top
Palestine
Palestine
Indybay
Indybay
Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Calendar
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: Afghanistan | Palestine | Anti-War
European poll calls Israel a big threat to world peace
by Thomas Fuller
Friday Oct 31st, 2003 8:51 AM
Almost 60 percent of Europeans say that Israel is a larger threat to world peace than North Korea, Iran or Afghanistan, according to a poll scheduled to be made public Monday by the European Commission.
The result from a survey of about 7,500 people across the European Union was confirmed Thursday by an official at the commission.

Although Europeans have been consistently critical of Israel in recent surveys, the poll appears to show a severe souring of attitudes toward the Jewish state.

Full details of the survey were not available Thursday but an official at the commission confirmed that Israel was rated first when pollsters presented a list of 15 countries and asked: "Tell me if in your opinion it presents or not a threat to peace in the world." Fifty-nine percent of Europeans chose Israel, according to the official at the commission, who said the data were still being processed and could change, but only by "a matter of decimals." The poll was limited to Europe so there is no way to directly compare the results to U.S. attitudes. Americans tend to be sympathetic toward Israel in surveys.

El Pais, the Spanish daily newspaper, said in an article Thursday that the Dutch, Austrians and Luxembourgers were most likely to see Israel as a "threat in the world" whereas the French were less likely. The full results, with breakdowns from each country, will be included in the report Monday.

El Pais said that the survey - which included many questions about Iraq and the U.S. presence there - was due out earlier but that the European Commission waited until after the Iraq donors' conference in Madrid finished last week and then released only partial results on Monday.

Five of the questions, including the one about which countries were seen as a threat, were held back and will be released Monday.

A spokesman for the commission, Gerassimos Thomas, said the delay was due to "technical" reasons. He refused to comment on the substance of the survey or whether it represented the commission's views.

"This is nothing more than providing a service," he said of the survey, which is known as the Eurobarometer.

The commission regularly makes opinion polls public but this was the first time that the question about threatening countries was included.

The survey was coordinated by the commission but carried out by a contractor in October.

The same number of people - about 500 - were polled in each of the EU's 15 countries, giving much more weight to the views of people in small countries like Belgium, Luxembourg and Ireland.

In the parts of the survey made public Monday, 80 percent said they wanted Europe to be more involved in the Middle East peace process.

Some 58 percent of those polled said the United Nations should manage the reconstruction of Iraq, compared with 44 percent who said the Iraqi provisional government should and 18 percent who said it was a job for the United States.

But 65 percent said they thought the United States should pay for the rebuilding of Iraq.

A majority of Europeans surveyed (54 percent) said they were not favorable to sending European peacekeepers to Iraq. And more than two-thirds said that the war in Iraq was not justified.

In a survey conducted last year for the Pew Research Center for the People the Press and the International Herald Tribune, British, Italian, French and German respondents said they sympathized more with the Palestinians than Israelis.

By contrast, 41 percent of Americans said they sympathized with Israelis and only 13 percent with the Palestinians.



Copyright © 2003 The International Herald Tribune.
by Bob
Monday Nov 3rd, 2003 4:24 PM
Well, I cant imagine anyone is too suprised by this poll! Of course Israel is a threat to world peace. The sooner we (the USA) stops backing this govenment the better. The Terrorists who cowardly attacked us are frustrated & have no other way to fight us except with terrorisim. They cannot fight us in a conventional war cause they would lose quickly. I in no way condone or understand these terrorists. I do however in my opinion , is that we should seperate this backing of Israel . What is the difference in what they are doing to the Palestinian's & what Hitler did ? The only difference is about 50 years & the way Israel is doing it in a political fashion. The violence is still there. The US need's to stop backing Israel while continuing to fight terrorism. This poll is no suprise.......
by Abraham
Monday Nov 3rd, 2003 11:13 PM
US is ranked #32 in world news press freedom. Many of the European nations rank much higher. This could explain for the discrepancies in opinions among different nations.

http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=8247
Of course Israel IS a bigger threat to world peace than N. Korea or Iran. And I am in no way being anti-Semitic here - I'm just being realistic. Tell me, honestly, WHAT CAN KOREA OR IRAN POSSIBLY DO??? They're too weak and poor to threaten any country, including their neighbours. Israel, on the other hand, is heavily - and perhaps blindly and/or unjustly - backed by the US, thus having both the power and the "authority" (or should I say "immunity" ) to do practically anything. Anything, including the most horrific actions.

Also - Think for a moment: Maybe it is not the EU society that has a crooked view and discriminates Israel - maybe it is the US that has the blurred vision due to the powerful influences of the Jewish minority there? It is no mystery that Jews do have a privileged position in America - even the smallest piece of criticism against the Jews or Israel is very likely to be labelled as "anti-semitism" and usually immediately lashed out at. On the other hand, if someone criticises the people of France, Ireland, Greece, Slovenia, Poland or Germany, it all seems to be tolerable somehow. Now, is this fair??
by anti bullshit
Thursday Nov 6th, 2003 12:06 AM
Frankly, haven't you heard of all the military manuevers and parades that Iran and N. Korea have made? They constitue threats against democratic countries. Don't you know about the bitter enmity between the 2 Koreas? The Koreans have a formidable military. Why should it be a problem for thenm to threaten their neighbor to the south when so much of the country's finance is funneled to military expenses? When Iran goes nuclear it could supply the Hizballah with mini-nukes and/or radioactive "dirty" bombs to use against Israel and the US.
conversely, I don't see a democratic country, Israel, committing horrific actions even remotely near what you're implying. Israel doesn't pose a threat toward its neighbors, let alone other countries.
You haven't proven Israel acts on aggressive designs or commits aggression against other countries. You're not being realistic. You are being abysmally narrowminded.

