MERGED--> all discussion of Israel/Lebanon conflict

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Irvine511 said:
STING -- have you ever posted something that you haven't already posted before?

Have you?

Really, look at the title of this thread and tell me how this is a relevant question. I know how obsessed you are with my posting habbits so I suggest you start a new thread.
 
trevster2k said:
I agree that the fog of war can lead to friendly fire but sometimes people just fuck up. The bombing of Canadians was a fuck up, not a mistake, a mistake is spelling their, thier.

The shelling of the UN post wasn't a single wayward missile. It was a continuous shelling of the area even after calls were made to stop shelling that specific spot. So this goes beyond a simple wayward missile or a mistake, someone fucked up big time leading to this incident and needless deaths. Someone should be removed from their position as they used poor judgement.

When your using firepower of this nature, a mistake can lead to the unintended death or injury of someone. You cannot completely remove human error no matter all the safe guards you put in place. In the 1991 Gulf War, 1 out of every 4 US troops killed was killed by friendly fire. During the D-Day invasion, several hundred Airborne troops who were dropped behind German lines were bombed by the US Air Corp causing hundreds of casualties.
 
Irvine511 said:




simply because Israel chooses not to kill 300,000 innocent civilians (which you seem to think is a great act of compassion) does not mean that the present operation is good policy.

People are describing the current Israely military operation as unrestricted bombing of all of Lebanon and that is simply false. If that were the case, 300,000 civilians or more would be dead by now.

If you think the current Israely military operation has caused to much loss of life, please describe for me an Israely military operation that would create and acceptable loss of civilian life and would be considered a "good policy".
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:



Bullshit again. You have no clue what you´re talking about.

It seems a UN soldier from my country has been killed.

You can watch the attack here, its the first movie on top. http://iptv.orf.at

Please tell me how this is supposed to be an accident.

Accidents happen, lol. that´s just weak, STING2. I, for one, did not forget about US soldiers attacking journalists in Iraq.

The four UN soldiers asked the Israeli troops TEN TIMES to stop the fire after the first bomb had hit in a distance of 180 metres, CNN reports. In the six hours before they were destroyed, there were fourteen more explosions in the direct neighborhood of the UN post.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/26/mideast.observers/index.html

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/


If there were some technical or communication problem, it wouldn't have mattered if the UN force had used the same method a hundred times.

If you study the history of friendly fire, you will realize that this is a hazard on any battlefield and even happens in training sometimes.

You've not shown any evidence that the IDF, the Israely government, or even the person who launched the missile or fired the shell, intended to strike a UN position and kill UN personal.
 
trevster2k said:


Man, you really distort my position. I said, within reason. I said attacks on civilian infrastructures and civilian deaths are not a good thing. Military force is acceptable, blowing up civilian airports, power stations and business is not. And they aren't living under constant bombardment from rockets, presently, yes, since this whole shitstorm started the entire region is a hellhole. They are living under the present THREAT of rockets.

Several Israely towns have been rocketed by Hezbollah over the past year. The Rocket fire against the towns DID NOT simply start with the Israely military operation!


Anything that Hezbollah uses in Lebanon, to transport troops, supplies etc, becomes a military target. If they fire missiles from a quiet neighborhood, the launchers in that neighborhood are military targets. The Israely's only target "civilian infrastructure" that is being used in some way by Hezbollah.

The United States did exactly the same thing in Afghanistan in 2001, in Iraq in 2003, in Iraq in 1991, in France in 1944.
 
yolland said:


STING--Please stop rotely citing past European anti-Semitism as if that were relevant to the moral right of present-day Europeans to have a view of this conflict different from your own. It isn't, that's just inflammatory, and you're obviously quite capable of arguing in Israel's defense without resorting to that.


I find Europe's general lack of support for Israel to be disturbing in light of what happened in Europe in previous decades. Many people in Israel, some who survived World War II in Europe, feel exactly the same way. It may seem like ancient history to some, but its not ancient history to them, and they find the parallels of support or the lack of, to be disturbing. I've never stated that because someone is from Europe, that they do not have the right to criticize Israel in any way they want to.
 
I think the younger generation in both countries needs to push for peace. Every older person I know from Isreal or Lebanon is so stuck in the past. I guess a new generation of hate and conflict is being born and thats a shame.

They need to COEXIST!!!! lol. They probably already knocked out the Coexist graffiti wall in Isreal with a rocket. How ironic and sad would that be?

