Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Robert Fisk: We are paying the price of an infantile attempt to reshape the Middle East
...
We are paying the price of an infantile attempt to reshape the Middle East
Robert Fisk
21 November 2003
It's the price of joining George Bush's "war on terror". They couldn't hit Britain while Bush was on his triumphalist state visit to London, so they went for the jugular in Turkey. The British consulate, the British-headquartered HSBC bank. London-abroad. And of course, no one - least of all the Turks - imagined they would strike twice in the same place. Turkey had already had its dose of attacks, hadn't it?
"They" must mean "al-Qa'ida". And of course, merely to point out that we - the British - are now paying the price for George Bush's infantile attempt to reshape the Middle East in Israel's favour will attract the usual venom. To tell the brutal truth about the human cost of Tony Blair's alliance with the Bush administration is to "do the terrorists' work for them", to be their "propagandist". Thus, as usual, will all discussion of yesterday's atrocities be closed down.
But the American and British administrations know very well what this means. The Australians paid the price for John Howard's alliance with Bush in Bali. The Italians paid the price for Silvio Berlusconi's alliance with Bush in Nasiriyah. Now it is our turn.
Al-Qa'ida was quite specific. The Saudis would pay. The Australians would pay. The Italians would pay. The British would pay. They have. Canada is still on the list. Until, I suppose, it is our turn again. Even in 1997, Osama bin Laden would repeat to me that Britain would only escape Islamic "anger" if it pulled out of the Gulf. Nor do these mass murders have just one purpose. Turkey is allied to Israel. Ariel Sharon has visited Ankara. Turkey is hated in Iraq and much of the Arab world, partly for its Ottoman antecedents.
And if the Saudis are attacked because their Islamic regime is led by a corrupt monarchy, Turkey is attacked because it isn't Islamic enough. Break up Turkey. Break up the relations between Muslims and Jews in Istanbul - the purpose of last Saturday's suicide bombings - and break up the compromise "Islamist" government that now rules Turkey. All must have formed a part of al-Qaida's thinking.
Nor should we fool ourselves about what I always call "the brain". We have a habit of thinking that the bombers don't understand the outside world. If they are "against democracy", they wouldn't understand us, would they? But they do. They knew exactly what they were doing when they attacked the Australians in Bali - they knew the Iraqi invasion was unpopular in Australia, that Howard might ultimately be blamed. They knew the invasion was unpopular in Italy. So Italy would be punished for Berlusconi's hubris.
They knew, too, of the demonstrations that awaited George Bush in London. So why not distract attention from the whole panjandrum by assaulting Britain in Turkey. Who would care about Bush's visit to Sedgefield when Britons are lying dead in the grounds of their consulate in Istanbul? Just so in Iraq. The Iraqi insurgents are well aware of George Bush's falling opinion polls in the United States. They know how desperate he is to extract himself from Iraq before next year's presidential elections. Thus are they increasing their assaults on American forces and their Iraqi supporters, provoking the US army to ever more ferocious retaliation?
We have a kind of fatal incomprehension about those against whom we have gone to war; that they are living in caves, cut off from reality, striking blindly - "desperately" as Mr Bush would have us believe - as they realise that the free world is resolved to destroy them. Just now, I suspect they are resolved to destroy Mr. Bush - politically if not physically. Mr Blair too. In a war in which we go all out to crush the leadership of our antagonists, we can only expect them to adopt the same policy.
But we go on misunderstanding. Take those tiresome speeches by Osama bin Laden. When his audio-tapes are aired, we journalists always take the same line. Is it really him? Is he alive? That becomes our only story. But the Arab response is quite different. They know it's him. And they listen to what he says. So should we.
But alas, we still pedal the old myths, as George Bush did in London on Wednesday. His speech contained the usual untruths. Note, for example, the list of attacks he gave us: "Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Bombay, Mombasa, Najaf, Jerusalem, Riyadh, Baghdad and Istanbul". Najaf may well have nothing to do with al-Qa'ida but the suicide bombings in Jerusalem, vicious though they are, have absolutely nothing to do with our "war on terror". They are part of a brutal anti-colonial struggle between Palestinians and Israelis. Yet the inclusion of Jerusalem allows Ariel Sharon to join his war against the Palestinians to Bush's war against al-Qa'ida. This mendacity continued. Israel, said Bush, had to "freeze" settlements on Palestinian land - not close them down - and only dismantle what he artfully called "unauthorised outposts".
"Outposts" is Israel's word for the most recent land seizures in the West Bank and the word "unauthorised" suggests that there is some legality to the massive settlements already built on Palestinian land. According to Bush, the "heart of the matter" in the Middle East is "a viable Palestinian democracy." Not once did Bush mention "occupation". Why not? Is he so frightened of Israel's lobby before next year's US presidential election that even this most salient fact of the Middle East experience has to be censored from his narrative of events?
There was, too, the familiar distortion of the historical narrative. He said that America and Britain would do "all in their power to prevent the United Nations from solemnly choosing its own irrelevance." Come again? Who was it who wouldn't let the UN inspectors finish their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq last year? Who was it who wouldn't accept a UN stewardship of the Iraq crisis?
Bush claimed yet again that we "tolerated" the dictatorships of the Middle East. Rubbish. We created them, Saddam's regime being the most obvious example. Who doubts, Mr Bush asked us, "that Afghanistan is a more just society and less dangerous without Mullah Omar playing host to terrorists from around the world?" Could this be the same Afghanistan which once more cringes under the warlords of the old Northern Alliance, the Afghanistan where the opium poppy is once again the country's prime export, where aid workers are being cut down by the Taliban?
And in Iraq, where the occupying powers now face an Iraqi insurgency of fearful proportions, Mr Bush still thinks he is fighting "Ba'athist holdouts and jihadists". Even his military officers are repeating that it is a growing Iraqi guerrilla army they are fighting - not "foreign fighters" or "jihadis". At the end, of course, we came back to the Second World War and Churchill - the "leader who did not waver", with whom Bush last year compared himself and with whom he on Wednesday compared Tony Blair - a "leader of good judgement and blunt counsel and backbone."
Where, oh where are we going? How much longer must we suffer this false account of history? How much longer must we willfully misread what we are doing and what is being done to us?
Robert Fisk
21 November 2003
It's the price of joining George Bush's "war on terror". They couldn't hit Britain while Bush was on his triumphalist state visit to London, so they went for the jugular in Turkey. The British consulate, the British-headquartered HSBC bank. London-abroad. And of course, no one - least of all the Turks - imagined they would strike twice in the same place. Turkey had already had its dose of attacks, hadn't it?
"They" must mean "al-Qa'ida". And of course, merely to point out that we - the British - are now paying the price for George Bush's infantile attempt to reshape the Middle East in Israel's favour will attract the usual venom. To tell the brutal truth about the human cost of Tony Blair's alliance with the Bush administration is to "do the terrorists' work for them", to be their "propagandist". Thus, as usual, will all discussion of yesterday's atrocities be closed down.
But the American and British administrations know very well what this means. The Australians paid the price for John Howard's alliance with Bush in Bali. The Italians paid the price for Silvio Berlusconi's alliance with Bush in Nasiriyah. Now it is our turn.
Al-Qa'ida was quite specific. The Saudis would pay. The Australians would pay. The Italians would pay. The British would pay. They have. Canada is still on the list. Until, I suppose, it is our turn again. Even in 1997, Osama bin Laden would repeat to me that Britain would only escape Islamic "anger" if it pulled out of the Gulf. Nor do these mass murders have just one purpose. Turkey is allied to Israel. Ariel Sharon has visited Ankara. Turkey is hated in Iraq and much of the Arab world, partly for its Ottoman antecedents.
And if the Saudis are attacked because their Islamic regime is led by a corrupt monarchy, Turkey is attacked because it isn't Islamic enough. Break up Turkey. Break up the relations between Muslims and Jews in Istanbul - the purpose of last Saturday's suicide bombings - and break up the compromise "Islamist" government that now rules Turkey. All must have formed a part of al-Qaida's thinking.
Nor should we fool ourselves about what I always call "the brain". We have a habit of thinking that the bombers don't understand the outside world. If they are "against democracy", they wouldn't understand us, would they? But they do. They knew exactly what they were doing when they attacked the Australians in Bali - they knew the Iraqi invasion was unpopular in Australia, that Howard might ultimately be blamed. They knew the invasion was unpopular in Italy. So Italy would be punished for Berlusconi's hubris.
They knew, too, of the demonstrations that awaited George Bush in London. So why not distract attention from the whole panjandrum by assaulting Britain in Turkey. Who would care about Bush's visit to Sedgefield when Britons are lying dead in the grounds of their consulate in Istanbul? Just so in Iraq. The Iraqi insurgents are well aware of George Bush's falling opinion polls in the United States. They know how desperate he is to extract himself from Iraq before next year's presidential elections. Thus are they increasing their assaults on American forces and their Iraqi supporters, provoking the US army to ever more ferocious retaliation?
We have a kind of fatal incomprehension about those against whom we have gone to war; that they are living in caves, cut off from reality, striking blindly - "desperately" as Mr Bush would have us believe - as they realise that the free world is resolved to destroy them. Just now, I suspect they are resolved to destroy Mr. Bush - politically if not physically. Mr Blair too. In a war in which we go all out to crush the leadership of our antagonists, we can only expect them to adopt the same policy.
But we go on misunderstanding. Take those tiresome speeches by Osama bin Laden. When his audio-tapes are aired, we journalists always take the same line. Is it really him? Is he alive? That becomes our only story. But the Arab response is quite different. They know it's him. And they listen to what he says. So should we.
But alas, we still pedal the old myths, as George Bush did in London on Wednesday. His speech contained the usual untruths. Note, for example, the list of attacks he gave us: "Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Bombay, Mombasa, Najaf, Jerusalem, Riyadh, Baghdad and Istanbul". Najaf may well have nothing to do with al-Qa'ida but the suicide bombings in Jerusalem, vicious though they are, have absolutely nothing to do with our "war on terror". They are part of a brutal anti-colonial struggle between Palestinians and Israelis. Yet the inclusion of Jerusalem allows Ariel Sharon to join his war against the Palestinians to Bush's war against al-Qa'ida. This mendacity continued. Israel, said Bush, had to "freeze" settlements on Palestinian land - not close them down - and only dismantle what he artfully called "unauthorised outposts".
"Outposts" is Israel's word for the most recent land seizures in the West Bank and the word "unauthorised" suggests that there is some legality to the massive settlements already built on Palestinian land. According to Bush, the "heart of the matter" in the Middle East is "a viable Palestinian democracy." Not once did Bush mention "occupation". Why not? Is he so frightened of Israel's lobby before next year's US presidential election that even this most salient fact of the Middle East experience has to be censored from his narrative of events?
There was, too, the familiar distortion of the historical narrative. He said that America and Britain would do "all in their power to prevent the United Nations from solemnly choosing its own irrelevance." Come again? Who was it who wouldn't let the UN inspectors finish their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq last year? Who was it who wouldn't accept a UN stewardship of the Iraq crisis?
Bush claimed yet again that we "tolerated" the dictatorships of the Middle East. Rubbish. We created them, Saddam's regime being the most obvious example. Who doubts, Mr Bush asked us, "that Afghanistan is a more just society and less dangerous without Mullah Omar playing host to terrorists from around the world?" Could this be the same Afghanistan which once more cringes under the warlords of the old Northern Alliance, the Afghanistan where the opium poppy is once again the country's prime export, where aid workers are being cut down by the Taliban?
And in Iraq, where the occupying powers now face an Iraqi insurgency of fearful proportions, Mr Bush still thinks he is fighting "Ba'athist holdouts and jihadists". Even his military officers are repeating that it is a growing Iraqi guerrilla army they are fighting - not "foreign fighters" or "jihadis". At the end, of course, we came back to the Second World War and Churchill - the "leader who did not waver", with whom Bush last year compared himself and with whom he on Wednesday compared Tony Blair - a "leader of good judgement and blunt counsel and backbone."
Where, oh where are we going? How much longer must we suffer this false account of history? How much longer must we willfully misread what we are doing and what is being done to us?
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Canada's CBC News television reported Thursday night that the bank was being renovated, and as a result casualties were fewer than would otherwise have been. UK news reports have also confirmed this. Looks like the neocons are running with the same script: a double bombing of a major financial institution (World Trade Center) and a government building (Pentagon, also being renovated at the time of the attacks). This time lapdog Tony hits the "trifecta." Right on cue for the stage-managed state visit.
So who delivered this gift? The Mossad has been crawling around Turkey after the synagogue bombings. Who benefits most? Who's agenda does this serve? Who was really behind 9-11? Both the Mossad and the CIA have been linked to al Qaeda cells. Bush and Blair pressured and threatened Turkey numerous times to provide military support, and allow coalition butchers access to Turkish soil. Who has a motive to punish (mostly Muslim) Turkey?
So who delivered this gift? The Mossad has been crawling around Turkey after the synagogue bombings. Who benefits most? Who's agenda does this serve? Who was really behind 9-11? Both the Mossad and the CIA have been linked to al Qaeda cells. Bush and Blair pressured and threatened Turkey numerous times to provide military support, and allow coalition butchers access to Turkish soil. Who has a motive to punish (mostly Muslim) Turkey?
Good analysis, but it was the British Consulate that was undergoing renovations:
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/031121/2003112110.html
[text below changed to reflect consolate renovations]
Canada's CBC News television reported Thursday night that the consolate was being renovated, and as a result casualties were fewer than would otherwise have been. UK news reports have also confirmed this.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/11/281351.html
Looks like the neocons are running with the same script: a double bombing of a major financial institution (World Trade Center) and a government building (Pentagon, also being renovated at the time of the attacks). This time lapdog Tony hits the "trifecta." Right on cue for the stage-managed
state visit.
So who delivered this gift? The Mossad has been crawling around Turkey after the synagogue bombings. Who benefits most? Who's agenda does this serve? Who was really behind 9-11? Both the Mossad and the CIA have been
linked to al Qaeda cells. Bush and Blair pressured and threatened Turkey numerous times to provide military support, and allow coalition butchers access to Turkish soil. Who has a motive to punish (mostly Muslim) Turkey?
Is "al Qaeda" so unlucky or incompetent to hit mostly empty buildings twice in 2 double bombings? Does this successfully take the media's spotlight away from the human rights crisis in Palestine?
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/031121/2003112110.html
[text below changed to reflect consolate renovations]
Canada's CBC News television reported Thursday night that the consolate was being renovated, and as a result casualties were fewer than would otherwise have been. UK news reports have also confirmed this.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/11/281351.html
Looks like the neocons are running with the same script: a double bombing of a major financial institution (World Trade Center) and a government building (Pentagon, also being renovated at the time of the attacks). This time lapdog Tony hits the "trifecta." Right on cue for the stage-managed
state visit.