What privileged position do Jews have in America? I'm afraid it's you who has a crooked and blurred view of reality. Think for at least several minutes - could it be that on the one hand most criticism against the Jews or Israel is indeed anti-semitism and/or unfair and/or not contextual and rightly lashed out at, but on the other, most criticism against other peoples and countries doesn't have the same bigoted and unfair standards applied to it?
by Angie
Thursday Nov 6th, 2003 3:41 AM
Watch out now, "Bull"! Here comes Hezballah with their Iranian supplied nukes ready to combat Israel with its US supplied nukes. Daft or what?

We know Israel is the only country in the middle east with its arsenal of nuclear warheads; hell, I was reading there tonight that they are now testing long-range missiles, but, of course, that could have been going on forever, and who would have known, eh?.

See: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/11/279945.html

Aggression? Excuse me? Bombing Syria several weeks ago was what? An invite to a friendly neighbourhood get together? Or we're bombing you because we love you, dear Syria?

Aggression? Ah, yes, let's not forget Lebanon, although I'm sure you and yours would dearly love to.

Note: If the above link doesn't work, check out UK Indymedia and an article entitled:

Serious Security Leak Reveals Israel is testing "long range missiles".
by anti bullshit
Thursday Nov 6th, 2003 5:32 AM
Answer: daft.

Angie evidently hasn't heard of the dangers of terrorists getting their hands on nukes or plutonium or uranium. For instance, there has been a widespread concern among experts and US diplomats alike that rogue elements could get their hands on nukes or such materials from the relatively poorly guarded nuclear facilities throughout the ex-USSR. Iran itself might have been able to bribe some Russian official or scientist had the Russians not been sufficiently determined to prevent such nightmares from coming about.

Angie: "yada Israel is the only country in the middle east with its arsenal of nuclear yada yada yada...".

- You've proven nothing, just stated some facts.

As to the 1982 war against the PLO, it was meant to deprive the PLO from being able to commit aggression against Israel, and this had been achieved; then the Hizballah increasingly filled in the void left by the PLO's departure and the IDF had to minimize that menace by not allowing them to get within reach of harming Israel, but Ehud Barak screwed that up with his hasty and poorly organized retreat, and now Hizballah is occasionally pounding Israel from the north. Israeli actions in Lebanon, as well as the aerial strike against the terrorist training facility which the Syrians shouldn't have permitted to exist to begin with, are not only self defense measures but are also in line with international law.

I don't understand, I thought you were content with my ignoring you, but now YOU start addressing me with your impulsive, poorly researched, let alone childish remarks?
Please save all this nonsense for JUJ and the your dear troll he's associated with.
by Angie
Thursday Nov 6th, 2003 9:45 AM
Oh, I've heard about the dangers of nuclear arms, "Bull". After all, I've watched and studied Dr. Gwynne Dyer's seven part series, "War", which tells us everything one needs to know about nuclear capabilities and were scared to ask.

In fact, the world should be nuclear weapons free. That is my firm belief. Get rid of them, everyone.

So who else in the Middle East possesses nuclear warheads? Has there been a proliferation of same whilst I slept?

The 1982 invasion of Lebanon, led, incidentally, by Ariel Sharon, was a blatant breach of international law, condemned by the world at large, and the civilian loss of life horrendous.

The 2003 air strike against Syria was an out of aggression, again condemned by the international community (excluding the US, of course).

We have no proof that, in fact, a "terrorist training facility" existed in Syria. We only have Israel's claim for that, and you'll understand, won't you, if I choose to be highly skeptical about this assertion?

I am perfectly content with you ignoring me, "bull", or not. I addressed you specifically here because you left a false impression above with our readers about a lack of aggression on the part of Israel when it's staring us in the face for decades.

>>>> "You have proven nothing, just stated some facts".
Well, stating facts was all I intended to do..

I agree that the Israeli departure from Lebanon was -- well, how can I be polite here? I do, however, feel that Barak's heart was in the right place; for a military man, however, a more orderly retreat would have been expected.

You place the blame for border activity in the north squarely on Hezbollah. There are those of us who beg to differ. I'd prefer to place the blame on both.

Your assessment that my above post was "impulsive, poorly researched, let alone childish remarks" is without merit.

There is nothing impulsive about it. There is nothing to research in what I mentioned. The reams of documentation is there for all who wants to read same. The only new item I mentioned was the testing of long range missiles by Israel, and I gave you a link for that assertion, which, if you are not happy with the facts contained therein, then take it up with Haaretz.

"Childish"? It may seem that way to you, sir, but because I use a somewhat entertaining line or two to get my point across as opposed to some venomous attack, is not "childish". It caught your attention, obviously, because here you are!

>>>> "Please save all this nonsense for JUJ and your dear troll he's associated with".

Come, come now 'Bull". I don't like sanctimonious, lad. When one is laughing, foolishly or otherwise, how can there be violence in the world?

In closing, I note you have cleaned up your act over the past few days. At the risk of having my head blown off, let me state I'm impressed.
by Scottie
Friday Nov 7th, 2003 2:03 PM
> In fact, the world should be nuclear weapons free. That is my firm belief. Get rid of them, everyone.

