am sure the numbers that DO have increased quite a lot.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 12 2002,15:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now the Gulf War is not the best example! Air superiority however does NOT change the situation in a great way as you know from the Gulf war or the ethnical conflict in Jugoslawia. Ground superiority is what counts! The Iraq as well as Jugoslawia were bombed back to stone-age but the deciding battles were fought by tanks (or in the case of Jugoslawia by mechanised infantry! But this could still be discussed.

But what could not be discussed, (from a German perspective) is the risk you take when opening a war-front to the South the North and the East at the same time. Technology is not the determining facotr then. Without a Blitzkrieg a situation like this cannot be solved. Since an offensive war (e.g Blitzkrieg) is out of question for Israel I wonder what would happen. But this is going to far<span id='postcolor'>

Air superiority is everything when two conventional force armies are facing off. Planes are just excellent for taking out large armored formations. And by taking out I don't mean blow up every tank, but destroy the means and will to fight. An armored column without fuel, ammo and tank crews is useless. That's what the yanks did to the Iraqis in Gulf War and that's what the Israelis will do to the arab armies if they threaten Israel.

This brings me to an another point. If such an escalation was to happen, the Israelis would not necessarily wait for an attack by the arabs. There is a saying: "An attack is the best defence."

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 12 2002,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But anyway what about RYAN was correct?<span id='postcolor'>

I'd say nothing in Saving Private Ryan was correct.

[Longinius 1]

"This brings me to an another point. If such an escalation was to happen, the Israelis would not necessarily wait for an attack by the arabs. There is a saying: "An attack is the best defence.""

Yeah, just like they did during the 6 day war. They took out the entire Egypt airforce while still on the ground. Brilliant move.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ April 15 2002,08:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 12 2002,15:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now the Gulf War is not the best example! Air superiority however does NOT change the situation in a great way as you know from the Gulf war or the ethnical conflict in Jugoslawia. Ground superiority is what counts! The Iraq as well as Jugoslawia were bombed back to stone-age but the deciding battles were fought by tanks (or in the case of Jugoslawia by mechanised infantry! But this could still be discussed.

But what could not be discussed, (from a German perspective) is the risk you take when opening a war-front to the South the North and the East at the same time. Technology is not the determining facotr then. Without a Blitzkrieg a situation like this cannot be solved. Since an offensive war (e.g Blitzkrieg) is out of question for Israel I wonder what would happen. But this is going to far<span id='postcolor'>

Air superiority is everything when two conventional force armies are facing off. Planes are just excellent for taking out large armored formations. And by taking out I don't mean blow up every tank, but destroy the means and will to fight. An armored column without fuel, ammo and tank crews is useless. That's what the yanks did to the Iraqis in Gulf War and that's what the Israelis will do to the arab armies if they threaten Israel.

This brings me to an another point. If such an escalation was to happen, the Israelis would not necessarily wait for an attack by the arabs. There is a saying: "An attack is the best defence."<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with Longinius that this was a brilliant move, but do you think this could be repeated? I have slight doubts! Especially since the Israeli air-force (in terms of numbers) does not quite have the capacity for such a Blitzkrieg. They definetly have the potential to undertake a few "surprising visits' at neighbours bases, but if you look at the surface this airforce would have to cover, protect and defend... a pretty hard task! Anyway, the war has changed! I think the Arab countries would not directly go into that, a financial support of the Hamas would be a better strategy to persue! Dont you think so too? In this case Israel would not have official justifications to attack neighbouring countries, I dont realy think that the Israeli would support another war too! Furthermore is Israel a pretty 'easy' target. A great part of the population (tell me if I am wrong' is concentrated around cities, the whole country is very intensively developed. It is in fact easy to hurt (lets not talk about B-weapons here) this nation by targeting civillians, symbolic locations, maybe even supply-channels!

[Oligo 1]

I doubt Israel is in any real existential danger anymore, because IDF is really strong today. A few suicide bombings of civilians do not bring down a nation. Here is something from Time magazine, in my opinion it is quite a sound analysis of the military situation:

How would it begin? In one grim scenario, it would start with Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, who is in the most exposed position of all. His controlled media have long been replete with fervent anti-Israeli propaganda in a deliberate attempt to deflect attention from corruption and mismanagement at home. Endless television replays of the most brutal scenes of the Israeli occupation have hammered home the message that Egypt's most urgent concern is the plight of the Palestinians. At the same time, what is still a military-based regime justifies large expenditures on the armed forces amid extreme poverty by boasting of their strength. Mubarak therefore risks becoming the prisoner of his own propaganda: If Palestine is all-important and Egypt that strong, why not use its strength against the Israelis? The least dangerous Egyptian move would be disastrous in its consequences. Violating Anwar Sadat's peace treaty, cutting itself off from vital U.S. aid, the Egyptian army could send part of its vast forces--say, the four tank divisions and eight mechanized divisions with 1,600 battle tanks, including first-line U.S. M1A1s--into the Sinai peninsula to threaten the Israeli frontier. Compelling the Israelis to mobilize their own army, which would very likely freeze any further action against the Palestinians, would make sense as a piece of military gamesmanship. But strategically it would be catastrophic, because if the Egyptians acted, Syria's young and insecure President Bashar Assad would most likely feel compelled to compete with them by sending his own armored forces--seven divisions with 2,000 tanks--to threaten the Golan frontier. And then even King Abdullah of Jordan, who greatly values his peace treaty with Israel, might come under irresistible pressure from his Palestinian subjects to send his two armored and two mechanized divisions, equipped with some 700 tanks, opposite the Jordanian frontier.