So who delivered this gift? The Mossad has been crawling around Turkey after the synagogue bombings. Who benefits most? Who's agenda does this serve? Who was really behind 9-11? Both the Mossad and the CIA have been
linked to al Qaeda cells. Bush and Blair pressured and threatened Turkey numerous times to provide military support, and allow coalition butchers access to Turkish soil. Who has a motive to punish (mostly Muslim) Turkey?
Is "al Qaeda" so unlucky or incompetent to hit mostly empty buildings twice in 2 double bombings? Does this successfully take the media's spotlight away from the human rights crisis in Palestine?
For more information:
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/...
U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study
by Rowan Scarborough
The Washington Times
September 10, 2001
An elite U.S. Army study center has devised a plan for enforcing a major Israeli-Palestinian peace accord that would require about 20,000 well-armed troops stationed throughout Israel and a newly created Palestinian state.
There are no plans by the Bush administration to put American soldiers into the Middle East to police an agreement forged by the longtime warring parties. In fact, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is searching for ways to reduce U.S. peacekeeping efforts abroad, rather than increasing such missions.
But a 68-page paper by the Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) does provide a look at the daunting task any international peacekeeping force would face if the United Nations authorized it, and Israel and the Palestinians ever reached a peace agreement. Located at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., the School for Advanced Military Studies is both a training ground and a think tank for some of the Army's brightest officers. Officials say the Army chief of staff, and sometimes the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ask SAMS to develop contingency plans for future military operations. During the 1991 Persian Gulf war, SAMS personnel helped plan the coalition ground attack that avoided a strike up the middle of Iraqi positions and instead executed a "left hook" that routed the enemy in 100 hours.
The cover page for the recent SAMS project said it was done for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But Maj. Chris Garver, a Fort Leavenworth spokesman, said the study was not requested by Washington.
"This was just an academic exercise," said Maj. Garver. "They were trying to take a current situation and get some training out of it."
The exercise was done by 60 officers dubbed "Jedi Knights," as all second-year SAMS students are nicknamed.
The SAMS paper attempts to predict events in the first year of a peace-enforcement operation, and sees possible dangers for U.S. troops from both sides.
It calls Israel's armed forces a "500-pound gorilla in Israel. Well armed and trained. Operates in both Gaza and the West Bank. Known to disregard international law to accomplish mission. Very unlikely to fire on American forces. Fratricide a concern especially in air space management."
Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."
On the Palestinian side, the paper describes their youth as "loose cannons; under no control, sometimes violent." The study lists five Arab terrorist groups that could target American troops for assassination and hostage-taking.
The study recommends "neutrality in word and deed" as one way to protect U.S. soldiers from any attack. It also says Syria, Egypt and Jordan must be warned "we will act decisively in response to external attack."
It is unlikely either of the three would mount an attack. Of Syria's military, the report says: "Syrian army quantitatively larger than Israeli Defense Forces, but largely seen as qualitatively inferior. More likely, however, Syrians would provide financial and political support to the Palestinians, as well as increase covert support to terrorism acts through Lebanon."
Of Egypt's military, the paper says, "Egyptians also maintain a large army but have little to gain by attacking Israel."
The plan does not specify a full order of battle. An Army source who reviewed the SAMS work said each of a possible three brigades would require about 100 Bradley fighting vehicles, 25 tanks, 12 self-propelled howitzers, Apache attack helicopters, Kiowa Warrior reconnaissance helicopters and Predator spy drones.
The report predicts that non-lethal weapons would be used to quell unrest.
U.S. European Command, which is headed by NATO's supreme allied commander, would oversee the peacekeeping operation. Commanders would maintain areas of operation, or AOs, around Nablus, Jerusalem, Hebron and the Gaza strip.
The study sets out a list of goals for U.S. troops to accomplish in the first 30 days. They include: "create conditions for development of Palestinian State and security of Israel "; ensure "equal distribution of contract value or equivalent aid" . . . that would help legitimize the peacekeeping force and stimulate economic growth; "promote U.S. investment in Palestine"; "encourage reconciliation between entities based on acceptance of new national identities"; and "build lasting relationship based on new legal borders and not religious-territorial claims."
Maj. Garver said the officers who completed the exercise will hold major planning jobs once they graduate. "There is an application process" for students, he said. "They screen their records, and there are several tests they go through before they are accepted by the program. The bright planners of the future come out of this program."
James Phillips, a Middle East analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said it would be a mistake to put peacekeepers in Israel, given the "poor record of previous monitors."
"In general, the Bush administration policy is to discourage a large American presence," he said. "But it has been rumored that one of the possibilities might be an expanded CIA role."
"It would be a very different environment than Bosnia," said Mr. Phillips, referring to America's six-year peacekeeping role in Bosnia-Herzegovina. "The Palestinian Authority is pushing for this as part of its strategy to internationalize the conflict. Bring in the Europeans and Russia and China. But such monitors or peacekeeping forces are not going to be able to bring peace. Only a decision by the Palestinians to stop the violence and restart talks could possibly do that."
by Rowan Scarborough
The Washington Times
September 10, 2001
An elite U.S. Army study center has devised a plan for enforcing a major Israeli-Palestinian peace accord that would require about 20,000 well-armed troops stationed throughout Israel and a newly created Palestinian state.
There are no plans by the Bush administration to put American soldiers into the Middle East to police an agreement forged by the longtime warring parties. In fact, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is searching for ways to reduce U.S. peacekeeping efforts abroad, rather than increasing such missions.
But a 68-page paper by the Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) does provide a look at the daunting task any international peacekeeping force would face if the United Nations authorized it, and Israel and the Palestinians ever reached a peace agreement. Located at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., the School for Advanced Military Studies is both a training ground and a think tank for some of the Army's brightest officers. Officials say the Army chief of staff, and sometimes the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ask SAMS to develop contingency plans for future military operations. During the 1991 Persian Gulf war, SAMS personnel helped plan the coalition ground attack that avoided a strike up the middle of Iraqi positions and instead executed a "left hook" that routed the enemy in 100 hours.
The cover page for the recent SAMS project said it was done for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But Maj. Chris Garver, a Fort Leavenworth spokesman, said the study was not requested by Washington.
"This was just an academic exercise," said Maj. Garver. "They were trying to take a current situation and get some training out of it."
The exercise was done by 60 officers dubbed "Jedi Knights," as all second-year SAMS students are nicknamed.
The SAMS paper attempts to predict events in the first year of a peace-enforcement operation, and sees possible dangers for U.S. troops from both sides.
It calls Israel's armed forces a "500-pound gorilla in Israel. Well armed and trained. Operates in both Gaza and the West Bank. Known to disregard international law to accomplish mission. Very unlikely to fire on American forces. Fratricide a concern especially in air space management."
Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."
On the Palestinian side, the paper describes their youth as "loose cannons; under no control, sometimes violent." The study lists five Arab terrorist groups that could target American troops for assassination and hostage-taking.
The study recommends "neutrality in word and deed" as one way to protect U.S. soldiers from any attack. It also says Syria, Egypt and Jordan must be warned "we will act decisively in response to external attack."
It is unlikely either of the three would mount an attack. Of Syria's military, the report says: "Syrian army quantitatively larger than Israeli Defense Forces, but largely seen as qualitatively inferior. More likely, however, Syrians would provide financial and political support to the Palestinians, as well as increase covert support to terrorism acts through Lebanon."
Of Egypt's military, the paper says, "Egyptians also maintain a large army but have little to gain by attacking Israel."
The plan does not specify a full order of battle. An Army source who reviewed the SAMS work said each of a possible three brigades would require about 100 Bradley fighting vehicles, 25 tanks, 12 self-propelled howitzers, Apache attack helicopters, Kiowa Warrior reconnaissance helicopters and Predator spy drones.
The report predicts that non-lethal weapons would be used to quell unrest.
U.S. European Command, which is headed by NATO's supreme allied commander, would oversee the peacekeeping operation. Commanders would maintain areas of operation, or AOs, around Nablus, Jerusalem, Hebron and the Gaza strip.
The study sets out a list of goals for U.S. troops to accomplish in the first 30 days. They include: "create conditions for development of Palestinian State and security of Israel "; ensure "equal distribution of contract value or equivalent aid" . . . that would help legitimize the peacekeeping force and stimulate economic growth; "promote U.S. investment in Palestine"; "encourage reconciliation between entities based on acceptance of new national identities"; and "build lasting relationship based on new legal borders and not religious-territorial claims."
Maj. Garver said the officers who completed the exercise will hold major planning jobs once they graduate. "There is an application process" for students, he said. "They screen their records, and there are several tests they go through before they are accepted by the program. The bright planners of the future come out of this program."
James Phillips, a Middle East analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said it would be a mistake to put peacekeepers in Israel, given the "poor record of previous monitors."
"In general, the Bush administration policy is to discourage a large American presence," he said. "But it has been rumored that one of the possibilities might be an expanded CIA role."
"It would be a very different environment than Bosnia," said Mr. Phillips, referring to America's six-year peacekeeping role in Bosnia-Herzegovina. "The Palestinian Authority is pushing for this as part of its strategy to internationalize the conflict. Bring in the Europeans and Russia and China. But such monitors or peacekeeping forces are not going to be able to bring peace. Only a decision by the Palestinians to stop the violence and restart talks could possibly do that."
For more information:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelin...
My first reaction to the tragic bombing in Instabul was, well, isn't this convenient! With Bush and Blair in London waxing woefully about the "the war on terror" (which, I might add, they are both contributing to greatly), we have a bombing in Turkey. Almost on cue one might say. It's downright astonishing.
Innocent people are being killed. We have to ask why. But who can we ask? Who in governments today is going to answer truthfully?
What has happened to the truth?
Again, thank God for Robert Fisk!
Innocent people are being killed. We have to ask why. But who can we ask? Who in governments today is going to answer truthfully?
What has happened to the truth?
Again, thank God for Robert Fisk!
We go to war with Iraq because it violated a handful of U.N. Resolutions, yet Israel continues to Oppress millions of People and has violated around 60 U.N. Resolutions and we close our eyes to it.
The Biggest dent to terrorism that can be make is to free the Palestinian People. Then the so called terrorist can see that there is some sense of justice and some reason for hope in a Peaceful World in the Future.
For there to be Peace and for there to be a reason for the Palestinian People to stop their fight for Freedom:
We need a Palestinian State with Reasonable Border NOW, If the Road Map that is backed by the U.S., U.N., E.U., and Russia is to work...
Send in a Joint, U.S., U.N. Peace keeping Force to the West Bank and Gaza for the sole purpose of trying to avoid conflicts between the Palestinian and the settlers..
Then have the Biased (biased because they will always be on the side of the settlers) Israeli Military retreat to the pre 1967 Israeli Borders, They can then concentrate their effort on guarding this Border..
Example of a possible solution:
SET THE BORDERS BACK TO 1967...
In return the Refugees have no Right of Return inside the 1967 Israeli Borders..
One complaint that Israel has is that the Right of Return will result in two Palestinian States, (The Right of return is almost impossible any way because the land and homes they lost are now built up with Jewish homes businesses etc…)
The Refugees can be helped to settle somewhere in the new Palestinian State..
The Settlements are now part of Palestine...
If the some 300,000 Israeli Settlers living in Palestine do not like living there, they can move to Israel...
If the 1,000,000 or so Palestinians who now live in Israel do not like living in Israel, they can move to Palestine...
If 1,000,000 or so Palestinians can live in Israel, then some 300,000 Israeli Settlers can live in Palestine if they choose to stay..
If you take Israel, West Bank and Gaza, West Bank and Gaza is only 22% of the total area in Question, This small amount is not too much to ask for millions of Palestinians who must have their freedom to have a peaceful life.
If this solution was implemented there is a good chance the so called terrorist (seen as freedom fighters by the oppressed Palestinian People) would stop their fight, if not they would be very foolish because then Israel would have a just cause to fight back and the U.S. would have a just cause to help Israel fight back.
Otherwise we will continue to have:
Israel: We have to confiscate Palestinian land and demolish Palestinian homes because there are suicide bombers???
Palestine: We have to defend ourselves because Israel is slowly confiscating all our land and demolishing our homes. We have no military to defend ourselves and our land. If we do nothing, we will soon have nothing at all???
The era of colonization is past,. We can not expect to oppress millions of Palestinian People and still have peace.
West Bank and Gaza are only 22% of what is TODAY, Israel, West Bank and Gaza.
PLEASE LOOK AT THE MAP IN THE FOLLOWING WEB PAGE:
The Orange areas are Israeli settlements in the already small 22% that is West Bank and Gaza. What kind of carved up mess will the Palestinian State be unless all the settlements are removed (which will probably never happen) or just make the settlements part of the New Palestinian State (which can happen right now)??
CLICK HERE > http://mondediplo.com/maps/IMG/artoff3260.jpg
The Biggest dent to terrorism that can be make is to free the Palestinian People. Then the so called terrorist can see that there is some sense of justice and some reason for hope in a Peaceful World in the Future.
For there to be Peace and for there to be a reason for the Palestinian People to stop their fight for Freedom:
We need a Palestinian State with Reasonable Border NOW, If the Road Map that is backed by the U.S., U.N., E.U., and Russia is to work...
Send in a Joint, U.S., U.N. Peace keeping Force to the West Bank and Gaza for the sole purpose of trying to avoid conflicts between the Palestinian and the settlers..
Then have the Biased (biased because they will always be on the side of the settlers) Israeli Military retreat to the pre 1967 Israeli Borders, They can then concentrate their effort on guarding this Border..
Example of a possible solution:
SET THE BORDERS BACK TO 1967...
In return the Refugees have no Right of Return inside the 1967 Israeli Borders..
One complaint that Israel has is that the Right of Return will result in two Palestinian States, (The Right of return is almost impossible any way because the land and homes they lost are now built up with Jewish homes businesses etc…)
The Refugees can be helped to settle somewhere in the new Palestinian State..
The Settlements are now part of Palestine...
If the some 300,000 Israeli Settlers living in Palestine do not like living there, they can move to Israel...
If the 1,000,000 or so Palestinians who now live in Israel do not like living in Israel, they can move to Palestine...
If 1,000,000 or so Palestinians can live in Israel, then some 300,000 Israeli Settlers can live in Palestine if they choose to stay..
If you take Israel, West Bank and Gaza, West Bank and Gaza is only 22% of the total area in Question, This small amount is not too much to ask for millions of Palestinians who must have their freedom to have a peaceful life.
If this solution was implemented there is a good chance the so called terrorist (seen as freedom fighters by the oppressed Palestinian People) would stop their fight, if not they would be very foolish because then Israel would have a just cause to fight back and the U.S. would have a just cause to help Israel fight back.
Otherwise we will continue to have:
Israel: We have to confiscate Palestinian land and demolish Palestinian homes because there are suicide bombers???
Palestine: We have to defend ourselves because Israel is slowly confiscating all our land and demolishing our homes. We have no military to defend ourselves and our land. If we do nothing, we will soon have nothing at all???