In a world where no one else has a nuclear weapon the man with one nuke is king. Disarming all of hte countries in the world of their declared nukes just makes it MUCH more valuable a commodity and makes it much moe likely that less scrupulous countries like nth korea will make those nukes anyway and keep them secretly in order to use them to threaten others when they are disarmed.

> So who else in the Middle East possesses nuclear warheads? Has there been a proliferation of same whilst I slept?

- Many of the middle east countries could develop nukes quite quickly if it was not for USA pressure on them. If the USA "butted out" as people seem to want then all the major countries would quickly acquire nukes.

> We have no proof that, in fact, a "terrorist training facility" existed in Syria.

- yes we do. the some of hte syrian officials actually admitted it. They said "the camp had been abandoned so nyah nyah nyah... " basically

>> if you are not happy with the facts contained therein, then take it up with Haaretz.

are there no other papers in israel? Somehow you (pl) always seem to use this one.
by Angie
Saturday Nov 8th, 2003 12:18 AM
If my belief that the world should be nuclear weapons free, how does that equate with your comment "the man with one nuke is king"? Where would this "one man" come from in a nuclear free world? I didn't say I want to see a nuclear free world except for one man. I said I wanted a nuclear free world with NO exceptions.

My question was who else in the Middle East has nuclear weapons? I didn't say anything about who "could". I'm talking NOW, as we speak, not tomorrow, or next year, or Sunday. Again, your comment is totally irrelevant.

The Syrian Government claimed the target was a "residential area". From what I've seen and read there is no evidence that the facility was an Islamic Jihad training facility. If you look at the photos released to television by the Israeli government in an attempt to justify the bombing, there is no indication in said pictures that the scene we're looking at is even in Syria, much less a "terrorist training facility". We only have Israel's word for that, and, as I said above, that's not good enough for me.

It was an act of aggression, a breach of international law (although, of course, Israel thinks it's beyond international law) and it was obviously sanctioned by GW Bush and his cronies, but, hey, you go ahead and languish in your little make believe world.

You have a problem with Haaretz? There's an article right here at SF Indymedia written by James Rodgers of BBC, but, of course, Haaretz is mentioned therein as well. As the source of the story, it's only natural that it be mentioned, is it not?
by Scottie
Saturday Nov 8th, 2003 1:29 AM
Because it is not all that hard to build a nuke. If you remove all of the nukes now only the worst people will build one straight away.
by James T. Kirk
Saturday Nov 8th, 2003 7:21 PM
Look at how Bush fights terror by being the biggest terror of all. It's the worst people who will do the most horrific thing. Can't be nuclear free until you ban the worst kind of people from being in power. Remove Bush and cronies. Ban them from business and politics, then get on w/ the nuke free movement.
by anti bullshit
Sunday Nov 9th, 2003 1:11 AM
Angie:
"The 1982 invasion of Lebanon, led, incidentally, by Ariel Sharon, was a blatant breach of international law"

- No, it was not. You and your ilk constantly try imposing your will upon this issue but that does not make your case.

Angie:
"The 2003 air strike against Syria was an out of aggression, again condemned by the international community (excluding the US, of course)."

- No it wasn't (an act of aggression), and I wouldn't have cared if it were condemned even by the US.

Angie:
"We have no proof that, in fact, a "terrorist training facility" existed in Syria. We only have Israel's claim for that, and you'll understand, won't you, if I choose to be highly skeptical about this assertion?"

- You're wrong once more, as Scottie told you. Plus, you could have done a Google or otherwise *search* on the web to check it out and realize you're mistaken (or even lying) as you are so fond of doing with the Qibyia incident of 1953, so don't expect me to take your crap seriously, because what you said was just that - crap.

Angie:
"I addressed you specifically here because you left a false impression above with our readers about a lack of aggression on the part of Israel when it's staring us in the face for decades."

- Angie probably derived inspiration from the other thread where she discussed religious issues vis-a-vis Bush and seems to sound like some sort of Gospel heralder. That, however, doesn't mean she know what she's talking about, nor does it provide her with license to speak about what all of the readers understand rather than she does alone.
Get into your accursed mind, you are full of shit - you're in no position to proclaim "our readers".

Angie:
"Your assessment that my above post was "impulsive, poorly researched, let alone childish remarks" is without merit."

- You're wrong yet again. My assessment has lots of merit.

Angie:
"There is nothing to research in what I mentioned. The reams of documentation is there for all who wants to read same. The only new item I mentioned was the testing of long range missiles by Israel, and I gave you a link for that assertion, which, if you are not happy with the facts contained therein, then take it up with Haaretz."

- Ah ye'ah, I forgot you never really have to research anything, because you can't help the fact much of your posts' content is just tripe anyway. And, *most* people who read the reams of documentation more often than not arrive at other or even diametrically opposed conclusions to those of yours, because they are either far more intelligent or willing to face uncomfortable to themselves than Angie, or both.
And, on the heals of what Scottie said, I'm sure you loath the fact (which you haven't been aware of and won't be willing to accept) that Ha'aretz - being a propaganda vehicle of the extreme Left in Israel - is a paper that quite often lies, distorts, tells half- truths and even presents reporters' opinions as facts, and the fact that it has a limited readership *also* because of what I've said about it here (I've heard that even many veteran subscribers have canceled or haven't renewed their subscription for the very same reasons). Ha'aretz has serious credibility issues. I'm not surprised that all Westerners, from CNN to Indymedia, rely on Ha'aretz instead of the mainstream Hebrew press.