None of this need be done with any intention of actually fighting to provoke a war nonetheless. Other Arab governments could be propelled by a mounting spiral of popular enthusiasm to send their own forces to reinforce the frontline states. That would cue Saddam Hussein to demand his opportunity to send armored forces to threaten Israel by marching through Jordan or Syria or both. The King of Jordan would dread such contaminating assistance in his territory, and Assad of Syria too would fear it, but if the rhetorical escalation of the leaders and popular agitation heat up the climate, it might become impossible to deny passage to Iraqi forces in part because they might bring with them the chemical or even biological weapons that evoke the special enthusiasm of Hamas and other fundamentalists. Finally, there is the Hizballah militia in southern Lebanon, already deployed close to Israel's northern frontier with hundreds of bombardment rockets ready to strike as far away as the port city of Haifa.

Competing mobilizations amid mounting waves of popular enthusiasm would be a direct replay of what happened in 1967, which back then triggered humiliating Arab military defeats and the Israeli occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights, which still endures. For that very reason the scenario might seem exceedingly improbable. As the frequent references to 7th century events in political speeches show, Arabs have excellent historical memories. Even those born after 1967 know the story very well. Certainly each government has powerful reasons to refrain from anything more than diplomatic protests even if Arafat is killed. Egypt would lose the U.S. aid that pays for the very weapons it would deploy ($2 billion a year) and for much of its daily bread. Jordan is likewise dependent, Syria's equipment is too outdated to risk war, and even Saddam Hussein can hardly threaten Israel with ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction whose existence he strenuously denies.

But madness is rare only among individuals. It is quite common in entire nations. The Israelis themselves might reasonably be said to be mad to think they can have a tranquil occupation of Palestinian areas--actually they are merely split down the middle between those who have long wanted to withdraw and those who think land is more important than peace. As for the Arab leaders, what might cause them to behave irrationally is their lack of legitimacy--nobody elected them, very few of their subjects respect their competence, and lately many are seen as the slavish stooges of the U.S.

If the Arab-buildup scenario came to pass, the Israelis would be forced to mobilize some 425,000 reservists to staff their armed forces, a large part of their entire able-bodied population. Because it would paralyze their economy and indeed society as a whole, mobilization cannot last much more than a few weeks at most. Unless diplomatic pressure induces the Arab forces to withdraw again, the Israelis would attack to force them into flight or destroy them, as in 1967.

But for the Israelis such a war would not be a repeat of 1967. Since then, the military balance has moved greatly in favor of Israel. Almost useless in stopping suicide bombers, downright clumsy in facing stone-throwing teenagers, the Israeli armed forces are much better at doing what they are trained and equipped to do: smash regular forces with superior firepower and skill. With some 400 first-line strike aircraft and a large inventory of guided weapons (Israel is a major producer and exporter), they have a combination of weapon loads and accuracy that would be devastating to Arab ground forces. If Arab air forces were to intervene to protect them, it is believed that the Israelis would shoot down at least 30 aircraft for each loss of their own (in 1982 they scored 80-0 against the Syrians). The Israeli army's 11 armored divisions would be outnumbered, but Israeli armored columns are trained to move significantly faster than their enemies, to outmaneuver them if the terrain allows, while their gunnery--100% the product of female instructors--is thought to be far superior.

The Israelis would have no surefire way of stopping the Hizballah from launching its huge inventory of Iranian-supplied bombardment rockets at the villages and cities of northern Israel. Although grossly inaccurate, they would still inflict damage. Syria also has hundreds of bombardment rockets, some with chemical warheads, but unlike the Hizballah guerrillas, it must fear Israeli retaliation. No Arab air force is likely to be much of a threat to Israeli cities, while if Saddam Hussein chooses to blow his cover by launching the handful of ballistic missiles he has kept hidden all these years, they are unlikely to do much damage. In 1991 the 50 Scud missiles fired into Israel frightened many but killed nobody. Even if Iraqi missiles have nerve gas or anthrax warheads, they are unlikely to kill more than a few. The theoretical potency of agents like VX--one tiny drop kills--or anthrax is defeated by the mechanics of distribution and dilution. A missile warhead would have to open up to release its cargo on top of a crowd to kill many, and that is a far more advanced capability than Saddam Hussein could possibly have.