The era of colonization is past,. We can not expect to oppress millions of Palestinian People and still have peace.
West Bank and Gaza are only 22% of what is TODAY, Israel, West Bank and Gaza.
PLEASE LOOK AT THE MAP IN THE FOLLOWING WEB PAGE:
The Orange areas are Israeli settlements in the already small 22% that is West Bank and Gaza. What kind of carved up mess will the Palestinian State be unless all the settlements are removed (which will probably never happen) or just make the settlements part of the New Palestinian State (which can happen right now)??
CLICK HERE > http://mondediplo.com/maps/IMG/artoff3260.jpg
There is not even 22 percent any more as a result of the "evil wall" as Uri aptly describes it.
I keep going back to the comments of Sharon the Wicked made last Christmas Day wherein he said he'd support a "totally unarmed Palestinian state with greatly reduced borders".
Well, we certainly have the reduced borders, don't we?
In his article "Your Home is My Castle" (27 October 03), Ran HaCohen, Israeli author and teacher at Tel Aviv University, talks about the current human rights violations imposed upon the thousands of Palestinians caught between the Wall and the Green Line (called the "Seam Zone" by Israel)
Meaning if you are over twelve years old you must obtain a permit from the Israeli Army to live in your own home in your own village and only at the whim of the army at that, and obtaining such a permit does not come without a price.
Ran HaCohen explains:
"It may take you several days to get a permit, it may take several months, but it may also depend on the applicant. He may be politely asked - in a discreet conversation with an anonymous agent in dark glasses - to keep an eye on his neighbour or family if he wants to get a permit or grant the Israeli intelligence some other service. No free lunch".
Difficult to believe such low life exist, but there you have it. It gets worse, if that's possible.
This dispicable measure of having to obtain a permit to live in your own home does not apply to everyone. Hell, not! As Amira Haas of Ha'aretz points out, the exceptions to this barbaric treatment of human beings does not include:
" a) a native of Israel
b) a resident of Israel
c) anyone entitled to imigrate to Israel according to the Law of Return".
Ran HaCohen has a major problem with this violation of human rights and explains:
"So if you rmother happened to be Jewish, and you live in Montreal, New Mexico, or Johannesburg, you need no permit at all to visit the small West Bank village of Salim. But if you are a Palestinian, and if you and your family have lived in Salim for centuries, you cannot stay there without a written permit from Major General Moshe Kaplinski".
Ran HaCohen wonders why Kaplinski hasn't been called before the International Criminal Court for this racist order, but doubts he ever will be.
He concludes by offering this very enlightened and thought provoking comment:
"But if you ever wondered what the world would have looked like if Hitler had won the war, I think this would give you a pretty good idea".
See:
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h102703.html
I keep going back to the comments of Sharon the Wicked made last Christmas Day wherein he said he'd support a "totally unarmed Palestinian state with greatly reduced borders".
Well, we certainly have the reduced borders, don't we?
In his article "Your Home is My Castle" (27 October 03), Ran HaCohen, Israeli author and teacher at Tel Aviv University, talks about the current human rights violations imposed upon the thousands of Palestinians caught between the Wall and the Green Line (called the "Seam Zone" by Israel)
Meaning if you are over twelve years old you must obtain a permit from the Israeli Army to live in your own home in your own village and only at the whim of the army at that, and obtaining such a permit does not come without a price.
Ran HaCohen explains:
"It may take you several days to get a permit, it may take several months, but it may also depend on the applicant. He may be politely asked - in a discreet conversation with an anonymous agent in dark glasses - to keep an eye on his neighbour or family if he wants to get a permit or grant the Israeli intelligence some other service. No free lunch".
Difficult to believe such low life exist, but there you have it. It gets worse, if that's possible.
This dispicable measure of having to obtain a permit to live in your own home does not apply to everyone. Hell, not! As Amira Haas of Ha'aretz points out, the exceptions to this barbaric treatment of human beings does not include:
" a) a native of Israel
b) a resident of Israel
c) anyone entitled to imigrate to Israel according to the Law of Return".
Ran HaCohen has a major problem with this violation of human rights and explains:
"So if you rmother happened to be Jewish, and you live in Montreal, New Mexico, or Johannesburg, you need no permit at all to visit the small West Bank village of Salim. But if you are a Palestinian, and if you and your family have lived in Salim for centuries, you cannot stay there without a written permit from Major General Moshe Kaplinski".
Ran HaCohen wonders why Kaplinski hasn't been called before the International Criminal Court for this racist order, but doubts he ever will be.
He concludes by offering this very enlightened and thought provoking comment:
"But if you ever wondered what the world would have looked like if Hitler had won the war, I think this would give you a pretty good idea".
See:
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h102703.html
Why do you believe Fisk?
He seemed to be a reliable ally to our cause. Then he proved himself a liar when he reported that Americans weren't really at Baghdad Airport when it soon became clear that this was not true. When somebody lies so blatantly, I no longer deem that person credible.
Why do you people still revere this guy??
----------
"So where are the Americans? I prowled the empty departure lounges, mooched through the abandoned customs department, chatted to the seven armed militia guards, met the airport director and stood beside the runways where two dust-covered Iraqi Airways passenger jets -- an old 727 and an even more elderly Antonov -- stood forlornly on the runway not far from an equally decrepit military helicopter ...
"
He seemed to be a reliable ally to our cause. Then he proved himself a liar when he reported that Americans weren't really at Baghdad Airport when it soon became clear that this was not true. When somebody lies so blatantly, I no longer deem that person credible.
Why do you people still revere this guy??
----------
"So where are the Americans? I prowled the empty departure lounges, mooched through the abandoned customs department, chatted to the seven armed militia guards, met the airport director and stood beside the runways where two dust-covered Iraqi Airways passenger jets -- an old 727 and an even more elderly Antonov -- stood forlornly on the runway not far from an equally decrepit military helicopter ...
"
Why do you believe Fisk?
He seemed to be a reliable ally to our cause. Then he proved himself a liar when he reported that Americans weren't really at Baghdad Airport when it soon became clear that this was not true. When somebody lies so blatantly, I no longer deem that person credible.
Why do you people still revere this guy??
----------
"So where are the Americans? I prowled the empty departure lounges, mooched through the abandoned customs department, chatted to the seven armed militia guards, met the airport director and stood beside the runways where two dust-covered Iraqi Airways passenger jets -- an old 727 and an even more elderly Antonov -- stood forlornly on the runway not far from an equally decrepit military helicopter ...
"
He seemed to be a reliable ally to our cause. Then he proved himself a liar when he reported that Americans weren't really at Baghdad Airport when it soon became clear that this was not true. When somebody lies so blatantly, I no longer deem that person credible.
Why do you people still revere this guy??
----------
"So where are the Americans? I prowled the empty departure lounges, mooched through the abandoned customs department, chatted to the seven armed militia guards, met the airport director and stood beside the runways where two dust-covered Iraqi Airways passenger jets -- an old 727 and an even more elderly Antonov -- stood forlornly on the runway not far from an equally decrepit military helicopter ...
"
Hi, Larry!
What did you mean when you wrote: "He seemed to be a reliable ally to our cause?" Which cause is that
and who is "our"?
Why do you immediately assume Robert is lying? Is it not equally possible that he was at the airport BEFORE the Americans had, in fact, arrived? That they could have arrived shortly after his departure? Why, if you thought he was an ally to "our cause", are you so willing to accept he is untruthful?
I am asking these questions in all seriousness, not to criticize but to understand more clearly where you are coming from.
Thank you
Angie
What did you mean when you wrote: "He seemed to be a reliable ally to our cause?" Which cause is that
and who is "our"?
Why do you immediately assume Robert is lying? Is it not equally possible that he was at the airport BEFORE the Americans had, in fact, arrived? That they could have arrived shortly after his departure? Why, if you thought he was an ally to "our cause", are you so willing to accept he is untruthful?
I am asking these questions in all seriousness, not to criticize but to understand more clearly where you are coming from.
Thank you
Angie
http://www.rediff.com/us/2003/jul/07iraq1.htm
US troops looted Iraq airport: Time
July 07, 2003 23:51 IST
American troops allegedly committed theft and vandalism at Baghdad International Airport, causing millions of dollars worth of damages.
Time magazine cites US officials, Iraqi Airways staff and other airport workers in its story of US troops stealing duty-free items, needlessly shooting up the airport, and trashing five serviceable Boeing airplanes.
"I don't want to detract from all the great work that's going into getting the airport running again," said Lieutenant John Welsh, the army civil-affairs officer in charge of bringing the airport back into operation. "But you've got to ask if this could have been avoided; did we shoot ourselves in the foot here?"
What was then called Saddam International Airport fell to soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division on April 3. Time quotes airport workers as saying that for the next two weeks, soldiers stationed in the airport's main terminal helped themselves to items in the duty-free shop including alcohol, cassettes, perfume, cigarettes and expensive watches.
Welsh, who arrived in Iraq in late April, was so alarmed at the theft that he rounded up a group of Iraqi airport staff members to help him clean out the shop and its storage area. He locked everything in two containers and turned them over to the shop's owner, Time said.
"The man had tears in his eyes when I showed him what we had saved," Welsh is quoted as saying. "He thought he'd lost everything."
Coalition soldiers also vandalized the airport, American sources say. A boardroom table that Welsh and Iraqi civil-aviation authority officials had sat around in early May was, a week later, a pile of glass and splintered wood.
Terminal windows were smashed, and almost every door in the building was broken, says Welsh.
Time says its photographer, who flew out of the airport on April 12, saw wrecked furniture and English-language graffiti throughout the airport office building, as well as a sign warning that soldiers caught vandalizing or looting would be court-martialed.
"There was no chance this was done by Iraqis" before the airport fell, says a senior Pentagon official. "The airport was secure when this was done."
The airplanes were the biggest sufferers. Of the 10 Iraqi Airways jets on the tarmac when the airport fell, five were found to be serviceable in a US inspection in early May: three 727s, a 747 and a 737.
Over the next few weeks, though, U.S. soldiers looking for comfortable seats and souvenirs ripped out many of the planes' fittings, slashed seats, damaged cockpit equipment and popped out every windshield.
"It's unlikely any of the planes will fly again," Welsh, a reservist who works for the aviation firm Pratt and Whitney as a quality-control liaison officer to Boeing, was quoted as saying.
US estimates of the cost of the damage and theft begin at a few million dollars and go as high as 100 million dollars.
Airport workers say even now air conditioners and other equipment are regularly stolen.
"Soldiers do this stuff all the time, everywhere. It's warfare," a US military official told the magazine.
"If we're here to rebuild the country," argues Welsh, "then anything we break we have to fix. We need to train these guys to go from shoot it up to securing infrastructure. Otherwise we're just making more work for ourselves. And we have to pay for it."
US troops looted Iraq airport: Time
July 07, 2003 23:51 IST
American troops allegedly committed theft and vandalism at Baghdad International Airport, causing millions of dollars worth of damages.
Time magazine cites US officials, Iraqi Airways staff and other airport workers in its story of US troops stealing duty-free items, needlessly shooting up the airport, and trashing five serviceable Boeing airplanes.
"I don't want to detract from all the great work that's going into getting the airport running again," said Lieutenant John Welsh, the army civil-affairs officer in charge of bringing the airport back into operation. "But you've got to ask if this could have been avoided; did we shoot ourselves in the foot here?"
What was then called Saddam International Airport fell to soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division on April 3. Time quotes airport workers as saying that for the next two weeks, soldiers stationed in the airport's main terminal helped themselves to items in the duty-free shop including alcohol, cassettes, perfume, cigarettes and expensive watches.
Welsh, who arrived in Iraq in late April, was so alarmed at the theft that he rounded up a group of Iraqi airport staff members to help him clean out the shop and its storage area. He locked everything in two containers and turned them over to the shop's owner, Time said.
"The man had tears in his eyes when I showed him what we had saved," Welsh is quoted as saying. "He thought he'd lost everything."
Coalition soldiers also vandalized the airport, American sources say. A boardroom table that Welsh and Iraqi civil-aviation authority officials had sat around in early May was, a week later, a pile of glass and splintered wood.
Terminal windows were smashed, and almost every door in the building was broken, says Welsh.
Time says its photographer, who flew out of the airport on April 12, saw wrecked furniture and English-language graffiti throughout the airport office building, as well as a sign warning that soldiers caught vandalizing or looting would be court-martialed.
"There was no chance this was done by Iraqis" before the airport fell, says a senior Pentagon official. "The airport was secure when this was done."
The airplanes were the biggest sufferers. Of the 10 Iraqi Airways jets on the tarmac when the airport fell, five were found to be serviceable in a US inspection in early May: three 727s, a 747 and a 737.
Over the next few weeks, though, U.S. soldiers looking for comfortable seats and souvenirs ripped out many of the planes' fittings, slashed seats, damaged cockpit equipment and popped out every windshield.
"It's unlikely any of the planes will fly again," Welsh, a reservist who works for the aviation firm Pratt and Whitney as a quality-control liaison officer to Boeing, was quoted as saying.
US estimates of the cost of the damage and theft begin at a few million dollars and go as high as 100 million dollars.
Airport workers say even now air conditioners and other equipment are regularly stolen.
"Soldiers do this stuff all the time, everywhere. It's warfare," a US military official told the magazine.
"If we're here to rebuild the country," argues Welsh, "then anything we break we have to fix. We need to train these guys to go from shoot it up to securing infrastructure. Otherwise we're just making more work for ourselves. And we have to pay for it."
What is Really happening:
* The U.N. report charges that Israel is denying the Palestinian population food and water and that as a result, half of all Palestinian households are eating only one meal per day, which they are receiving from international food aid organizations. Ziegler reported that many Palestinians are subsisting on bread and tea and that the level malnutrition in Gaza is equal to those in sub-Saharan African countries. Ziegler points out that this is “an absurd situation as Palestine was formerly a middle-income economy with a rich agricultural base.” Tell your representative and the president that because we are providing welfare to the Israeli government to commit its crimes, we have a moral obligation to fund the United Nations so that it can continue to feed starving children in Gaza.
For full details:
CLICK HERE > http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/11/1659275_comment.php#1659427
* The U.N. report charges that Israel is denying the Palestinian population food and water and that as a result, half of all Palestinian households are eating only one meal per day, which they are receiving from international food aid organizations. Ziegler reported that many Palestinians are subsisting on bread and tea and that the level malnutrition in Gaza is equal to those in sub-Saharan African countries. Ziegler points out that this is “an absurd situation as Palestine was formerly a middle-income economy with a rich agricultural base.” Tell your representative and the president that because we are providing welfare to the Israeli government to commit its crimes, we have a moral obligation to fund the United Nations so that it can continue to feed starving children in Gaza.