Angie:
"In closing, I note you have cleaned up your act over the past few days. At the risk of having my head blown off, let me state I'm impressed."

- Let me state that I was never impressed by your dubious intellect and idiotic conduct evaluations, and that's not about to change now or in the near future. You're just as stupid now.
by Angie
Sunday Nov 9th, 2003 6:24 AM
Look who's slithered back on the board!

1. If the invasion wasn't a breach of international law, what was it? A Sunday picnic?

2. If the bombing of a so-called "terrorist training camp" inside Syria wasn't an act of aggression, what was it? And, frankly, I care not if the US didn't have the guts to condemn the act either. It's expected.

3. The Government of Syria stated that it was not a terrorist training camp. Show us proof or shut the hell up.

4. I note the old standby of the pro-Israel crowd, "you're lying" is being dragged out again. Excuse me whilst I chuckle here. This allegation is always is treated with the hilarity it deserves by myself.

5. So you're saying Israel has never committed an act of agression. What a bloody amadan!

6. My "accursed mind"? "Gospel heralder"? You expect me to comment on such crap? Not!

7. If I want to "proclaim" anything on this board within the guidelines of what's permissible, I shall most certainly do so. And if I wish to say "our readers", I shall do that as well. I assume someone is reading your posts. I assume someone (well, you obviously did) is reading mine. It would be might foolish of me to say "my reader(s) and your reader(s)", wouldn't it? This is of importance to anyone? Not!

8. Don't like Haaretz, hmm? Big deal! I'm curious, however, about the obvious pattern here. Your rant about Haaretz (which I mentioned only because it was the source in the article under discussion) is so very similar to the accusations hurled at Uri Avnery, Israel Shamir et al. I sure know who I believe!

9. I have yet to see anything you've said that has "merit". Don't delude yourself here.

10. The people who read posts on this board are free to believe what they wish. They can believe me or not, but if they wish to research what I say, they'll find it.

11. Oh, you remember the Qibya discussion back on the "Wall" thread? Curious. I just went back over same, and you weren't mentioned in any of the posts. Masquadering as someone else, were you? Or are you now? Let me assure you if anyone was "lying" (hey, there's your favourite word again!) about Qibya, it was not me.

12. Don't flatter yourself that I was referring to your intellect when I said I noticed "you had cleaned up your act". Far from it. I was referring to the fact that you were not as grossly foul-mouthed as you have been, nothing more.

13. Re your personal diatribe, well, hold me up! As if your infantile opinion on anything or anyone would ever matter a damn. Not in my life it doesn't!
by anti bullshit
Sunday Nov 9th, 2003 7:11 AM
In a manner it is indeed a waste of space to engage in a dialogue with you. But the worst waste of space is in that you spout all your tripe.

1. I've already discussed the 1982 invasion of Lebanon in another post. Also, you can do a web search to find out the reasons for that invasion (hint: the Israeli ambassador to London was assassinated by the PLO). Also, do a research about the condition in north Israel and south Lebanon during the early '80s. But don't come back on here and spout shit. Be honest for a bleeding change.

2. The facility inside Syria was indeed a terrorist training facility no matter how much you cover your eyes, your ears and go "na na na na, I don't see anything, don't read nothing, don't hear anything, na na na".
By your logic, also Canada should open and finance & encourage terrorist trainig camps on its soil. What's really abominable for Canada must be so for Syria and its like too (not only for Jewish residents in the disputed territories), you vicious reality denier.

3. You now have the balls to ignore Syria's admission that it was a terrorist training camp. Show me the evidence it was not such a facility or fuck off..

4. Chuckle away all you wish, why should I care a whit about it? You are a liar and seem to be an incorrigible one at that. This trait of yours is not about to change in the near future.

5. I didn't say Israel has never committed an act of aggression. I've already told you you're a liar.

6. Your philosophy wax over the readership is just smartass. But then you are an avid smartass yourself.

7. I didn't rant about Ha'aretz. I stated the facts pertaining to this paper. Frankly, I don't give a shit whether you believe me or your like minded sources, since you are a lost cause where the truth is found - you close your eyes, ears and mind to the truth when it would bring you into conflict with your notions re the Arab-Israeli conflict.

8. I never delude myself here. You're the pot calling the kettle black much or most of what you claim about the Arab-Israeli conflicts lacks merit.

9. I just love the cloack of false modesty you've just donned: "The people who read posts on this board are free to believe what they wish. They can believe me or not, but if they wish to research what I say, they'll find it. "

10. I remember practically every issue you've raised per the Arab-Israeli conflict. So?

11. I shall flatter myself as I see fit. Don't you order me around with your wee fingers. You are out of line here.

12. Oh lady, my opinions on many matters matter much to quite a few readers, whereas yours have been disparaged by more than two individuals on this board. You must undergo must improvement until you can give me a report card. In the meantime dig in your hole.

Now slither back whence you came.
by Scottie
Sunday Nov 9th, 2003 9:51 AM
JT kirk
You can remove bush and his "cronies" just dont vote for him next election.

Angie
"The Government of Syria stated that it was not a terrorist training camp. Show us proof or shut the hell up."

here is jsut one that popped up.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N26735096

Straights times is a decent newspaper unlike the ones you (pl) keep quoting.
to sumarize the camp was used by the PFLP a terrorist group. It is likely it had recently been closed (or become less conspicuous due to war on terror pressures on syria). All that means is you get to take out the infrastructure without killing anyone innocent. By the way it is highly unlikely that the israelis planted lebanese shepards for disinformation purposes (hahahaha...).