But, of course, even a splendid victory would be disastrous for Israel, because at great expense in wealth and blood, it would gain nothing in the aftermath that it did not have before the current crisis: safety from invasion. And any outcome at all would be disastrous for Western and especially American interests. Nobody can even bear to contemplate an utterly improbable Israeli defeat. But if Arab leaders are humiliatingly defeated, the most likely outcome of a war, the fundamentalists would have their first real chance of coming to power. Arafat's ineffectual strategy and utter recklessness have thus caused a crisis that induces all, even the Israelis, to wish him a long life, for his death might precipitate the most damaging of wars.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ April 15 2002,15:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Arafat's ineffectual strategy and utter recklessness have thus caused a crisis that induces all, even the Israelis, to wish him a long life, for his death might precipitate the most damaging of wars<span id='postcolor'>

Why did you put it all into Italic? Was tough to read!

I dont realy like the comment, even though it might be from a well reputed magazine such as TIME. I dont like when journalists play through a whole war-scenario, how wrong can it go? There are too many factors in the equation that just can go wrong! Furthermore I think you cannot calculate war by saying: okay we got 1000 tanks on the left side and 500 on the right side, but the right side can kick 3 before it gets kicked, so the right side wins! That is a silly estimation. Furthermore I think it is a total missuse to estimate the presence and possible impact of Anthrax (I think he/she slightly downplays its power.) One of the reasons is that war-material doesnt queue up to fight one against one. In WWII the russians often send thousands of soldiers just to 'entertain' the germans while attacking elsewhere. The same could be done with Israels airforce too. Even if you can kill 8 for 1 I dont think this works logistically, you cant kill all at the same time and while your few planes are busy searching for the enemy he can do harm elsewhere. My thesis therefore is: Israel could face a war with one country, but would not be capable to face the Arab world on a multi-country front, especially not if seen in the long term! I agree though that the arab armies are a bunch of .....XXX.....; Big numbers but small reality!

I ve read a similar one (from a very unknown source though)

War-scenario

[advocatexxx 0]

I have been watching this forum for a while now. I find it to be of high interest seeing how there have been 72 pages written on this topic (72 - at the time of this writing).

Constant arguments, display of facts and myths (then again, who's to say they're really facts or myths).

As pathetic as this may seem, I value the Vulcan race. Sure, it may only be a fictitious alien species on Star Trek, but their methodology of pure logic without any emotion is very intriguing indeed.

Feelings such as hate, aggresiveness and such and such were no doubt inherited from our time as animals (spare me the religious dogma of Adam and Eve).

Things can be worked out if only each side puts their hatred aside.

That of course, is a contraversy by itself. Many people living in that region lack literacy, proper education (as well as proper manners). Their hatred for one another is all they have left.

Ultimately I have no comment, as I don't intend to get caught in this neverending debate which, in the end will be inconclusive.

Speak on my friends, add another 72 pages of discussion to this thread, for in the end you will see that it's the same reason why peace in the Middle East is such a dilemma.

This I'll go have a beer now.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

cheers!

[KingBeast 0]

Hmm well latest thing o nthe news right now is all about the "Jenin Massacre" or the apparent massacre of civilians in the refugee camp.

Apparently the red cross had a list of all of the people living in Jenin, so it will be interesting to see if there really was a massacre here or if its all over reaction.

Very interesting that Israel are refusing to let anyone into Jenin and also that they are apparently not willing to give up the bodies to palestinian authorities? Im not sure about this last bit, maybe someone can correct me.

[KingBeast 0]

Blah buggy forum

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

what I heard is that Israeli authorities first want to check the figures themselves, so no falsification can be published from the other side. mmmmh? Why cant the RedCross do that, they are realy an independant source! Anyway, I am sure it is gonna take 3 months until the RedCross has compared their list of inhabitants with those that surivived. And untill then noone cares anymore!

I just wonder where all those pictures come from which are shown on CNN and BBC, are those done by amateurs?

Today I saw pictures of a journalist who ran away from 2 israeli jeeps and the soldiers inside constantly threw shock grenades at him. He had a hard time to decide whether he should keep the camera on his sholder or drop it and run like a rabbit! Well he kept the camera but still ran like a rabbit!

Anyway, the occupation as it seems right now will not fully end since the Army will remain (constantly) is some of the cities near the border!

[Longinius 1]

"Very interesting that Israel are refusing to let anyone into Jenin and also that they are apparently not willing to give up the bodies to palestinian authorities? Im not sure about this last bit, maybe someone can correct me."

The Red Cross has been let in on a couple of occasitions to bring out some of the dead, about 3 - 5 at a time. A couple of Red Cross people even managed to smuggle out a couple of wounded during such a run. Wounded people who would have died without proper care. They placed two of them in their car and put three bodies on top of them...or if it was three wounded and two dead. Cant quite remember.

I wouldnt want to be working for the Red Cross though since they are fired upon by the IDF now and then. Cant be very fun.

[theavonlady 2]

The IDF and the ICRC have been coordianting efforts and removing bodies for 2 days already.

Is this another forum bug?