For full details:
CLICK HERE > http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/11/1659275_comment.php#1659427
It wouldn't be this way if the oppressed peoples of the Occupied Territories were allowed to harvest their fields (what's left of them that haven't been destroyed by Israel), if they were allowed to move about their lands freely, work, play, live like the human beings they are. My God, when I think about how these people are forced to live, I cannot believe that the world is allowing it to happen, not only happen, but continue to happen.
But as one Israeli soldier was quoted as saying in Kol Ha' Irr magazine (in part) following the April 1996 Qana massacre: "We should have fired more shells to kill more Arabs. One Arab more, one Arab less, you know".
That's some mindset, isn't it?
Keep them occupied, keep them under curfew, keep them under checkpoints, take their lands, make them acquire permits to live in their own homes, or leave them homeless by demolishing their homes, drop a bomb here or there, a missile somewhere else, refuse them access to their crops, let them become impoverished so that they will have to leave in order to live. A "creeping transfer", Uri called it. Tragically, Uri is right.
But as one Israeli soldier was quoted as saying in Kol Ha' Irr magazine (in part) following the April 1996 Qana massacre: "We should have fired more shells to kill more Arabs. One Arab more, one Arab less, you know".
That's some mindset, isn't it?
Keep them occupied, keep them under curfew, keep them under checkpoints, take their lands, make them acquire permits to live in their own homes, or leave them homeless by demolishing their homes, drop a bomb here or there, a missile somewhere else, refuse them access to their crops, let them become impoverished so that they will have to leave in order to live. A "creeping transfer", Uri called it. Tragically, Uri is right.
Fisk appears to have been using this source for his information
http://yesrick.com/040703.htm
Maybe just like with the tanks fisk was counting the iraqi forces several times over and was somewhat oblivious to the US forces.
This is what was happening
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/iraqwar/story/0,4395,181222,00.html
I guess it is possible that fisk was quickly driven into an area that was temporarily under the iraqi control OR between 12am and 3:30am wrote his story but most likely he had seen US forces by the time he was back to send it. I guess it would be too much hastle for him to correct himself. If not the above ... in order of badness--- it was not the 4th it was the 3rd and he was writing the story a little late just he falsely recorded the date he wasnt actually there and he wrote the story based on correspondance..(and he believed the information minister over the US intelligence because hte US always lies and the information minister only tells the truth). Or he was sucking up to saddam or he saw theUS forcces couldnt think up a good anti american story for that so pretended that he hadnt.. heh
"We should have fired more shells to kill more Arabs. One Arab more, one Arab less, you know".
you could get that quote from the french military or the russian military or any other military. out of a hundred thousand people there has to be someone who will give you a nice quote.
I have seen a lefty on this board who wants to nuke the USA. that hardly means that you "collectively" want to nuke the USA.
http://yesrick.com/040703.htm
Maybe just like with the tanks fisk was counting the iraqi forces several times over and was somewhat oblivious to the US forces.
This is what was happening
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/iraqwar/story/0,4395,181222,00.html
I guess it is possible that fisk was quickly driven into an area that was temporarily under the iraqi control OR between 12am and 3:30am wrote his story but most likely he had seen US forces by the time he was back to send it. I guess it would be too much hastle for him to correct himself. If not the above ... in order of badness--- it was not the 4th it was the 3rd and he was writing the story a little late just he falsely recorded the date he wasnt actually there and he wrote the story based on correspondance..(and he believed the information minister over the US intelligence because hte US always lies and the information minister only tells the truth). Or he was sucking up to saddam or he saw theUS forcces couldnt think up a good anti american story for that so pretended that he hadnt.. heh
"We should have fired more shells to kill more Arabs. One Arab more, one Arab less, you know".
you could get that quote from the french military or the russian military or any other military. out of a hundred thousand people there has to be someone who will give you a nice quote.
I have seen a lefty on this board who wants to nuke the USA. that hardly means that you "collectively" want to nuke the USA.
Your attitude towards Robert Fisk is almost antagnostic. Why are you so eager to condemn him? Afraid to hear the truth, perhaps?
As for the quote from the israeli soldier, he was referring to the bombing of a UN compound housing several hundred civilians, already driven from their homes by the IDF, and who had sought shelter and what they thought was safety at the compound.
There is no excuse for this, Scottie, no matter how hard you try to change the subject by dragging other nations into the mix. Other nations were not shelling a UN compound housing a civilian population. Israel was. You're not going to change that, nor are you going to minimize it, and you should be ashamed to even attempt to excuse such a racist comment.
As for the quote from the israeli soldier, he was referring to the bombing of a UN compound housing several hundred civilians, already driven from their homes by the IDF, and who had sought shelter and what they thought was safety at the compound.
There is no excuse for this, Scottie, no matter how hard you try to change the subject by dragging other nations into the mix. Other nations were not shelling a UN compound housing a civilian population. Israel was. You're not going to change that, nor are you going to minimize it, and you should be ashamed to even attempt to excuse such a racist comment.
for your repeated lie that the Qana tragedy was a massacre rather than an accidental hit. You're bullshitting and can't handle the truth. What that Israeli soldier allegedly (or not) said doesn't turn that tragedy into a massacre. Same on you for your lie propagation.
Resorting to calling me a "liar" with respect to Qana is akin to saying the entire world, with the exception of Israel and the US, is lying as well. Ahh, I think not.
>>Your attitude towards Robert Fisk is almost antagnostic. Why are you so eager to condemn him? Afraid to hear the truth, perhaps?
- I provided a set of options that might make what he said true. I thought you might just acept the "early morning article" one. note how his article on the 5th was caveated "these events occured on the 4th" even though it would have had to have been REALLY EARLY on the 4th.
>>As for the quote from the israeli soldier, he was referring to the bombing of a UN compound housing several hundred civilians, already driven from their homes by the IDF, and who had sought shelter and what they thought was safety at the compound.
How have you so massively missed the point ? Try reading what I said and you will realise yoour above point has zero relivance
> There is no excuse for this, Scottie, no matter how hard you try to change the subject by dragging other nations into the mix.
Again you have missed the point.
> You're not going to change that, nor are you going to minimize it, and you should be ashamed to even attempt to excuse such a racist comment.
Now not only are you missing the point but you are putting words in my mouth. bad form angie bad form...
- I provided a set of options that might make what he said true. I thought you might just acept the "early morning article" one. note how his article on the 5th was caveated "these events occured on the 4th" even though it would have had to have been REALLY EARLY on the 4th.
>>As for the quote from the israeli soldier, he was referring to the bombing of a UN compound housing several hundred civilians, already driven from their homes by the IDF, and who had sought shelter and what they thought was safety at the compound.
How have you so massively missed the point ? Try reading what I said and you will realise yoour above point has zero relivance
> There is no excuse for this, Scottie, no matter how hard you try to change the subject by dragging other nations into the mix.
Again you have missed the point.
> You're not going to change that, nor are you going to minimize it, and you should be ashamed to even attempt to excuse such a racist comment.
Now not only are you missing the point but you are putting words in my mouth. bad form angie bad form...
I wasn't and am not concerned with anything or anyone other than yourself.
Secondly, regardless of how many billions of people come to believe a lie, the lie won' turn into an article of truth.
Thanks for the civility you resorted to. I'm impressed you didn't mock me or my alias.
Secondly, regardless of how many billions of people come to believe a lie, the lie won' turn into an article of truth.
Thanks for the civility you resorted to. I'm impressed you didn't mock me or my alias.
I wasn't and am not concerned now with anything or anyone other than yourself.
Secondly, regardless of how many billions of people come to believe a lie, the lie won't turn into an article of truth.
Any person who hasn't been misinformed by the lie you've been peddling subscribes to the view that Qana was by no means a massacre.
Thanks for the civility you resorted to. I'm impressed you didn't mock me or my alias.
Secondly, regardless of how many billions of people come to believe a lie, the lie won't turn into an article of truth.
Any person who hasn't been misinformed by the lie you've been peddling subscribes to the view that Qana was by no means a massacre.
Thanks for the civility you resorted to. I'm impressed you didn't mock me or my alias.
When was the last time the French military, the Russian miltiary, or any other military bombed a UN compound that was sheltering civilians driven from their homes by a terrorist army? And having done so lied about it (as is the Israeli way), and then have one of its soldiers give an interview to an Israeli magazine gloating about same. The 106 dead wasn't enough for him. If that's not despicable, I don't know what is. But as you always do, Scottie, you'll find a way to excuse him and blame the victims.
And the erstwhile "anti bullshit" will pounce on this post just as he always does and before we know it, Qana never was. Something along the lines of Deir Yassin. And I'm the "liar", as is anyone who has an independent mind and refuses to be brainwashed. Hell, not!
Oh, and you don't think that was a racist comment? Ah, I bet if an Arab said it about an Israeli, even Mr. Gehrig would be on the Board yelling and screaming as is his wont. He's appeared here ranting about much less.
Incidentally don't accuse me of putting words in your mouth, man. Or if you do, kindly specify where I have done so, what words they were, etc.
And now if you don't mind, I have a few choice words to say to the infamous Mr. Gehrig in another thread, so I'll leave you to it.
And the erstwhile "anti bullshit" will pounce on this post just as he always does and before we know it, Qana never was. Something along the lines of Deir Yassin. And I'm the "liar", as is anyone who has an independent mind and refuses to be brainwashed. Hell, not!
Oh, and you don't think that was a racist comment? Ah, I bet if an Arab said it about an Israeli, even Mr. Gehrig would be on the Board yelling and screaming as is his wont. He's appeared here ranting about much less.
Incidentally don't accuse me of putting words in your mouth, man. Or if you do, kindly specify where I have done so, what words they were, etc.
And now if you don't mind, I have a few choice words to say to the infamous Mr. Gehrig in another thread, so I'll leave you to it.
When was the last time the French military, the Russian miltiary, or any other military bombed a UN compound that was sheltering civilians driven from their homes by a terrorist army?
- You have gone WAY off topic. but hey when has the US or israel committed ethnic cleansing on a group of buddist monks? When has israel or the US said it plans on annexing an island state and forced the UN and other states not to recognise that state.
> and then have one of its soldiers give an interview to an Israeli magazine gloating about same.
- Sounds like you are lying here. I doubt the israelis "HAD one of its soldiers give an interview" the interviewers probably asked 50 soldiers and picked the worst sounding quote.
> The 106 dead wasn't enough for him. If that's not despicable, I don't know what is. But as you always do, Scottie, you'll find a way to excuse him and blame the victims.
- you are A) misrepresenting me again. B) Again you are being an idiot and ingnoring my point. How stupid are you?
> Oh, and you don't think that was a racist comment?
- cant you understand english WOMAN! I am saying he did not speak for the israeli army as a whole, and that there is a diversity of opinions within the army just like EVERYWHERE else.
> Ah, I bet if an Arab said it about an Israeli, even Mr. Gehrig would be on the Board yelling and screaming as is his wont. He's appeared here ranting about much less.
They do say it all the time and we dont rant because there is no point we are not so stupid as to think a random arab speaks for all of arabia.
> Incidentally don't accuse me of putting words in your mouth, man. Or if you do, kindly specify where I have done so, what words they were, etc.
Look at what you said I said in the last few posts.. yup thats it.. all of it.
- You have gone WAY off topic. but hey when has the US or israel committed ethnic cleansing on a group of buddist monks? When has israel or the US said it plans on annexing an island state and forced the UN and other states not to recognise that state.
> and then have one of its soldiers give an interview to an Israeli magazine gloating about same.
- Sounds like you are lying here. I doubt the israelis "HAD one of its soldiers give an interview" the interviewers probably asked 50 soldiers and picked the worst sounding quote.
> The 106 dead wasn't enough for him. If that's not despicable, I don't know what is. But as you always do, Scottie, you'll find a way to excuse him and blame the victims.
- you are A) misrepresenting me again. B) Again you are being an idiot and ingnoring my point. How stupid are you?
> Oh, and you don't think that was a racist comment?
- cant you understand english WOMAN! I am saying he did not speak for the israeli army as a whole, and that there is a diversity of opinions within the army just like EVERYWHERE else.
> Ah, I bet if an Arab said it about an Israeli, even Mr. Gehrig would be on the Board yelling and screaming as is his wont. He's appeared here ranting about much less.
They do say it all the time and we dont rant because there is no point we are not so stupid as to think a random arab speaks for all of arabia.
> Incidentally don't accuse me of putting words in your mouth, man. Or if you do, kindly specify where I have done so, what words they were, etc.
Look at what you said I said in the last few posts.. yup thats it.. all of it.
My little post to Angel, which seems to have disturbed you, made NO MENTION of the French or Russian or any other military.
However, if you check your response above, guess what? There you are, VEERING off-topic. You stated the following:
>>> "You could get that quote from the French military or the Russian military or any other military".
So I responded to that. Check the posts above, Scottie, dear. The French and Russian military were the furthest from my mind when I addressed Angel's post above.
So, lad, you pay attention. You are deliberately misinterpreting everything I say. If I'm serious, if I have fun with Juiced up Joe, if I am angry, if I am polite, regardless, there you are forever putting your own spin on every word I utter. I am not the only one contributing to the board.
I spoke of one Israeli soldier (there were others in the same incident, and if you wish, you can do a Google or Yahoo search under Qana massacre, and you'll find that and a lot more). And here you are throwing the entire IDF into the mix. I couldn't give a damn what the Israeli army en masse thought about Qana. I am not quoting the entire army.
Now here you are dragging a "random Arab" into the picture. I don't give a damn what a "random Arab" might say. I am talking about what an Israeli soldier SAID. There was no "random Arab" under discussion until you tossed him on the Board.
The "have one of its soldiers" is certainly open to a different interpretation from what I had in mind. Just remove the "have". I was simply listing the series of events: the civilians being driven from their homes, the 17 or more villages demolished, the bombing of the UN compound, the lies about it being an "accident", and the soldier's interview. There is no need to go yellng at me As in if all of the foregoing were not enough, we have the soldier's interview.
And instead of admitting that it was a racist comment, you attack me, proving once again that if I said the sky were falling, you'd laugh until it struck you in the head.
And kindly cease calling me "stupid", sir. It's only making yourself look bad.
However, if you check your response above, guess what? There you are, VEERING off-topic. You stated the following:
>>> "You could get that quote from the French military or the Russian military or any other military".
So I responded to that. Check the posts above, Scottie, dear. The French and Russian military were the furthest from my mind when I addressed Angel's post above.
So, lad, you pay attention. You are deliberately misinterpreting everything I say. If I'm serious, if I have fun with Juiced up Joe, if I am angry, if I am polite, regardless, there you are forever putting your own spin on every word I utter. I am not the only one contributing to the board.
I spoke of one Israeli soldier (there were others in the same incident, and if you wish, you can do a Google or Yahoo search under Qana massacre, and you'll find that and a lot more). And here you are throwing the entire IDF into the mix. I couldn't give a damn what the Israeli army en masse thought about Qana. I am not quoting the entire army.