Anyways, I found an awesome coexist shirt at this site :zentees.com.

JUST FYI.
 
all_i_want said:
ive been to armenia, ive been to romania, and both is pretty crappy in terms of way of life. especially armenia, it still has not completely shifted from a soviet style state to a democracy. they have gaps in electricity supply, no luxuries or stores that sell them, even in the capital, erivan. romanians actually come to turkey for work, as house aides or similar jobs. theyre usually paid around 350 dollars a month.

in the end, all those factors cant explain the quality of life in a country. i wouldnt want to live in more than half of those countries you've listed. numbers are not everything. turkish society has a social safety net that most western countries lack. it is not a state program, but it is a network of friends, relatives, who help each other. there are not many homeless people on our streets, compared to the streets of new york, or boston. that kind of qualities are something you can not measure. neither can the UN.

The numbers are objective, unbiased and comprehensive look at the entire country rather than simply a snapshot of life they would get by a visiting this country or that country. Turkey is not some oasis of quality standard of living, as I'm sure many Kurds would attest to. The EU plans to admit Romania, but their not planning on admitting Turkey anytime soon. I'm sure Turkey does deserve to be admitted eventually though.

Just ask Mexican tourist what they think about Turkey. In the year 2000, in order to enter Turkey, anyone from Mexico had to receive a shot at the border or pay a fine. Some Mexicans who received the shot because they could not pay have reportedly been infected with certain diseases, do probably to the use of unclean needles. Sure, Romania is no oasis either, but you did not have to deal with that type of crap just to enter the country back in the fall of 2000.


A couple of factors that put the Standard of Living in Armenia at a level that is higher than Turkey despite lower GDP per capita are life expectancy and adult literacy.

Armenia life expectancy rate is 71.5 years
Armenia adult literacy rate is 99.5%

Turkey life expectancy rate is 68.7
Turkey adult literacy rate is 88.3%
 
Last edited:
STING2 said:
Israel is blamed for innocent civilian deaths by groups an countries who fail to understand who and what is truely to blame for the conflict. Israel does what it has to do, to defend itself and keep advancing into the future as it had done for 58 years. People in Israel don't stop going to the discothque or rock concerts by U2 and others. Israely's don't stop living and expanding and improving their way of life. On the otherside, Hezbollah and Humas only continue to engage in actions which ruin the lives of the people they claim to be helping and does nothing to stop Israel's advancement into the future.

Dropping bombs is one of several effective ways to fight terrorism, and in this case, a necessary one given the immediate threat to Israely cities. The Israely's are essentially fighting a large military force on the border and need to clear a 20 mile area in order to prevent Northern Israely towns from being hit by Hezbollah rockets. This is a necessary and effective solution for this immediate problem.



do you really think your average Israeli is safer today than he was 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago? is the Arab world better off today than it was 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago?

it's quite obvious that Israel's constant need to defend itself is proof that the current policy isn't working. bombs aren't going to solve a damn thing in the Arab world nor make the Israelis any safer. we've seen what bombs have done in Iraq -- ignite a civil war.

but continue to assert the necessity and effectiveness of what has been a failed policy towards terrorism over the past 60 years.
 
STING2 said:


Have you?

Really, look at the title of this thread and tell me how this is a relevant question. I know how obsessed you are with my posting habbits so I suggest you start a new thread.



you're pulling this GDP/UN HDI crap out of your ass again as if it has anything to do with the title of this thread. these posts are totally interchangeable with any of your other posts that bring up the UN HDI report.

if you can only cite one source for your assertions, they are quite tenuous indeed (like saying that Colin Powell says that there is no "Bush Doctrine" when Bush himself has referred to the "Bush Doctrine" on the record).
 
STING2 said:


People are describing the current Israely military operation as unrestricted bombing of all of Lebanon and that is simply false. If that were the case, 300,000 civilians or more would be dead by now.