Ok are you "shutting up" now? by the way I believe there were other sources that confirmed this information.

> 4. I note the old standby of the pro-Israel crowd, "you're lying" is being dragged out again. Excuse me whilst I chuckle here.

insane? hmm could be. Can we all imagine a girl in an asylum somwhere pointing and laughing like a maniac?
"time for some more medicine..."

8. Don't like Haaretz, hmm? Big deal! I'm curious, however, about the obvious pattern here.

-Part of the pattern is a pattern of poor sources but besides that It might be nessercary to remind people that you would quote a story found directly below "space aliens stole my baby" if it served your purposes
by Angie
Sunday Nov 9th, 2003 8:10 PM
1. Suffice to say the UN and the international community condemned the invasion of Lebanon. That's good enough for me.

2. Syria advised the UN that the "targeted facility" was a "civilian site".
And everything I've read from reliable news reports (note, I said "reliable") state "the camp" was abandoned. I'm not too concerned here whether or not it was used as a "training facility" thirty years ago or six months ago. At the time of the bombing there is no proof that there were, shall we say, any "terrorists in training" as the bombs were about to fall, fell, or thereafter. If you are saying otherwise, tell me where to find the info or put a lid on it It's my view the purpose behind the bomb attack is a lot more sinister, and, of course, we'll find out in due course, won't we?

3. See above.

4. Still chuckliing only more so.

5. Well, whoopee! An admission of aggression on Israel's part? And you said that where? Point me to it. I'm not as familiar, obviously, with your posts as you allege to be with mine.

6. Not worthy of comment.

7. Read like a "rant' to me. Rest of your asinine allegations noted with amusement and dropped into that bottomless pit where one tosses all worthless info.

8. Not worthy of comment.

9. Are you saying that the people who read posts here shouldn't believe ehat they so wish? What arrogance!

10. I remember practically none of the "issues you've raised" re the Arab Israeli conflict. So?

11. Whoops! Be careful there, "Anti-bulshit"; you almost gave yourself away or hadn't you noticed?

12. Name them (hehehe).

Go carry on this conversation with someone else. I'm out of here to attend to more urgent matters.
by Angie
Sunday Nov 9th, 2003 8:38 PM
Scottie

The very first line in the article you posted described the facility as "abandoned". Despite your claim that it was "recently" abandoned, nowhere does it say when. I noted somewhere in the materials last night that it wsa used by the PLO in the early seventies. Now, please! And what makes you so sure about the sheppards, hmm? Stranger things have happened, and no doubt will happen again.

With respect to anything further on this issue, see my comments to Anti-bullshit above.

I intend to give the rest of your comments the consideration they deserve - which is none.
by hi
Sunday Nov 9th, 2003 10:05 PM
hey Angie, are you aware that you now agree with EVERY SINGLE anti-israel thing that comes out of the arab world (or any world)?

You're now just nothing more than a fucking mouthpiece for the PA.

by Scottie
Sunday Nov 9th, 2003 10:35 PM
The very first line in the article you posted described the facility as "abandoned".

It probably was abandoned but we were not arguing if it was an "occupied" terrorist camp.

lets review what you wrote
"The Government of Syria stated that it was not a terrorist training camp. Show us proof or shut the hell up"

Now it WAS a terrorist camp. So we have Shown you proof that is all thanks

> I noted somewhere in the materials last night that it wsa used by the PLO in the early seventies. the implication i have seen is that the terrorist camp was abandoned sdue to US pressure on syria due to the war on terror (this may or may not be true but that was the impession I got) it also makes sense given what israel did and the fact that good terrorist bases probably are not things you just throw away.

In the early 70's the PLO was a terrorist organization by the way if haven'tt noticed.

>> Now, please! And what makes you so sure about the sheppards, hmm? Stranger things have happened, and no doubt will happen again.

- Hmmm so cynical about lebaneese shepards in syria. you can be the one to go down there and tell them they are israeli spies I sure dont want to do it.
by Angie
Monday Nov 10th, 2003 2:07 AM
Israel said it bombed a "terrorist training facility".

Israel didn't say it bombed "an abandoned terrorist training facility", Israel didn't say it bombed a "terrorist training facility that Lebanese sheppards stated was used at one point by terrorists".

I apologize for being picky here, lad, but we must stick with what Israel told the world. Oh, and did I not say (how could I forget?) that Israel also said it did so "in self defence". Ahem.

Incidentally when I went to check the link you gave above to further study the points made by those dubious Lebanese sheppards, it came up as "not a match". Isn't that curious? Do you suppose the sheppards had anything to do with that? (hahaha)

I'm wondering, however, why I was able to access it only once. .
by anti bullshit
Monday Nov 10th, 2003 2:25 AM
You've lost me. Your squiggling, dishonesty and assorted crap make you such a buffoon, it's staggering.
by Angie
Monday Nov 10th, 2003 3:25 AM
And I hope you stay "lost", lad!
by Scottie
Monday Nov 10th, 2003 12:50 PM
>>>> Israel said it bombed a "terrorist training facility".
Israel didn't say it bombed "an abandoned terrorist training facility".

An abandoned terrorist facility is still a terrorist facility. Just like if I abandoned a bomb in an airport it would STILL be a bomb.