Now here you are dragging a "random Arab" into the picture. I don't give a damn what a "random Arab" might say. I am talking about what an Israeli soldier SAID. There was no "random Arab" under discussion until you tossed him on the Board.
The "have one of its soldiers" is certainly open to a different interpretation from what I had in mind. Just remove the "have". I was simply listing the series of events: the civilians being driven from their homes, the 17 or more villages demolished, the bombing of the UN compound, the lies about it being an "accident", and the soldier's interview. There is no need to go yellng at me As in if all of the foregoing were not enough, we have the soldier's interview.
And instead of admitting that it was a racist comment, you attack me, proving once again that if I said the sky were falling, you'd laugh until it struck you in the head.
And kindly cease calling me "stupid", sir. It's only making yourself look bad.
Firstly, Qana is not my "lie". It is Israel's "lie". You're acting as if I were the first and only individual who even mentioned a "massacre" when searches under Google and Yahoo are full of info re same.
Those of us who have independent minds and who read the huge amount of evidence with respect to this disregard for human life and limb insist it was not an accident at all.
Normally I am a "civilized" lass unless, of course, I'm attacked at which time I bark (as they say, whoever "they" are). However, there are occasions, rare occasions, mind you, when you sound a wee bit like "anti angie". Don't get in a snit. I said "a wee bit".
He said once he brought out the "benign" side of me, and I suppose he did at that. Even when he was yelling at me I was in stitches. I miss that. Strange, isn't it, she mused with a sigh.
Anyway that's it. I'm trying to locate a post by Mr. Gehrig which I scribbled on a piece of paper on my desk and now I can't find same.
Those of us who have independent minds and who read the huge amount of evidence with respect to this disregard for human life and limb insist it was not an accident at all.
Normally I am a "civilized" lass unless, of course, I'm attacked at which time I bark (as they say, whoever "they" are). However, there are occasions, rare occasions, mind you, when you sound a wee bit like "anti angie". Don't get in a snit. I said "a wee bit".
He said once he brought out the "benign" side of me, and I suppose he did at that. Even when he was yelling at me I was in stitches. I miss that. Strange, isn't it, she mused with a sigh.
Anyway that's it. I'm trying to locate a post by Mr. Gehrig which I scribbled on a piece of paper on my desk and now I can't find same.
> So, lad, you pay attention. You are deliberately misinterpreting everything I say.
- You are again making no sense at all because you did not understand what i said.
> I spoke of one Israeli soldier
exactly and I am saying that the fact that you can find a quote from one israeli soldier that might be racist proves nothng since there has almost never been a war that did not involve someone who was at least slightly racist. the fact that you fould that person in this war says nothing about the war at all.
> And here you are throwing the entire IDF into the mix.
you were refering to the soldier as if it said somthign about the IDF. it doesnt unless the soldier was speaking on behalf of the IDF (which I doubt he was)
> I couldn't give a damn what the Israeli army en masse thought about Qana. I am not quoting the entire army.
- then your quote is a waste of time. Pick a war and I can make up a quote that I am pretty sure was said during the war at some stage.
> Now here you are dragging a "random Arab" into the picture. I don't give a damn what a "random Arab" might say.
but you do give a damn what a randon israeli might say?..? how racist is that?
> And instead of admitting that it was a racist comment, you attack me.
- Do you want me to stop and congradulate you everytime you spell a word right also?
the quote is basically a witch hunt against hte israeli army. it is the sort of thing that you will hear after a war. I am certain that the arabs said somthing similar about killing israelis. The fellow might well not think to say that sort of a thing except straight after a battle or then again he might say it alll the time either way you are wasting our time by quoting somthing that you could easily have gotten from the US military regarding iraq or afganistain or the iranian army or wherever.
The next question is did the fellow say it in english? if not then your quote is irrelevant because it might well take a totally different connotation in hebrew. And it would have been translated to take on the worst one to make it "news worthy"
At any rate your quote is worthless .
here is one I am sure was said
"kill those jewish bastards!" and "we will kill all the jews in palestine!" dont need a quote because Im almost 1005 sure it was said at some stage. of course it counts for nothing because those people did not speak for the PLO any mroe than the soldier speaks for israel.
> And kindly cease calling me "stupid", sir. It's only making yourself look bad.
- if you dont want to be called it you know what to do.
- You are again making no sense at all because you did not understand what i said.
> I spoke of one Israeli soldier
exactly and I am saying that the fact that you can find a quote from one israeli soldier that might be racist proves nothng since there has almost never been a war that did not involve someone who was at least slightly racist. the fact that you fould that person in this war says nothing about the war at all.
> And here you are throwing the entire IDF into the mix.
you were refering to the soldier as if it said somthign about the IDF. it doesnt unless the soldier was speaking on behalf of the IDF (which I doubt he was)
> I couldn't give a damn what the Israeli army en masse thought about Qana. I am not quoting the entire army.
- then your quote is a waste of time. Pick a war and I can make up a quote that I am pretty sure was said during the war at some stage.
> Now here you are dragging a "random Arab" into the picture. I don't give a damn what a "random Arab" might say.
but you do give a damn what a randon israeli might say?..? how racist is that?
> And instead of admitting that it was a racist comment, you attack me.
- Do you want me to stop and congradulate you everytime you spell a word right also?
the quote is basically a witch hunt against hte israeli army. it is the sort of thing that you will hear after a war. I am certain that the arabs said somthing similar about killing israelis. The fellow might well not think to say that sort of a thing except straight after a battle or then again he might say it alll the time either way you are wasting our time by quoting somthing that you could easily have gotten from the US military regarding iraq or afganistain or the iranian army or wherever.
The next question is did the fellow say it in english? if not then your quote is irrelevant because it might well take a totally different connotation in hebrew. And it would have been translated to take on the worst one to make it "news worthy"
At any rate your quote is worthless .
here is one I am sure was said
"kill those jewish bastards!" and "we will kill all the jews in palestine!" dont need a quote because Im almost 1005 sure it was said at some stage. of course it counts for nothing because those people did not speak for the PLO any mroe than the soldier speaks for israel.
> And kindly cease calling me "stupid", sir. It's only making yourself look bad.
- if you dont want to be called it you know what to do.
No. Israel hasn't been lying about Qana. I'm not concerned with people other than you. The fact you weren't the first to help spread this lie doesn't excuse what you've been doing.
I submit it's easy to become misinformed by so many sources touting the lie - some of which are bona fide and not even aware of the lie being repeated.
Your distrust of Mr. Peres about Qana doesn't make sense, as he has been a unique example of a statesman who's been honest with international opinion and institutions in particular, and in foreign affairs in general,- as opposed to his infamous dishonesty toward the Israeli public.
The folks of independent minds who analyze the whole spectrum of facts and factors re the Qana tragedy and are able to filter out the disinformation conclude the incident was not a massacre nor an intentional hit.
I submit it's easy to become misinformed by so many sources touting the lie - some of which are bona fide and not even aware of the lie being repeated.
Your distrust of Mr. Peres about Qana doesn't make sense, as he has been a unique example of a statesman who's been honest with international opinion and institutions in particular, and in foreign affairs in general,- as opposed to his infamous dishonesty toward the Israeli public.
The folks of independent minds who analyze the whole spectrum of facts and factors re the Qana tragedy and are able to filter out the disinformation conclude the incident was not a massacre nor an intentional hit.
Believe whatever you wish. Don't be concerned with anyone except me. (That's narrowing your scope a lot, isn't it?)
Because I care not. I can read. I can listen. I can judge for myself who I believe or otherwise.
I will say that it is very curious how every single massacre, every single murder has been described by Israel as an "accident" or a "mistake". Fifty five years of "accidents/mistakes?" Hell, not!
Shimon Peres? Don't believe a word he says. Was never impressed with anything he's ever done (least of all the Qana massacre) or anything he's not done.
In fact, Uri obviously shares my views as is evidenced in his article, "The Silliest Show in Town", 20 September 03, and I quote in part:
"But Shimon Peres joined Sharon's government, served him loyally, disseminated around the world the myth that Sharon is a man of peace, paved his way in Washington and lent a willing hand to all his atrocities - the ‘targeted killings", the wholesale demolition of homes, the enlargement of the settlements at a frantic pace".
True or not, Anti bullshit? Remember Uri has lived through all of this!
Uri goes on to add:
"In his long career, Peres has been everything. He has been an extreme hawk and a cooing dove. He is the father of Israel's nuclear bomb and (after intense lobbying) a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. One of the main initiators of the 1956 war, in the company of two foul colonialist regimes (France and Britain, at the time), and a partner to the Oslo agreement. The father of the West Bank settlements and the creator of the Good Fence on the Lebanese border. The advocate of the Lebanon invasion and, just a few days later, the main speaker at the Peace Now demonstration against it".
And there's more.
"He has supported everything. At one time he declared that Israel is not a Middle Eastern but a "Mediterranean" country. For years has advocated the "Jordanian Option" that ignored the existence of the Palestinian people. Then he shook the hand of Arafat and invented the New Middle East. And through all these years he has never, never won an election".
It would appear from Uri's assessment above that Peres will be anything he is required to be. I would describe him as an opportunist at best.
However, do not let me interfere in your delusions. You forget I'm not brainwashed.
Also remember that I only discovered Uri Avnery in the spring of 2003. My thoughts on the "conflict" (for want of a better word) had been formulated long before that. It's fun, however, to see my own views being echoed down through the decades by such a brilliant human being as Uri Avnery, he, whose vision and brave and courageous heart never fails to astound and delight. I am indeed blessed.
see:
http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html
Because I care not. I can read. I can listen. I can judge for myself who I believe or otherwise.
I will say that it is very curious how every single massacre, every single murder has been described by Israel as an "accident" or a "mistake". Fifty five years of "accidents/mistakes?" Hell, not!
Shimon Peres? Don't believe a word he says. Was never impressed with anything he's ever done (least of all the Qana massacre) or anything he's not done.
In fact, Uri obviously shares my views as is evidenced in his article, "The Silliest Show in Town", 20 September 03, and I quote in part:
"But Shimon Peres joined Sharon's government, served him loyally, disseminated around the world the myth that Sharon is a man of peace, paved his way in Washington and lent a willing hand to all his atrocities - the ‘targeted killings", the wholesale demolition of homes, the enlargement of the settlements at a frantic pace".
True or not, Anti bullshit? Remember Uri has lived through all of this!
Uri goes on to add:
"In his long career, Peres has been everything. He has been an extreme hawk and a cooing dove. He is the father of Israel's nuclear bomb and (after intense lobbying) a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. One of the main initiators of the 1956 war, in the company of two foul colonialist regimes (France and Britain, at the time), and a partner to the Oslo agreement. The father of the West Bank settlements and the creator of the Good Fence on the Lebanese border. The advocate of the Lebanon invasion and, just a few days later, the main speaker at the Peace Now demonstration against it".
And there's more.
"He has supported everything. At one time he declared that Israel is not a Middle Eastern but a "Mediterranean" country. For years has advocated the "Jordanian Option" that ignored the existence of the Palestinian people. Then he shook the hand of Arafat and invented the New Middle East. And through all these years he has never, never won an election".
It would appear from Uri's assessment above that Peres will be anything he is required to be. I would describe him as an opportunist at best.
However, do not let me interfere in your delusions. You forget I'm not brainwashed.
Also remember that I only discovered Uri Avnery in the spring of 2003. My thoughts on the "conflict" (for want of a better word) had been formulated long before that. It's fun, however, to see my own views being echoed down through the decades by such a brilliant human being as Uri Avnery, he, whose vision and brave and courageous heart never fails to astound and delight. I am indeed blessed.
see:
http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html
Do I suggest that you are a politician? Because no one can take a sentence and defly give it a whole new meaning unless one is, gasp, in politics..
1. I was not talking about any military, Fresh, Russian, or otherwise. You dragged that into the picture. Read what you said.
2. I quoted one Israeli soldier (there were others quoted, but do your own research) dealing specifically with the Qana massacre. Do you understand that? Is that so hard to grasp? And you have the audacity to sit and belittle my intellect! Ye'ah, laughable doesn't cover it. I never mentioned a "war". You did, over and over. My focus was Qana.
3. At no point in my post did I mention an Arab. You did. The Arabs weren' t doing the bombing. They were being bombed. They were not quoted anywhere in my post. Yet you insisted on dragging them into the mix as well.
4. And then you attempt to make excuses for this soldier. Oh, did he say that? How the hell do I know? I wasn't there. But the same could be said for anyone that has ever been quoted anywhere. Was it what he meant? Was he speaking Hebrew? Was the meaning lost in the translation? Anything at all to deflect criticism from what was said. For what it is worth, it was quoted in an Israeli magazine (and, no, it wasn't Ha'aretz). Witch hunt? I bet! Regardless of where it was quoted, it is racist, and your outrageous attempts to mitigate same is surprising at best.
5. If you want to write a post about the Qana massacre, I suggest you do your own research, and come up with your own views, not borrow mine and present them in an entirely different light than what I stated. And in so doing accuse me of being -- what? Stupid? A racist? Oh, yes. Lest I forget! Lying. Being an idiot. Putting words in your mouth.
6. You're just like most of the pro Israel folk here, Scottie. When you can't accept the truth, you accuse, attack, denigrate, character assassinate.
However, I'm not going to be intimidated by your blathering. If you are unable, or unwilling, to grasp what I say, don't bother to respond at all. I'm heartily sick to death of you coming on here misinterpreting my comments. Go play with someone else for a while, why don't you? I have nothing further to say to you this night.
1. I was not talking about any military, Fresh, Russian, or otherwise. You dragged that into the picture. Read what you said.
2. I quoted one Israeli soldier (there were others quoted, but do your own research) dealing specifically with the Qana massacre. Do you understand that? Is that so hard to grasp? And you have the audacity to sit and belittle my intellect! Ye'ah, laughable doesn't cover it. I never mentioned a "war". You did, over and over. My focus was Qana.
3. At no point in my post did I mention an Arab. You did. The Arabs weren' t doing the bombing. They were being bombed. They were not quoted anywhere in my post. Yet you insisted on dragging them into the mix as well.
4. And then you attempt to make excuses for this soldier. Oh, did he say that? How the hell do I know? I wasn't there. But the same could be said for anyone that has ever been quoted anywhere. Was it what he meant? Was he speaking Hebrew? Was the meaning lost in the translation? Anything at all to deflect criticism from what was said. For what it is worth, it was quoted in an Israeli magazine (and, no, it wasn't Ha'aretz). Witch hunt? I bet! Regardless of where it was quoted, it is racist, and your outrageous attempts to mitigate same is surprising at best.
5. If you want to write a post about the Qana massacre, I suggest you do your own research, and come up with your own views, not borrow mine and present them in an entirely different light than what I stated. And in so doing accuse me of being -- what? Stupid? A racist? Oh, yes. Lest I forget! Lying. Being an idiot. Putting words in your mouth.