If you think the current Israely military operation has caused to much loss of life, please describe for me an Israely military operation that would create and acceptable loss of civilian life and would be considered a "good policy".



good golly, no one, not least of all "people" (nice lack of specificity) are saying that Israel (psst, it's spelled "Israeli") is indiscriminately bombing Lebanon. they ARE saying that much of the bombing is, firstly, out of proportion to the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, and secondly, is disproportionately targeting civilian infastructure and creating a thoroughly unnecessary humanitarian crisis for the Lebanese people.

i think that Israel should not be targeting civilian infastructure (roads, bridges, the aiport, electrical plants) and a rescue mission to save the 2 Israeli soldiers would have been far preferable than the stated goal of trying to dismantle Hezbollah. even Israeli, meeting unanticipated resistance in southern Lebanon, now sees that they have bitten off more than they were initially prepared to chew. it seems as if the current Israeli administration has taken notes from Bush and hastily launched an overly ambitious military operation with no exit strategy. what's going to happen next? another invasion of Lebanon for another 18 years? another Lebanese quagmire? what's going to happen when rockets land in Tel Aviv?

this is precisely what Hezbollah wants -- a bogged down Israeli army, combined with a thoroughly bogged down American army.

and who benefits?

Iran.
 
Irvine511 said:

and who benefits?

Iran.


Ding! Please collect your prize near coat check as you leave.

Israel took the pre-G8 distraction bait in a spectacular way. They are doing precisely what Iran want. That, IMO, is the massive mistake on their part.
 
Irvine511 said:




do you really think your average Israeli is safer today than he was 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago? is the Arab world better off today than it was 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago?

it's quite obvious that Israel's constant need to defend itself is proof that the current policy isn't working. bombs aren't going to solve a damn thing in the Arab world nor make the Israelis any safer. we've seen what bombs have done in Iraq -- ignite a civil war.

but continue to assert the necessity and effectiveness of what has been a failed policy towards terrorism over the past 60 years.

If the policy was a failure, Israel would not exist today let alone, have one of the highest standards living in the world. If you understood how close Israel came to being overrun in the past, you would know that Israel is indeed safer today than it was 20 or 30 or more years ago. Israel is no longer at war with countries like Jordan and Egypt. These countries have recognized Israel's right to exist. Several Arab countries have come out and condemned Hezbollah not Israel, for starting this current crises, when was the last time these countries actually took Israel's side on any issue?

Military force has prevented Israel from being wiped out and its population from being slaughtered, countless times in the past. Israel continues to have one of the highest standards of living in the world, and the country continues to advance and prosper despite the fact that they live in a region where so many people a dedicated to their destruction. Israel is proven that although they are a tiny country, smart and skillful use of military force can allow a country like Israel to survive and thrive in a sea of enemies. Gradually, the Arab world is coming to accept Israel, but total change does not happen overnight despite the bizarre expectations of some people.
 
Irvine511 said:




you're pulling this GDP/UN HDI crap out of your ass again as if it has anything to do with the title of this thread. these posts are totally interchangeable with any of your other posts that bring up the UN HDI report.

if you can only cite one source for your assertions, they are quite tenuous indeed (like saying that Colin Powell says that there is no "Bush Doctrine" when Bush himself has referred to the "Bush Doctrine" on the record).

The standard of living of Israel relative to its neighbors is indeed an issue that is relevant to the thread unlike your comments about what certain members of the forum choose to posts. I can cite other sources, but In this case, I'm citing a source that is most widely recognized as being the most accurate and comprehensive.

Once again, take your personal crap to another thread of your own. If you want to actually make a comment about the Israely/Lebanon conflict, good, but this is not a thread for commenting about a members alleged posting habits etc.
 
STING2 said:
Several Arab countries have come out and condemned Hezbollah not Israel, for starting this current crises, when was the last time these countries actually took Israel's side on any issue?

They're not taking Israel's side specificaly, what they are doing is siding against a rising "Shi'ite Crescent" from Lebanon around to Iran, with the potential to include Iraq as well. That's seen as a threat by the southern Arab states.
 
Irvine511 said:




good golly, no one, not least of all "people" (nice lack of specificity) are saying that Israel (psst, it's spelled "Israeli") is indiscriminately bombing Lebanon. they ARE saying that much of the bombing is, firstly, out of proportion to the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, and secondly, is disproportionately targeting civilian infastructure and creating a thoroughly unnecessary humanitarian crisis for the Lebanese people.

i think that Israel should not be targeting civilian infastructure (roads, bridges, the aiport, electrical plants) and a rescue mission to save the 2 Israeli soldiers would have been far preferable than the stated goal of trying to dismantle Hezbollah. even Israeli, meeting unanticipated resistance in southern Lebanon, now sees that they have bitten off more than they were initially prepared to chew. it seems as if the current Israeli administration has taken notes from Bush and hastily launched an overly ambitious military operation with no exit strategy. what's going to happen next? another invasion of Lebanon for another 18 years? another Lebanese quagmire? what's going to happen when rockets land in Tel Aviv?

this is precisely what Hezbollah wants -- a bogged down Israeli army, combined with a thoroughly bogged down American army.

and who benefits?