Besides that israel probably did not know it was abandoned (although maybe they did) but annyway aren't you HAPPY it was abandoned? if the israelis destroyed all the empty camps all the time they could wipe out alot of the infrastructure of terrorism without killing too many of the people.

>> I'm wondering, however, why I was able to access it only once. .

- the link is the google cache of the straights times paper. maybe it expired from the google cache.
by Angie
Monday Nov 10th, 2003 1:18 PM
I will do a Google search and see if I can come up with it again. One can usually find any newspaper on line these days. I'd like to check it out in its entirety.

Well, actually, I have been visualizing a sort of run down shack off in the trees somewhere, abandoned since the seventies, in a state of disrepair, roof leaking, rat-infested -- whoops. Getting carried away. Forgive and all that.

Incidentally, one of the other articles I read had some of the civilians in the area stating the site was used by "picnickers and visitors to the spring and olive trees". I'm assuming that is a water spring, what?

I wonder appropos of nil why Lebanese sheppards are hanging out in Syria.
by ANGEL
Monday Nov 10th, 2003 9:24 PM
If we do not want WMD in the Middle East, remove the reason for their need.......
Mid East Countries are not Blind to what Israel is doing to the Palestinians...
Mid East Countries Know about Israeli WMD
You can also know
CLICK HERE > http://www.msnbc.com/news/wld/graphics/strategic_israel_dw.htm
If we really want Peace in the Middle East, The U.S. would bring Freedom to the Millions of suffering Palestinian People from the Brutal Israeli Occupation and Oppression...
Fixing the root cause of the Problem might be better than going to War with every Arab Country in the Middle East????
by not an angel
Monday Nov 10th, 2003 11:37 PM
Maybe fixing the root cause of the Mideast problem *necessitates* the US warring against those Arab countries who encourage Palestinian rejectionism, like Syria, Libya and perhaps even Saudi Arabia.These are the main Arab countries that aid and abet Palestinian terror organizations. Perhaps the moment they stop supporting the terrorists altogether, the terrorists will lay their arms down and Israel could then reenter negotiations with the moderate Palestinians such as Abu Mazen.
by you're obviously a Zionist
Tuesday Nov 11th, 2003 11:19 AM
Just look at your words "Palestinian rejectionism" and blaming countries , like Syria, Libya and perhaps even Saudi Arabia" "Arab countries that aid and abet Palestinian terror organizations."

First of all, it is Zionist Israel that has been practicing "rejectionism", ethnic cleansing and apartheid against the indigenous non-Jews of the land since day one of Israel's creation when White European countries unilaterally gave away Arab land that wasn't theirs to give away in the first place to Zionist Jewish White Supremacists in 1948.

Jewish terrorist gangs went around massacring thousands of Palestinians chasing off over half of the indigenous non-Jewish population in terror, something that is happening today and US tax dollars are supporting the current terrorist Jewish state of Israel.

Perhaps the moment the US stops supporting the terrorist Jewish state of Israel altogether, the terrorists on both (all) sides will lay their arms down and everyone could then reenter negotiations with the moderate progressives on all sides.

In the meantime, Sharon should be tried for his extensive war crimes and sentenced to life in prison or executed, as were his Nazi mentors.
by gehrig
Tuesday Nov 11th, 2003 2:03 PM
Windy Out Wendy: "Yammity yammity yammity yammity Palestinian rejectionism yammity yammity"

Sorry if you and reality are having another one of your little spats, Windy Out Wendy, but the fact is that the Palestinian leadership has never been serious about peace. The Palestinian people have been -- when they haven't been whooped into a frenzy by Arab media and Hamas propaganda -- but a Palestinian state is the last thing that corrupt little פץ Arafat wants. And it's not hard to see why -- it turns out that Uncle Yassir has diverted more than half a billion dollars of international aid straight into his own bank accounts, and is now sole owner of a multibillion-dollar stock portfolio built at the expense of the people he ostensibly leads. Being an absolute despot over a stateless people apparently has its advantages if you're a crook like Arafat, wouldn't you say? He doesn't ever have to worry about being voted out as long as he keeps postponing the elections.

Windy Out Wendy: "First of all yammity yammity yammity yammity."

Hey, Windy Out Wendy, tell us more about the "Japhethites."

@%<
by Sharon grilled 7 housr in graft probe!
Saturday Nov 15th, 2003 1:21 PM
Ha ha ha, more dirt on that scumbag Sharon.
If the world doesn't incarcerate him for his part in the Sabra and Shatila Massacres in 1982, and other such massacres, maybe at least he'll get jailed for his financial corruption!

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2003/10/31/242400.html
Fri, October 31, 2003

Sharon grilled 7 hours in graft probe

By AP
JERUSALEM -- Israeli police questioned Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for seven hours yesterday about two corruption cases, including one involving bribery suspicions in a real estate deal. Sharon, the third sitting prime minister to be targeted in such an investigation, has denied wrongdoing. Police declined comment yesterday.
Police arrived at Sharon's official residence in Jerusalem at 9 a.m. yesterday and left seven hours later. The Israeli news media reported Sharon was questioned under warning, meaning they might recommend he be charged in the cases. (follow link)
by hmm
(micheal [at] yahoo.com) Saturday Nov 15th, 2003 10:02 PM
anti-bullshit + Zionism = bullshit
by anti bullshit
Sunday Nov 16th, 2003 2:11 AM
You say "hmm" to make an impression you're thinking but it's just your constipation we hear.