6. You're just like most of the pro Israel folk here, Scottie. When you can't accept the truth, you accuse, attack, denigrate, character assassinate.
However, I'm not going to be intimidated by your blathering. If you are unable, or unwilling, to grasp what I say, don't bother to respond at all. I'm heartily sick to death of you coming on here misinterpreting my comments. Go play with someone else for a while, why don't you? I have nothing further to say to you this night.
> I was not talking about any military, Fresh, Russian, or otherwise.
- I never said that you were.
2. I quoted one Israeli soldier (there were others quoted, but do your own research) dealing specifically with the Qana massacre. I never mentioned a "war". You did, over and over. My focus was Qana.
- again totally beside the point. Many people here would say qana was not a massacare but I presume there was some fighitng.. fighting.... war.. whatever you know what I mean.
> 3. At no point in my post did I mention an Arab.
Why didn't you?
> The Arabs weren' t doing the bombing. They were being bombed. They were not quoted anywhere in my post. Yet you insisted on dragging them into the mix as well.
Because as I said it is decietful for you to take a quote of one soldier and talk about it as if it represents how the israelis all feel. If you dont realise that you were giving that impression ok Ill acept your appology.
> 4. And then you attempt to make excuses for this soldier. Anything at all to deflect criticism from what was said.
Well A) if he was speaking hebrew that is NOT what he said. i.e you are critisizing him for the wrong thing.
B) I am not excusing what he said if he did indeed say that I am just saying that it says nothing about the israelis as a whole. It may even say very little about him as a person if he was just recently in a combat zone. If you accept that point then go bring it up in some special thread about that soldier but it is not relevant to a wider discussion of the middle east
> For what it is worth, it was quoted in an Israeli magazine
- again the difference between me saying somthing in english and somthing in chinese can be HUGE particularly in a word for word translation. Infact it is generally impossible to properly translate sentances with lots of subtext to them.
> Regardless of where it was quoted, it is racist, and your outrageous attempts to mitigate same is surprising at best.
If a thai man says "if you see an indian and a snake hit the indian first because they are greedy" (I have heard one say that by the way so it's not made up) and a person runs around quoting that guy all the time going "hey a thai person said somthing about hitting indians.. And then said thats some mindset isnt it? those people running around mistreating indians and all"
It is not just the thai man who is racist it is the person reporting it too.. because they have just generalized an unfavourable action onto an entire race just like the first person did.
The quote is not even worth repeating ion the context of a wider debate because it hardly represents "thai policy".
Now don't do somthing stupid and complain about me mentioning thailand and indians it is just an example replace those countries and races with arab and israelis or palistinians and jews if you want.
- I never said that you were.
2. I quoted one Israeli soldier (there were others quoted, but do your own research) dealing specifically with the Qana massacre. I never mentioned a "war". You did, over and over. My focus was Qana.
- again totally beside the point. Many people here would say qana was not a massacare but I presume there was some fighitng.. fighting.... war.. whatever you know what I mean.
> 3. At no point in my post did I mention an Arab.
Why didn't you?
> The Arabs weren' t doing the bombing. They were being bombed. They were not quoted anywhere in my post. Yet you insisted on dragging them into the mix as well.
Because as I said it is decietful for you to take a quote of one soldier and talk about it as if it represents how the israelis all feel. If you dont realise that you were giving that impression ok Ill acept your appology.
> 4. And then you attempt to make excuses for this soldier. Anything at all to deflect criticism from what was said.
Well A) if he was speaking hebrew that is NOT what he said. i.e you are critisizing him for the wrong thing.
B) I am not excusing what he said if he did indeed say that I am just saying that it says nothing about the israelis as a whole. It may even say very little about him as a person if he was just recently in a combat zone. If you accept that point then go bring it up in some special thread about that soldier but it is not relevant to a wider discussion of the middle east
> For what it is worth, it was quoted in an Israeli magazine
- again the difference between me saying somthing in english and somthing in chinese can be HUGE particularly in a word for word translation. Infact it is generally impossible to properly translate sentances with lots of subtext to them.
> Regardless of where it was quoted, it is racist, and your outrageous attempts to mitigate same is surprising at best.
If a thai man says "if you see an indian and a snake hit the indian first because they are greedy" (I have heard one say that by the way so it's not made up) and a person runs around quoting that guy all the time going "hey a thai person said somthing about hitting indians.. And then said thats some mindset isnt it? those people running around mistreating indians and all"
It is not just the thai man who is racist it is the person reporting it too.. because they have just generalized an unfavourable action onto an entire race just like the first person did.
The quote is not even worth repeating ion the context of a wider debate because it hardly represents "thai policy".
Now don't do somthing stupid and complain about me mentioning thailand and indians it is just an example replace those countries and races with arab and israelis or palistinians and jews if you want.
You never care, Angie. What's the novelty?
You're brazenly lying now. If you take the Goldstein massacre (a real massacre) for example, Israel has never described it as anything other than a massacre. Stop peppering your posts with pontifications with dishonesty and lay off. (Or in your words, "Hell yes!!!!!!!!")
You and your hero may continue lying, believing the targeted killings of Palestinian terrorists are "atrocities", I'll stick with the truth, namely that it's part of the legitimate struggle against Palestinian terror. Also you two's claim that the residential areas in the disputed territories have been expanded in a frantic pace is a lie.
If Avneri insinuates Peres didn't deserve the Nobel peace prize, I tend to agree (yeah, surprise surprise !).
Regardless of your hero's claims, Israel needed to launch the 1956 Sinai campaign in order to open the forceful blockade Egypt had imposed on the Tiran Straits - Israeli vessels were prohibited from sailing further into the Red Sea and Israel's southernmost harbor was in danger of paralysis. International circumstances prevented Israel from starting this campaign a year before, so Israel figured it'd be better to time the campaign to Britain and France's operation. It's crucial to remember the latter two had colonial interests which Israel didn't share - regardless of what Avneri thinks.
As far as the residential areas in the disputed territories, the "culprits" were Levi Eshkol (PM until his untimely death in 1969), Golda Meir and then Rabin. Peres became minister of defense when Rabin became PM in 1974, so it's not so accurate to speak of the former as "The father of the West Bank settlements".
What does your hero mean by "He has supported everything."? Bull. Peres, for instance, has *never* supported Israel's bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 (a legitimate pre-emptive measure which the US vigorously protested but later came around to agreeing with it).
Here's one more lie of your Uri - the "Jordanian Option" never ignored the existence of Arabs referring to themselves as "Palestinians"; it advocated tying Jordan and Judea & Samaria into some sort of confederacy.
I share your assessment that Peres makes himself almost anything to anyone in the realms of Israeli politics and society.
As I've said, Peres has indeed been very dishonest with the Israeli public and in the Israeli arena. The honest excerpts you gleaned from your hero Avnery (you yourself touted him as your hero so don't dare pounce on me now) confirm that. That, however, doesn't mean Peres was lying about Qana tragedy, which was not a massacre.
I don't care when you discovered your newfound hero. Israel's is a diverse society and one can always find some prominent figure to echo at least some of his/her points of view. I don't see the big deal here.
Perhaps you weren't. I guess you had been misinformed over a long period of time.
The crucial thing to remember is you're still wrong about Qana.
You're brazenly lying now. If you take the Goldstein massacre (a real massacre) for example, Israel has never described it as anything other than a massacre. Stop peppering your posts with pontifications with dishonesty and lay off. (Or in your words, "Hell yes!!!!!!!!")
You and your hero may continue lying, believing the targeted killings of Palestinian terrorists are "atrocities", I'll stick with the truth, namely that it's part of the legitimate struggle against Palestinian terror. Also you two's claim that the residential areas in the disputed territories have been expanded in a frantic pace is a lie.
If Avneri insinuates Peres didn't deserve the Nobel peace prize, I tend to agree (yeah, surprise surprise !).
Regardless of your hero's claims, Israel needed to launch the 1956 Sinai campaign in order to open the forceful blockade Egypt had imposed on the Tiran Straits - Israeli vessels were prohibited from sailing further into the Red Sea and Israel's southernmost harbor was in danger of paralysis. International circumstances prevented Israel from starting this campaign a year before, so Israel figured it'd be better to time the campaign to Britain and France's operation. It's crucial to remember the latter two had colonial interests which Israel didn't share - regardless of what Avneri thinks.
As far as the residential areas in the disputed territories, the "culprits" were Levi Eshkol (PM until his untimely death in 1969), Golda Meir and then Rabin. Peres became minister of defense when Rabin became PM in 1974, so it's not so accurate to speak of the former as "The father of the West Bank settlements".
What does your hero mean by "He has supported everything."? Bull. Peres, for instance, has *never* supported Israel's bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 (a legitimate pre-emptive measure which the US vigorously protested but later came around to agreeing with it).
Here's one more lie of your Uri - the "Jordanian Option" never ignored the existence of Arabs referring to themselves as "Palestinians"; it advocated tying Jordan and Judea & Samaria into some sort of confederacy.
I share your assessment that Peres makes himself almost anything to anyone in the realms of Israeli politics and society.
As I've said, Peres has indeed been very dishonest with the Israeli public and in the Israeli arena. The honest excerpts you gleaned from your hero Avnery (you yourself touted him as your hero so don't dare pounce on me now) confirm that. That, however, doesn't mean Peres was lying about Qana tragedy, which was not a massacre.
I don't care when you discovered your newfound hero. Israel's is a diverse society and one can always find some prominent figure to echo at least some of his/her points of view. I don't see the big deal here.
Perhaps you weren't. I guess you had been misinformed over a long period of time.
The crucial thing to remember is you're still wrong about Qana.
Note your post above. Haven't time to read same. Will do so later and respond.
We will never agree on Qana, lad. I'll have more when I get back to the office.
We will never agree on Qana, lad. I'll have more when I get back to the office.
I just had half a post completed in response to yours above, and, lo! Lost the damn thing. So here I go again, sigh.
1. Burach Goldstein, the mass murderer of the 29 worshippers in the Hebron Mosque in the Cave of the Patriarchs in 1994, became a "martyr", as you're aware, and today there are numerous "conspiracy" theories still swirling around about him. You've heard about these, I'm sure.
2. Whoa, there, sir!! Uri Avnery is certainly not "lying". He doesn't have to. You and others of your beliefs on this board should really discard that offensive and so often misused word. Mull over it.
3. You obviously believe that "targetted killings" of Palestinians is all perfectly legal. Uri does not. I do not. That does not make either of us unique. Millions of civilized people are horrified re the targetting of human beings for slaughter. It's not about Palestinian "terrorists". It's murder. What kind of world would it be if every nation decided to carry out it's own "targetted" assassinations on a whim?
4. If Israel has a legitimate case with respect to any of the individuals it has murdered in this fashion, I suggest (as I have always done) that the so-called "terrorists" be brought before a Court of Law wherein the best evidence can be heard by a Learned Judge, and guilt or innocence determined through the judicial process. It's the civilized way. Show us proof in other words.
You see just because Israel says so and so is a Palestinian "terrorist" doesn't make him one. Not!
See:
http:/http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h-col.html
And you can also read my views on this particular article here::
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/11/1660887_comment.php#1661082
5. Your comments denying the rapid and, yes, frantic expansion of residential areas in the Occupied Territories is incredulous even for you. Don't you follow the news of the world? Who announced just in October that it was placing tenders for the construction of 600 new homes in the Occupied Territories? And that was just one day in October. There were others, and regardless of who started this horrific practice, the end result is the same. I'm not aware of any Israeli Prime Minister who didn't pursue the settlement agenda, and even before he became Prime Minister, Sharon was, as Minister of Agriculture (or whatever his title was in Agriculture) responsible for an even greater increase in said settlements. This is a completely dishonest comment, lad, and I'm sure you will drop by again and explain how you can deny this issue. The facts on the ground speak for themselves.
6. You feel Israel needed to "launch the 1956 campaign in order to open the forceful blockade Egypt imposed on the Tiran Straits";. otherwise, an Israeli harbour could be subject to "paralysis". What a mass of contradictions you are, Anti Bullshit.
It's perfectly okay with you that Israel should take this measure, yet today, yesterday, last year the Palestinian peoples are facing horrific economic, social, and political paralyis due to Israel's travel restrictions, demolition of orchards and crops, homes, check points, curfews, etc. You think that's okay, do you? Or do you believe that a harbour facing paralysis and an entire Palestinian population facing (and currently living through) a murderous paralysis are two different entities? That one should be defended, the other not? Is this what you believe? Tell me.
7. (Oppps! I thought I'd lost this post again!) Whew!
You're going to have to ask Uri what he means by "he supported everything", and unless you lived in Israel in 1981 and were privy to the opinions of Peres and his fellow government officials, you can't tell me that Uri is misinformed here. You may call the bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor a "legitimate pre-emptive measure", but I do not. The protestation of the US to the incident and its subsequent agreement is of little consequence to the truth, lad.
8. I must make a very important correction here. He is not "my" Uri. I believe his assessment, however, on the "Jordanian Option" and unless you can give me irrefutable proof to the contrary, I shall continue to believe him.
9. Re Peres. How in the world did he become an international figure whilst never having been elected, and from what I grasp from your view of him he's unpopular in Israel (and you can confirm if I've read your comments incorrectly) He is, indeed, a bit of a chameleon, forever changing at will to suit his own advancement. Uri, incidentally, also said in the article I posted above that:
"After all, Peres does not hide his longing for a seat in the Government, any government, even (or especially) a government under Ariel Sharon".
Hey, I'm quite happy to admit that Uri is a huge hero of mine. However, lad, he is not the only hero. Thus in future you could perhaps refer to him, if you must, as "one of your heroes".
Incidentally I merely mentioned discovering Uri this past spring only because I didn't want you (and anyone else) to think I've only just last week taken an inerest in the Palestine/Israel situation. Not likely!
With respect to Qana, we are going to have to disagree on that. I have no intention of accepting the "accidental hit" theory, not when there's irrefutable proof from UN soldiers in the compound that the bombing lasted for twelve minutes, despite pleas for the shelling to stop as there were hundreds of civilians present, pleas which were ignored by the party doing the bombing.
Whoops, this is a major spiel. Sorry, I'll quickly scan it to see what I can remove. One doesn't want to cause grief to a combatant on the board now, does one?
1. Burach Goldstein, the mass murderer of the 29 worshippers in the Hebron Mosque in the Cave of the Patriarchs in 1994, became a "martyr", as you're aware, and today there are numerous "conspiracy" theories still swirling around about him. You've heard about these, I'm sure.
2. Whoa, there, sir!! Uri Avnery is certainly not "lying". He doesn't have to. You and others of your beliefs on this board should really discard that offensive and so often misused word. Mull over it.