Iran.

Well, if you would take some time to read the thread, you would find several comments that claim that Israel is indeed bombing Lebanon indiscriminately.

The bombing and incursions are not simply about the kidnapping of two Israely soldiers, but multiple Hezbollah incursions into Israel over the past year and the rocketing of Israely towns over the past year as well.

Israel is not targeting to the civilian population. Unfortunately because Hezbollah uses and imbeds itself within the civilian population, it makes it very difficult to limit damage to innocent civilians. In my opinion, Israel has been to restrained and slow in its targeting which could prolong the immediate conflict, and lead to more civilian casualties than there might have to be.


So you think Hezbollah should be allowed free use and access of roads, bridges, airports, and electical plants through out Lebanon? Do you think the United States military was right when it targeted the same infastructure in Iraq(2003), Afghanistan(2001), Serbia(1999), Bosnia(1995), Iraq(1991), Panama(1989), France(1944)?

Dismantling Hezbollah's immediate ability to rocket northern Israeli towns requires that Israel remove Hezbollah from along its border and destroy infrustructure vital to the resupply of Hezbollah's war effort against Israel.

Israel is currently only using at most 10% of its ground and air forces in this conflict. It is a limited and restrained operation and Israel has always expected Hezbollah to fight as intensely as they have been. They have had 6 years, without interference from Israel, to prepare for this fight. The IDF is ready to bring in more of its forces, if they are needed. There was nothing hasty about the operations as small incursions by Israel had been in the planning stages for several years now. Israel is not concerned about an exit strategy, they are concerned about doing what is necessary to prevent their towns from being rocketed. If that means they have to take more territory and hold onto, that is what they will do. If it means removing all Lebanese citizens whether they are in Hezbollah or not, from an area within 20 miles of the Israeli border, that is what they will do.

Not everyone describes the Israeli experience in Lebanon from 1982 to 2000 to be a quagmire. It did protect Israeli territory and certainly prevented the rocketing of Israeli towns that we are seeing at the moment. Critics of the pullout commented that it would only strengthen Hezbollah for the next fight, and now these critics have been proven correct. The occupation of Lebanon did cost Israel 675 troops over 18 years, but that is far from anything that can legitimately be called a "quagmire". That works out to average of 37 troops per year and is a tiny fraction of what Israel has lossed in its other wars as well as being comparable to losses from fighting in the West Bank and Gaza. No one wants to see an increase in IDF casualties at all, but if moving into parts of Lebanon is necessary for the security and safety of Israeli citizens, then the IDF is prepared to do that.

Irans position is not improved when it has 150,000 US troops in the country on its Western border and another 20,000 in the country on its eastern border. Iran has never in its history been surounded by that level of combat power. Saddam had a strong military and cut the Iranian military to pieces in 1988 destroying 50% of its forces within a few months, but I'd be more afraid of 21 US armored and mechanized brigades backed up by the worlds largest Air Force than I would Saddam's military.

Hezbollah has tactically made a huge error and now military forces and equipment that has taken Hezbollah and its allies years to build up and cost hundreds of millions of dollars is being rapidly destroyed or used up.

If you think that benefits Iran, ok. I'm sure the leaders in Iran would prefer to see Israel being bombed without any sort of response against Hezbollah.

Iran continues to have a standard of living comparable to the Palestinian Occupied territories, while their military forces in terms of equipment and real power projection capability continue to remain limited, requiring the country to operate and hide behind non-state actors.
 
Earnie Shavers said:


They're not taking Israel's side specificaly, what they are doing is siding against a rising "Shi'ite Crescent" from Lebanon around to Iran, with the potential to include Iraq as well. That's seen as a threat by the southern Arab states.

These same countries were more fearful of Iran back in 1982 during a bad time for Saddam's military on the front lines. Even so, they certainly did not react this way back then when one could argue that this whole "Shi'te Crescent" theory had more credibility.
 
STING2 said:
These same countries were more fearful of Iran back in 1982 during a bad time for Saddam's military on the front lines. Even so, they certainly did not react this way back then when one could argue that this whole "Shi'te Crescent" theory had more credibility.

An incredibly different situation with incredibly different politics and public perception.
 