If you have something of substance to say about my comments rather than just hurl insults, I'm listening.
by just wondering
Sunday Nov 16th, 2003 9:50 AM
You mean like this?

* * *

You're on crack or just plain stupid?
by anti bullshit Sunday November 16, 2003 at 02:48 AM

First off I want to clarify I spoke of a scenario whereby Israel completely retreats from the *disputed territories*.

"pot/kettle/black", did you even ~read~ what I wrote before you posted your kneejerk asinine response?
Besides, why don't you go and become Hamas' spoksperson? You're a "peace" activist, not a peace activist.

If you are going to say things like, "If you have something of substance to say about my comments rather than just hurl insults, I'm listening," then you should practice what you preach.

But you don't. You're a hypocrite and a liar. Lies and hypocrisy are to Zionism what mortar is to bricks.
by anti bullshit
Monday Nov 17th, 2003 8:38 AM
nessie-nym:
"If you are going to say things like, "If you have something of substance to say about my comments rather than just hurl insults, I'm listening," then you should practice what you preach"

- I have been practicing what I preach, only you refuse to admit it, because you want to retain your *rigged* superiority you have attained by not enabling my post you quoted from to appear. So to butress your inflated sense of honor you lie by accusing me of lying and being a hypocrite.

Your mind is in a perpetual upside-down mode, therefore you believe lies and hypocrisy are to Zionism (rather than to anti-Zionism) what mortar is to bricks. LOL.
Why would anyone be surprised by this poll.? These people are very well educated and liberal in their views. They should be looked upon as roll models for you in Kalifornia. To be fair, throw out the high and the low scores and voila!
by ANGEL
Tuesday Nov 18th, 2003 1:17 AM
""By contrast, 41 percent of Americans said they sympathized with Israelis and only 13 percent with the Palestinians."" from above article
This is because the atrocities that the Israeli Government is committing against the Palestinian Population such as Land Confiscation, Home Demolistions leaving countless numbers of Palestinians homeless does not get wide spread coverage in the Media. So many Americans are not aware of the Brutality of this Occupation.
If we do not want WMD in the Middle East, remove the reason for their need.......
Mid East Countries are not Blind to what Israel is doing to the Palestinians...
Mid East Countries Know about Israeli WMD
You can also know
CLICK HERE > http://www.msnbc.com/news/wld/graphics/strategic_israel_dw.htm
If we really want Peace in the Middle East, The U.S. would bring Freedom to the Millions of suffering Palestinian People from the Brutal Israeli Occupation and Oppression...

A Great atrocity:
CLICK HERE > http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/11/1659275_comment.php#1659427




by anti bullshit
Tuesday Nov 18th, 2003 2:23 AM
The last post by the despicable "hmm" is intolerable racist GUTTER TRASH and a staggering disgrace for this board.
Please remove it promptly. Thanks in advance.


by Scottie
Tuesday Nov 18th, 2003 12:00 PM
> This is because the atrocities that the Israeli Government is committing against the Palestinian Population

I would suggest that the main reason is that the average american feels more empathy with a person subjected to threat of terrorism than land confiscation because the people who do the former also threaten the US while those who do the latter do not as long as the US has a strong military.

However in addition to this there is a moral distinction where "killing civilians randomly with suicide bombs is significantly worse than any take on "stealing land" or even assasinations.

In a situation like this if you abandon the attempt to look for a cause and effect and if you arbitrarily divide everyone into the two camps, you just have two sides fighting a war (all-be-it a half hearted one) and one side using a bit more morals in the way in which they fight That is one side doesn't use suicide bombers.

> If we do not want WMD in the Middle East, remove the reason for their need.......

Nukes are a last ditch defensive weapon in modern times. Israel would not nuke anyone unless it was threatened with destruction because using the nuke would make it a international pariah and to nuke a country so close to you as syria for example would be to invite the fall out to blow all over your own country.
Israel having nukes is only a threat to you if you plan on attacking israel.
by Angie
Tuesday Nov 18th, 2003 3:15 PM
Beneath his non-headline "hmm" or "hmmm" our friend, Scottie's, post above has left me shaking my head in disbelief. What in the name of all that's holy are you going on about?

The great line:
>>> "Israel having nukes is only a threat to you if you plan on attacking Israel".

Well, hold me up!

What, pray tell, would Syria do tomorrow if Israel decided to attack? (Which, of course, we already know it did, has, etc.) What would Lebanon do, poor little Lebonan (as someone once described it), or Egypt, or Jordan?

You think that's a good idea, eh? You think that makes sense, what? I don't.

The Arab states have a right to protect themselves from Israel just as Israel has a right to protect itself from its neighbours. The Arab states have a right to exist just as Israel does.

So either all have nukes or none. I prefer that there be none, but then I'm not biased about any country "protecting" itself any more than any other. Nor should you.
by ANGEL
Thursday Nov 20th, 2003 2:51 AM
Why is something so simple so hard for some people to understand There is either Zero nuclear Weapons in the Middle East, Including Israel or all Mid East Nations have them as a deterrent. The Other Middle East Countries are not Blind to what Israel is doing to the Palestinian People. Many Nations are not Blind to what Israel is doing to the Palestinian People.
For some Reason the truth has a hard time getting into the U.S. Media that is suppose to be so free and open....I wonder why???
by Scottie
Thursday Nov 20th, 2003 10:38 AM
>What, pray tell, would Syria do tomorrow if Israel decided to attack? (Which, of course, we already know it did, has, etc.) What would Lebanon do, poor little Lebonan (as someone once described it), or Egypt, or Jordan?