3. You obviously believe that "targetted killings" of Palestinians is all perfectly legal. Uri does not. I do not. That does not make either of us unique. Millions of civilized people are horrified re the targetting of human beings for slaughter. It's not about Palestinian "terrorists". It's murder. What kind of world would it be if every nation decided to carry out it's own "targetted" assassinations on a whim?
4. If Israel has a legitimate case with respect to any of the individuals it has murdered in this fashion, I suggest (as I have always done) that the so-called "terrorists" be brought before a Court of Law wherein the best evidence can be heard by a Learned Judge, and guilt or innocence determined through the judicial process. It's the civilized way. Show us proof in other words.
You see just because Israel says so and so is a Palestinian "terrorist" doesn't make him one. Not!
See:
http:/http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h-col.html
And you can also read my views on this particular article here::
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/11/1660887_comment.php#1661082
5. Your comments denying the rapid and, yes, frantic expansion of residential areas in the Occupied Territories is incredulous even for you. Don't you follow the news of the world? Who announced just in October that it was placing tenders for the construction of 600 new homes in the Occupied Territories? And that was just one day in October. There were others, and regardless of who started this horrific practice, the end result is the same. I'm not aware of any Israeli Prime Minister who didn't pursue the settlement agenda, and even before he became Prime Minister, Sharon was, as Minister of Agriculture (or whatever his title was in Agriculture) responsible for an even greater increase in said settlements. This is a completely dishonest comment, lad, and I'm sure you will drop by again and explain how you can deny this issue. The facts on the ground speak for themselves.
6. You feel Israel needed to "launch the 1956 campaign in order to open the forceful blockade Egypt imposed on the Tiran Straits";. otherwise, an Israeli harbour could be subject to "paralysis". What a mass of contradictions you are, Anti Bullshit.
It's perfectly okay with you that Israel should take this measure, yet today, yesterday, last year the Palestinian peoples are facing horrific economic, social, and political paralyis due to Israel's travel restrictions, demolition of orchards and crops, homes, check points, curfews, etc. You think that's okay, do you? Or do you believe that a harbour facing paralysis and an entire Palestinian population facing (and currently living through) a murderous paralysis are two different entities? That one should be defended, the other not? Is this what you believe? Tell me.
7. (Oppps! I thought I'd lost this post again!) Whew!
You're going to have to ask Uri what he means by "he supported everything", and unless you lived in Israel in 1981 and were privy to the opinions of Peres and his fellow government officials, you can't tell me that Uri is misinformed here. You may call the bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor a "legitimate pre-emptive measure", but I do not. The protestation of the US to the incident and its subsequent agreement is of little consequence to the truth, lad.
8. I must make a very important correction here. He is not "my" Uri. I believe his assessment, however, on the "Jordanian Option" and unless you can give me irrefutable proof to the contrary, I shall continue to believe him.
9. Re Peres. How in the world did he become an international figure whilst never having been elected, and from what I grasp from your view of him he's unpopular in Israel (and you can confirm if I've read your comments incorrectly) He is, indeed, a bit of a chameleon, forever changing at will to suit his own advancement. Uri, incidentally, also said in the article I posted above that:
"After all, Peres does not hide his longing for a seat in the Government, any government, even (or especially) a government under Ariel Sharon".
Hey, I'm quite happy to admit that Uri is a huge hero of mine. However, lad, he is not the only hero. Thus in future you could perhaps refer to him, if you must, as "one of your heroes".
Incidentally I merely mentioned discovering Uri this past spring only because I didn't want you (and anyone else) to think I've only just last week taken an inerest in the Palestine/Israel situation. Not likely!
With respect to Qana, we are going to have to disagree on that. I have no intention of accepting the "accidental hit" theory, not when there's irrefutable proof from UN soldiers in the compound that the bombing lasted for twelve minutes, despite pleas for the shelling to stop as there were hundreds of civilians present, pleas which were ignored by the party doing the bombing.
Whoops, this is a major spiel. Sorry, I'll quickly scan it to see what I can remove. One doesn't want to cause grief to a combatant on the board now, does one?
I wasn't trying to squeeze out an admission from you that Avneri was lying. I know the facts I disputed concerning the quotes you gleaned from your hero and know when Avneri is telling the truth or otherwise.
Those millions of civilized people are horrified about the targeting of Palestinian terrorists for assassination (you sure know the power of subtlety, so you assign the word "slaughter". Clever, but many aren't buying into it, certainly not me.) because they haven't been informed by the media of all the murders they'd committed or had planned to commit, and are misled to believe on many occasions that these terrorists are innocent civilians.
By your logic, also killing enemy soldiers in a regular battlefield is murder. Too bad for you.
Fyi, for every few terrorists that are assassinated there are dozens of their counterparts that get arrested by the border police and IDF and are put on trial. The fact you don't hear about this or aren't being told by your hero isn't an excuse to refrain from acknowledging same. If you dispute what I've just told you, present your case to prove me wrong or lay off.
I don't deny the enlargement of settlements. I only deny they're being rapidly and frantically expanded. Since Israel accepted the road map along with 14 reservations of its own there hasn't been *rapid* expansion of the Jewish residential areas. You don't need to start recounting what happened in the late '70s when Sharon became minister of agriculture, and the 1980s. Stay focused on the new century.
You said, quote:
"You feel Israel needed to "launch the 1956 campaign in order to open the forceful blockade Egypt imposed on the Tiran Straits";. otherwise, an Israeli harbour could be subject to "paralysis". What a mass of contradictions you are, Anti Bullshit."
- What contradictions? This is really funny. I was arguing above that Peres hasn't lied about Qana, then you quote Avneri about Peres' share in the 1956 Sinai campaign, then you juxtapose my explanation about the cause for this old war against the Palestinians' hardships. What has all this got to do with any sort of attempt on your part to prove Peres was lying about Qana...? None whatsoever.
The hardships the Palestinians have been facing for the last years are mostly due to their idiotic insistence on waging the intifada rather than staying at the negotiation table and putting forth an alternative plan to Barak's alleged non-generous offer.
It's one thing for you to refuse to acknowledge that Peres always objected to the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor, as this fact sheds some ridiculous light on your hero's sweeping statement concerning Peres, thereby running away from your responsibility to be honest, but don't you dare order me around and tell me to dispute things with your god instead. I'm definitely telling you your hero made a foolish sweeping statement, and I absolutely understand why you're disappointed to find out he doesn't always tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth.
Your foolish "unless you lived there that time" sidestepping bit is getting old and tiresome, as we all know you could have done a google search to verify I am right about Peres' stance on that matter if you only desired.
As for Peres becoming an international figure. Peres had been the general manager of the defense ministry in the 1950s. More importantly, he had been Ben-Gurion's "apprentice" for many years. These positions enabled him to get known internationally.
His political history and functions have been as follows: (I've omitted the functions irrelevant to this discussion)
Knesset Member since 1959;
* Functions in Ninth Knesset: Member, Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee;
* Functions in Tenth Knesset: Member, Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee;
* Functions in Twelfth Knesset: Member, Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee;
* Functions in Fourteenth Knesset: Member, Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee;
His government rolls have been (I've omitted the rolls irrelevant to this discussion):
* 9th Government: From 21/12/1959, Deputy Minister of Defense
Functions in Fifth Knesset:
* 10th Government: From 6/11/1961, Deputy Minister of Defense
* 11th Government: From 1/7/1963, Deputy Minister of Defense
* 12th Government: From 23/12/1964 until 25/5/1965, Deputy Minister of Defense
Functions in Eighth Knesset:
17th Government: Minister of Defense
Functions in Eleventh Knesset:
21st Government: Prime Minister
22nd Government: Minister of Foreign Affairs
22nd Government: Vice Prime Minister
Functions in Twelfth Knesset:
23rd Government: Until 15/3/1990, Minister of Finance
23rd Government: Until 15/3/1990, Vice Prime Minister
Functions in Thirteenth Knesset:
25th Government: Minister of Foreign Affairs
25th Government: From 4/11/1995, Minister of Defense
25th Government: From 5/11/1995, Acting Prime Minister
26th Government: Minister of Defense
26th Government: Prime Minister
Functions in Fifteenth Knesset:
28th Government: Minister of Regional Cooperation (this is a portfolio that was invented especially for Peres, for coalition building considerations; it's like a second foreign ministry)
29th Government: Until 2/11/2002, Deputy Prime Minister
29th Government: Until 2/11/2002, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Among Peres' public activities he also served as Vice-President of the Socialist International
Chairman of the Labor Party.
Angie, it's true Peres never really got elected, but he has served as PM on different occasions as you've seen. His popularity? For the last decade and a half or so he has been much more popular socially than politically, while his political popularity has seen ups and downs over that period. The thing is Peres has lots of charm, an many Israelis love or like him regardless of politics. I for one dislike this and think Peres would have been relegated to the margins of other countries' civilized societies. But alas, not in Israel.
I disagree with the part in your hero's statement where he claims Peres wants a seat *especially* in Sharon's government.
As for Qana: there may well be lies or claims by UN soldiers that don't prove your allegation about a massacre there. But I don't need Peres to rightly claim this wasn't an intentional hit nor a massacre.
Those millions of civilized people are horrified about the targeting of Palestinian terrorists for assassination (you sure know the power of subtlety, so you assign the word "slaughter". Clever, but many aren't buying into it, certainly not me.) because they haven't been informed by the media of all the murders they'd committed or had planned to commit, and are misled to believe on many occasions that these terrorists are innocent civilians.
By your logic, also killing enemy soldiers in a regular battlefield is murder. Too bad for you.
Fyi, for every few terrorists that are assassinated there are dozens of their counterparts that get arrested by the border police and IDF and are put on trial. The fact you don't hear about this or aren't being told by your hero isn't an excuse to refrain from acknowledging same. If you dispute what I've just told you, present your case to prove me wrong or lay off.
I don't deny the enlargement of settlements. I only deny they're being rapidly and frantically expanded. Since Israel accepted the road map along with 14 reservations of its own there hasn't been *rapid* expansion of the Jewish residential areas. You don't need to start recounting what happened in the late '70s when Sharon became minister of agriculture, and the 1980s. Stay focused on the new century.
You said, quote:
"You feel Israel needed to "launch the 1956 campaign in order to open the forceful blockade Egypt imposed on the Tiran Straits";. otherwise, an Israeli harbour could be subject to "paralysis". What a mass of contradictions you are, Anti Bullshit."
- What contradictions? This is really funny. I was arguing above that Peres hasn't lied about Qana, then you quote Avneri about Peres' share in the 1956 Sinai campaign, then you juxtapose my explanation about the cause for this old war against the Palestinians' hardships. What has all this got to do with any sort of attempt on your part to prove Peres was lying about Qana...? None whatsoever.
The hardships the Palestinians have been facing for the last years are mostly due to their idiotic insistence on waging the intifada rather than staying at the negotiation table and putting forth an alternative plan to Barak's alleged non-generous offer.
It's one thing for you to refuse to acknowledge that Peres always objected to the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor, as this fact sheds some ridiculous light on your hero's sweeping statement concerning Peres, thereby running away from your responsibility to be honest, but don't you dare order me around and tell me to dispute things with your god instead. I'm definitely telling you your hero made a foolish sweeping statement, and I absolutely understand why you're disappointed to find out he doesn't always tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth.
Your foolish "unless you lived there that time" sidestepping bit is getting old and tiresome, as we all know you could have done a google search to verify I am right about Peres' stance on that matter if you only desired.
As for Peres becoming an international figure. Peres had been the general manager of the defense ministry in the 1950s. More importantly, he had been Ben-Gurion's "apprentice" for many years. These positions enabled him to get known internationally.
His political history and functions have been as follows: (I've omitted the functions irrelevant to this discussion)
Knesset Member since 1959;
* Functions in Ninth Knesset: Member, Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee;
* Functions in Tenth Knesset: Member, Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee;
* Functions in Twelfth Knesset: Member, Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee;
* Functions in Fourteenth Knesset: Member, Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee;
His government rolls have been (I've omitted the rolls irrelevant to this discussion):
* 9th Government: From 21/12/1959, Deputy Minister of Defense
Functions in Fifth Knesset:
* 10th Government: From 6/11/1961, Deputy Minister of Defense
* 11th Government: From 1/7/1963, Deputy Minister of Defense
* 12th Government: From 23/12/1964 until 25/5/1965, Deputy Minister of Defense
Functions in Eighth Knesset:
17th Government: Minister of Defense
Functions in Eleventh Knesset:
21st Government: Prime Minister
22nd Government: Minister of Foreign Affairs
22nd Government: Vice Prime Minister
Functions in Twelfth Knesset:
23rd Government: Until 15/3/1990, Minister of Finance
23rd Government: Until 15/3/1990, Vice Prime Minister
Functions in Thirteenth Knesset:
25th Government: Minister of Foreign Affairs
25th Government: From 4/11/1995, Minister of Defense
25th Government: From 5/11/1995, Acting Prime Minister
26th Government: Minister of Defense
26th Government: Prime Minister
Functions in Fifteenth Knesset:
28th Government: Minister of Regional Cooperation (this is a portfolio that was invented especially for Peres, for coalition building considerations; it's like a second foreign ministry)
29th Government: Until 2/11/2002, Deputy Prime Minister
29th Government: Until 2/11/2002, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Among Peres' public activities he also served as Vice-President of the Socialist International
Chairman of the Labor Party.
Angie, it's true Peres never really got elected, but he has served as PM on different occasions as you've seen. His popularity? For the last decade and a half or so he has been much more popular socially than politically, while his political popularity has seen ups and downs over that period. The thing is Peres has lots of charm, an many Israelis love or like him regardless of politics. I for one dislike this and think Peres would have been relegated to the margins of other countries' civilized societies. But alas, not in Israel.
I disagree with the part in your hero's statement where he claims Peres wants a seat *especially* in Sharon's government.
As for Qana: there may well be lies or claims by UN soldiers that don't prove your allegation about a massacre there. But I don't need Peres to rightly claim this wasn't an intentional hit nor a massacre.
I wasn't trying to squeeze out an admission from you that Avneri was lying. I know the facts I disputed concerning the quotes you gleaned from your hero and know when Avneri is telling the truth or otherwise.
Those millions of civilized people are horrified about the targeting of Palestinian terrorists for assassination (you sure know the power of subtlety, so you assign the word "slaughter". Clever, but many aren't buying into it, certainly not me.) because they haven't been informed by the media of all the murders they'd committed or had planned to commit, and are misled to believe on many occasions that these terrorists are innocent civilians.
By your logic, also killing enemy soldiers in a regular battlefield is murder. Too bad for you.
Fyi, for every few terrorists that are assassinated there are dozens of their counterparts that get arrested by the border police and IDF and are put on trial. The fact you don't hear about this or aren't being told by your hero isn't an excuse to refrain from acknowledging same. If you dispute what I've just told you, present your case to prove me wrong or lay off.
I don't deny the enlargement of settlements. I only deny they're being rapidly and frantically expanded. Since Israel accepted the road map along with 14 reservations of its own there hasn't been *rapid* expansion of the Jewish residential areas. You don't need to start recounting what happened in the late '70s when Sharon became minister of agriculture, and the 1980s. Stay focused on the new century.
You said, quote:
"You feel Israel needed to "launch the 1956 campaign in order to open the forceful blockade Egypt imposed on the Tiran Straits";. otherwise, an Israeli harbour could be subject to "paralysis". What a mass of contradictions you are, Anti Bullshit."
- What contradictions? This is really funny. I was arguing above that Peres hasn't lied about Qana, then you quote Avneri about Peres' share in the 1956 Sinai campaign, then you juxtapose my explanation about the cause for this old war against the Palestinians' hardships. What has all this got to do with any sort of attempt on your part to prove Peres was lying about Qana...? None whatsoever.
The hardships the Palestinians have been facing for the last years are mostly due to their idiotic insistence on waging the intifada rather than staying at the negotiation table and putting forth an alternative plan to Barak's alleged non-generous offer.
It's one thing for you to refuse to acknowledge that Peres always objected to the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor, as this fact sheds some ridiculous light on your hero's sweeping statement concerning Peres, thereby running away from your responsibility to be honest, but don't you dare order me around and tell me to dispute things with your god instead. I'm definitely telling you your hero made a foolish sweeping statement, and I absolutely understand why you're disappointed to find out he doesn't always tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth.
Your foolish "unless you lived there that time" sidestepping bit is getting old and tiresome, as we all know you could have done a google search to verify I am right about Peres' stance on that matter if you only desired.
As for Peres becoming an international figure. Peres had been the general manager of the defense ministry in the 1950s. More importantly, he had been Ben-Gurion's "apprentice" for many years. These positions enabled him to get known internationally.
His political history and functions have been as follows (I've omitted the functions irrelevant to this discussion):
Knesset Member since 1959;
* Functions in Ninth Knesset: Member, Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee;
* Functions in Tenth Knesset: Member, Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee;
* Functions in Twelfth Knesset: Member, Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee;
* Functions in Fourteenth Knesset: Member, Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee;
His government rolls have been (I've omitted the rolls irrelevant to this discussion):
* 9th Government: From 21/12/1959, Deputy Minister of Defense
Functions in Fifth Knesset:
* 10th Government: From 6/11/1961, Deputy Minister of Defense
* 11th Government: From 1/7/1963, Deputy Minister of Defense
* 12th Government: From 23/12/1964 until 25/5/1965, Deputy Minister of Defense
Functions in Eighth Knesset:
17th Government: Minister of Defense
Functions in Eleventh Knesset:
21st Government: Prime Minister
22nd Government: Minister of Foreign Affairs
22nd Government: Vice Prime Minister
Functions in Twelfth Knesset:
23rd Government: Until 15/3/1990, Minister of Finance
23rd Government: Until 15/3/1990, Vice Prime Minister
Functions in Thirteenth Knesset:
25th Government: Minister of Foreign Affairs
25th Government: From 4/11/1995, Minister of Defense
25th Government: From 5/11/1995, Acting Prime Minister
26th Government: Minister of Defense
26th Government: Prime Minister
Functions in Fifteenth Knesset:
28th Government: Minister of Regional Cooperation (this is a portfolio that was invented especially for Peres, for coalition building considerations; it's like a second foreign ministry)
29th Government: Until 2/11/2002, Deputy Prime Minister
29th Government: Until 2/11/2002, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Among Peres' public activities he also served as Vice-President of the Socialist International
Chairman of the Labor Party.
Angie, it's true Peres never really got elected, but he has served as PM on different occasions as you've seen.
His popularity? For the last decade and a half or so he has been much more popular socially than politically, while his political popularity has seen ups and downs over that period. The thing is Peres has lots of charm, an many Israelis love or like him regardless of politics. I for one dislike this and think Peres would have been relegated to the margins of other countries' civilized societies. But alas, not in Israel.
I disagree with the part in your hero's statement where he claims Peres wants a seat *especially* in Sharon's government.
As for Qana: there may well be lies or claims by UN soldiers that don't prove your allegation about a massacre there. But I don't need Peres to rightly claim this wasn't an intentional hit nor a massacre.
Those millions of civilized people are horrified about the targeting of Palestinian terrorists for assassination (you sure know the power of subtlety, so you assign the word "slaughter". Clever, but many aren't buying into it, certainly not me.) because they haven't been informed by the media of all the murders they'd committed or had planned to commit, and are misled to believe on many occasions that these terrorists are innocent civilians.
By your logic, also killing enemy soldiers in a regular battlefield is murder. Too bad for you.
Fyi, for every few terrorists that are assassinated there are dozens of their counterparts that get arrested by the border police and IDF and are put on trial. The fact you don't hear about this or aren't being told by your hero isn't an excuse to refrain from acknowledging same. If you dispute what I've just told you, present your case to prove me wrong or lay off.
I don't deny the enlargement of settlements. I only deny they're being rapidly and frantically expanded. Since Israel accepted the road map along with 14 reservations of its own there hasn't been *rapid* expansion of the Jewish residential areas. You don't need to start recounting what happened in the late '70s when Sharon became minister of agriculture, and the 1980s. Stay focused on the new century.
You said, quote:
"You feel Israel needed to "launch the 1956 campaign in order to open the forceful blockade Egypt imposed on the Tiran Straits";. otherwise, an Israeli harbour could be subject to "paralysis". What a mass of contradictions you are, Anti Bullshit."
- What contradictions? This is really funny. I was arguing above that Peres hasn't lied about Qana, then you quote Avneri about Peres' share in the 1956 Sinai campaign, then you juxtapose my explanation about the cause for this old war against the Palestinians' hardships. What has all this got to do with any sort of attempt on your part to prove Peres was lying about Qana...? None whatsoever.
The hardships the Palestinians have been facing for the last years are mostly due to their idiotic insistence on waging the intifada rather than staying at the negotiation table and putting forth an alternative plan to Barak's alleged non-generous offer.
It's one thing for you to refuse to acknowledge that Peres always objected to the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor, as this fact sheds some ridiculous light on your hero's sweeping statement concerning Peres, thereby running away from your responsibility to be honest, but don't you dare order me around and tell me to dispute things with your god instead. I'm definitely telling you your hero made a foolish sweeping statement, and I absolutely understand why you're disappointed to find out he doesn't always tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth.
Your foolish "unless you lived there that time" sidestepping bit is getting old and tiresome, as we all know you could have done a google search to verify I am right about Peres' stance on that matter if you only desired.
As for Peres becoming an international figure. Peres had been the general manager of the defense ministry in the 1950s. More importantly, he had been Ben-Gurion's "apprentice" for many years. These positions enabled him to get known internationally.
His political history and functions have been as follows (I've omitted the functions irrelevant to this discussion):
Knesset Member since 1959;
* Functions in Ninth Knesset: Member, Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee;
* Functions in Tenth Knesset: Member, Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee;
* Functions in Twelfth Knesset: Member, Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee;
* Functions in Fourteenth Knesset: Member, Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee;
His government rolls have been (I've omitted the rolls irrelevant to this discussion):
* 9th Government: From 21/12/1959, Deputy Minister of Defense
Functions in Fifth Knesset:
* 10th Government: From 6/11/1961, Deputy Minister of Defense
* 11th Government: From 1/7/1963, Deputy Minister of Defense
* 12th Government: From 23/12/1964 until 25/5/1965, Deputy Minister of Defense
Functions in Eighth Knesset:
17th Government: Minister of Defense
Functions in Eleventh Knesset:
21st Government: Prime Minister
22nd Government: Minister of Foreign Affairs
22nd Government: Vice Prime Minister
Functions in Twelfth Knesset:
23rd Government: Until 15/3/1990, Minister of Finance
23rd Government: Until 15/3/1990, Vice Prime Minister
Functions in Thirteenth Knesset:
25th Government: Minister of Foreign Affairs
25th Government: From 4/11/1995, Minister of Defense
25th Government: From 5/11/1995, Acting Prime Minister
26th Government: Minister of Defense
26th Government: Prime Minister
Functions in Fifteenth Knesset:
28th Government: Minister of Regional Cooperation (this is a portfolio that was invented especially for Peres, for coalition building considerations; it's like a second foreign ministry)
29th Government: Until 2/11/2002, Deputy Prime Minister
29th Government: Until 2/11/2002, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Among Peres' public activities he also served as Vice-President of the Socialist International
Chairman of the Labor Party.
Angie, it's true Peres never really got elected, but he has served as PM on different occasions as you've seen.
His popularity? For the last decade and a half or so he has been much more popular socially than politically, while his political popularity has seen ups and downs over that period. The thing is Peres has lots of charm, an many Israelis love or like him regardless of politics. I for one dislike this and think Peres would have been relegated to the margins of other countries' civilized societies. But alas, not in Israel.
I disagree with the part in your hero's statement where he claims Peres wants a seat *especially* in Sharon's government.
As for Qana: there may well be lies or claims by UN soldiers that don't prove your allegation about a massacre there. But I don't need Peres to rightly claim this wasn't an intentional hit nor a massacre.
MEET Robert Fisk -- consistently one of the world's greatest and bravest writers. Unlikely to win the Noble Prize for Literature or any other "meaningful" award; but able, I make so bold as to say, to sleep with his conscience untroubled each night.
A few months ago he spoke at a university in the United States. No US newspaper (to my knowledge) carries his despatches, and yet over a thousand students turned up to meet and hear the British journalist in person.
What does that tell us about the growing might of the Internet? And about why the traditional enemy is taking frantic steps to control it?
Robert Fisk gets the same support when he comes to Canada, and happily his articles ARE carried in some of our major newspapers (or at least The Toronto Star has done so, but then the Star is its own newspaper, blessedly, where the news IS the news). Those of us who believe in honesty and justice as Robert does love him dearly and cheer him loudly every chance we get!
Thanks for the info re Peres. Obviously dear Uri knows the chap as he, himself, was in the Knesset:
1965 - 1969
1969 - 1973
1979 - 1981
In the "Future of Israel" thread I indicated I had NEWS to report. Here it is, lad.
I asked Uri whether he thought Qana was an accident or otherwise. Here is his reply verbatim:
"It certainly was an accident, but such accidents are bound to happen when one starts such an operation".
So there you are, then.
Where does that leave me, you're probably wondering? Don't. I accept Uri's response because it is what he believes.
However, I do not agree with same. I'm keeping my independent mind, thank you, and even Uri won't change that.
Again, I am not alone. Check out Ran HaCohen's view of Qana AND Jenin.
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h081402.html
And now can we leave Qana for a while. I'm still seeing dead bodies in bits and pieces every time I type the word. You've seen some of the pictures, I assume?
1965 - 1969
1969 - 1973
1979 - 1981
In the "Future of Israel" thread I indicated I had NEWS to report. Here it is, lad.
I asked Uri whether he thought Qana was an accident or otherwise. Here is his reply verbatim:
"It certainly was an accident, but such accidents are bound to happen when one starts such an operation".
So there you are, then.
Where does that leave me, you're probably wondering? Don't. I accept Uri's response because it is what he believes.
However, I do not agree with same. I'm keeping my independent mind, thank you, and even Uri won't change that.
Again, I am not alone. Check out Ran HaCohen's view of Qana AND Jenin.
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h081402.html
And now can we leave Qana for a while. I'm still seeing dead bodies in bits and pieces every time I type the word. You've seen some of the pictures, I assume?
At least 104 coalition troops have died in Iraq in November, including 79 American troops. In terms of coalition losses, it has been the bloodiest month of the war that began March 20 !
Copyright-free artwork by Brazilian cartoonist Latuff, on behalf of brave Iraqi people and their resistance against U.S. occupation.
Copyright-free artwork by Brazilian cartoonist Latuff, on behalf of brave Iraqi people and their resistance against U.S. occupation.
Glad to see your hero concurs with the truth on this count of Qana.
Qana and Jenin weren't massacres and I care not what Ran HaCohen and his ilk think.
Please do leave Qana for a more than a meantime, and know that I'll use what you told me here if I see fit, whenever you harken back to Qana again.
Well, at least you didn't try to conceal your hero's opinion.
Qana and Jenin weren't massacres and I care not what Ran HaCohen and his ilk think.
Please do leave Qana for a more than a meantime, and know that I'll use what you told me here if I see fit, whenever you harken back to Qana again.
Well, at least you didn't try to conceal your hero's opinion.
>>> "Please do leave Qana for a more than a meantime, and know that I'll use what you told me here if I see fit whenever you harken back to Qana again".
This sounds ominous. An implied threat, maybe? Rest assured I shall talk about Qana whenever the topic comes up here or elsewhere whether you "harken back to" whatever. I'm just not in the mood for a continued discussion on same right now. That will no doubt change.
Ye'ah, disclosing info from Uri contrary to my own views must have surprised you. I said he was a HUGE hero of mine. I didn't say he was God. I did state as well that I have many other "heroes". I have nothing to conceal, no reason to conceal anything, and contrary to your often accusations of "lying", hell, I'm so damn honest it's sickening. Never judge others by your own standards, anti bullshit.
I'm sure we'll meet again somewhere on the Board.
Slan leat!
This sounds ominous. An implied threat, maybe? Rest assured I shall talk about Qana whenever the topic comes up here or elsewhere whether you "harken back to" whatever. I'm just not in the mood for a continued discussion on same right now. That will no doubt change.
Ye'ah, disclosing info from Uri contrary to my own views must have surprised you. I said he was a HUGE hero of mine. I didn't say he was God. I did state as well that I have many other "heroes". I have nothing to conceal, no reason to conceal anything, and contrary to your often accusations of "lying", hell, I'm so damn honest it's sickening. Never judge others by your own standards, anti bullshit.
I'm sure we'll meet again somewhere on the Board.
Slan leat!
Leave the others to me.
You - I would never expect you to act on a par with my good standards. Take a load off your wee mind.
You - I would never expect you to act on a par with my good standards. Take a load off your wee mind.
You break me up!! Hehehe! Hahaha!! Etc., etc., etc.
>>> "I would never expect you to act on a par with my good standards".
Come now, sir! What are you? A Tibetan monk?
>>> "Take a load off your wee mind".
I daresay I would if I had a "wee mind". Happily, my mind is HUGE! Bet your own wee mind wouldn't be noticeable under the world's greatest microscope!
Excuse me whilst I chuckle my way off the board.
>>> "I would never expect you to act on a par with my good standards".
Come now, sir! What are you? A Tibetan monk?
>>> "Take a load off your wee mind".
I daresay I would if I had a "wee mind". Happily, my mind is HUGE! Bet your own wee mind wouldn't be noticeable under the world's greatest microscope!
Excuse me whilst I chuckle my way off the board.
What did you mean by:
>>> "Leave the others to me"?
Enlighten, please.
>>> "Leave the others to me"?
Enlighten, please.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$330.00 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.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network