You want the answer to that question to be "cause the end of the world" (with nuclear war)?? what kind of insane freak are you?
"little Jordan" For example would be in exactly the same situation as if israel had no nukes. they would fight and loose. they like any weak country exist on two principles 1) the good will of their neighbours/allies 2) the fact that it just isnt worth trying to fight and occupy them.
if they were strong enough to repell the israelis they would fight and repell them. Israel having nukes will not effect that. Israel would not "nuke jordan out of spite".

> The Arab states have a right to protect themselves from Israel just as Israel has a right to protect itself from its neighbours. The Arab states have a right to exist just as Israel does.

I am against nuclear proliferation the problem is once it has alredy "proliferated" you are generally screwed. In most cases you cant just pop over and say "I would like all of your nukes thanks". As you will notice with iraq pressure does "jack all" to cause them to give up on projects even when they dont have much in the way of projects to protect. and you dont want to put lots of pressure on a country with hundreds of nukes because while a stable government wont use the nukes randomly a totally unstable one might (if you cause there to be a revolution).

> So either all have nukes or none.

-- None is not a possibility. Even if you hired superman to use his super powers to spot and destroy every nuke on earth people would just build new ones. and someone would nuke you and superman in order to keep their weapons.
Of course if you can find super man and he is willing to donate the rest of eternity to removing all the nukes and being the worlld policeman of nukes then Ill consider your deal.
And getting rid of indias and pakistains nukes for example has nothing to do with whether the US has nukes.

>> I prefer that there be none, but then I'm not biased about any country "protecting" itself any more than any other. Nor should you.

- you want to give every country in the world a nuke "just to be fair"? Damn what is this infatuation you have with ending life on earth??
We (most of the world) dont oppose nuclear proliferation because it is "unfair" (of all the stupid reasons). We oppose it because we dont want to minimise the risk that a couple of nuclear capable countries will try to start a WW3.
I was wondering if I had said somthing wrong (I was in a bit of a rush) but all i can find is the strong possibility that you need to be sent to an asylum.

ANGEL

> Why is something so simple so hard for some people to understand There is either Zero nuclear Weapons in the Middle East, Including Israel or all Mid East Nations have them as a deterrent.

I do not "support" israel having nukes I jsut note that when you have 200 + of them then "you have nukes" and you are highly unlikely to give them up. Israel also has zero trust (with reason) that the other states would not create nukes.
For example India and Pakistain having nukes is already reason for Iran to seek them. Russia has nukes and the EU colllectively has nukes so the middle east is an island of non nukes in a sea of nukes.
These countries - india pakistain russia china USA france britain are all just too damn big strong and with too many nukes (possibly excluding pakistain) for us to do anything about it (how stupid would it be for us to go to china for example and demand they disarm their military?).

>> For some Reason the truth has a hard time getting into the U.S. Media that is suppose to be so free and open....I wonder why???

You know alot of people are going to answer that question "the jews!" (and out of contex the right would answer it "communist journalists!")

ANGEL.. the facts are generally not in dispute you are just complaining that the media does not put your spin on the facts. Of course spin is important but people on the left see the US media as right biased and people on the right see it as left biased. It is a perspectve thing. So lets just say that we are not surprised that people on here think the media is biased and as such it counts for little.
by Angie
Thursday Nov 20th, 2003 5:47 PM
Well, lad, an "egad" is an improvement on "hmmm" or "mmm". Congrats.

I'm always so astonished at your interpretation of my posts. This is another example of this phenonomen. You see things that are not there. Stop it, for heavens sakes.

Oh, by the way, I am not an "insane freak". A new accusation, granted, but unapplicable nonetheless.

I have stated above, and I have stated in another thread, that I am against nuclear weapons PERIOD. Conversely you seem to think that it's a great thing that Israel has same. I see no reason why Israel should have weapons of nuclear capability whilst its neighbours do not. You tell me why you feel this is the okay with you.

Incidentally who referred to "little Jordan"? I did not.

>>> "Israel would not nuke Jordan out of spite".
Oh, and how do you know this? Inside information? Look at what it's done in recent years to Syria, Lebanon, and the Occupied Territories (even as we speak) without nukes. Not pleasant; hell, it's not even civilized. But there you are saying it's okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons.

Do I take it from your chatter that it's perfectly okay as well to lie about a country with no nuclear weapons and bomb same (Iraq) whilst another country (North Korea) flaunting its nuclear programme is virtually ignored? Makes sense to you, does it?

Incidentally I'd appreciate knowing where I indicated, stated, or otherwise mentioned that I have "an infatuation with ending life on earth"? You read that in my post above? Show me.

Oh, and "asylum", Scottie? Gee, thanks!!! Always wonderful to have you to make me feel better, lad!
by censored
Saturday Nov 22nd, 2003 12:26 PM
http://nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=82553&group=webcast
by James
Saturday Nov 22nd, 2003 6:00 PM
"Almost 60 percent of Europeans say that Israel is a larger threat to world peace than North Korea, Iran or Afghanistan, according to a poll scheduled to be made public Monday by the European Commission."

---------------

According to another European Commission survey, 65% of Europeans don't know that tomatoes have genes.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/eb/ebs_177_en.pdf
by Scottie
Sunday Nov 23rd, 2003 11:45 AM
It is quite possibly the same 60 odd %
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

donate now

$ 212.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network