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...7,0,5718217,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Israel Redefines Expectations of What Success Means

by Laura King
Los Angeles Times, July 26, 2006


JERUSALEM — Even before Wednesday's bruising day on the battlefields of south Lebanon, Israel's leaders had begun scaling back public expectations of a decisive—or a quick—victory over the guerrillas of Hezbollah.

Heading into the confrontation, senior Israeli officials had declared that the Shiite Muslim militia would be dealt a blow from which it could not recover. Its arsenal would be destroyed and its fighters driven out of south Lebanon, the officials said...With the fighting in its third week, however, Israelis are being told that Hezbollah can be weakened but not eradicated, that Israeli forces will not be able to police the border zone themselves, and that Hezbollah's rockets continue to pose a threat to Israeli towns.

"The target is not to totally dismantle Hezbollah," said Public Security Minister Avi Dichter, a former head of Shin Bet, Israel's domestic security service. "What we are doing now is to try to send a message to Hezbollah."

The difficulty of the fight Israel faces was obvious on Wednesday, when 9 of its soldiers were killed in southern Lebanon. Days into the campaign, there was already widespread acknowledgment among Israeli policymakers and commanders that Israel could not achieve its goals by air power alone. On the ground, in their first major forays into the border zone, Israeli troops this week encountered tougher-than-expected resistance...Elite forces discovered an elaborate maze of fortified caves and tunnels from which Hezbollah fighters, armed with sophisticated weapons, were able to strike at will.

...Hezbollah has maintained its ability to fight. A week ago, Israeli officials confidently said that they had destroyed large numbers of Hezbollah missiles and noted that the number of rockets fired into northern Israel was declining. Instead, after a brief lull, the number of rockets launched at Israeli towns rebounded and the attacks have continued unabated, virtually shutting down a swath of the country that is home to nearly 1 million people. 19 Israeli civilians have been killed by rocket fire; the latest was a 15-year-old girl killed Tuesday. 33 soldiers have died in the fighting—Israel's largest combat losses in years over such a short span.

The Israeli public still has bitter memories of a steady drumbeat of deaths during the nation's occupation of southern Lebanon in the 1980s and '90s. Returning to ground combat there remains a notion that many dread. In Tuesday's editions of the Maariv newspaper, Amir Rappaport wrote of the "enormous gap between the military challenge posed by Hezbollah, a shadowy guerrilla organization equipped with the best Iranian and Syrian weaponry, and the relatively smaller number of troops" that took part in the incursion. "In the end, the size of the operation that was decided on—neither several armored divisions that would surge in, nor an aerial operation alone—is liable to claim many casualties without bringing about any dramatic military accomplishment," Rappaport wrote.

Israeli analysts acknowledge that Israel's definition of victory is different from Hezbollah's. In order to present itself as victorious, Hezbollah need only survive. Yuval Steinitz, a member of the parliamentary Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, argued this week that the offensive already had underscored Israel's capability to deter attacks, fostering a sense in the region that the Jewish state would respond with overwhelming force to any assault on its territory. But other observers said that any perception that the Israeli military had been bloodied by Hezbollah could be extremely dangerous, because it would embolden the Shiite group's patrons—Iran and Syria—and perhaps others.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:

The continuing US support for Israel, a country that has had a nuclear bomb for decades (in compare to Hussein or Iran) and just doesn´t use it beacuse they would kill themselves,
I understand where you are coming from, your point of view makes a lot more sense.
 
Good news this morning, guys! Nothing like optimism to start a day.

Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader issued a worldwide call Thursday for Muslims to rise up in a holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza until Islam reigns from "Spain to Iraq."

In a taped message broadcast by Al-Jazeera television, Ayman al-Zawahiri said the terrorist organization would not stand idly by while "these (Israeli) shells burn our brothers.

"All the world is a battlefield open in front of us," said the Egyptian-born al-Zawahiri, second-in-command to Osama bin Laden.

...

Another new audio or video message from bin Laden was also expected in the coming days and was planned to deal with Gaza and Lebanon, according to IntelCenter.

From CNN.
 
yolland said:
Israel Redefines Expectations of What Success Means

What a stinkin load of crap. That just lays the foundation for another long term occupation.

If STING2 is right about Israel's militry capabilities, they could run Hezbollah out of south Lebanon about as easily as the US ran the Iraqi troops out of Kuwait.
 
AcrobatMan said:


it was this way

With or Without the Israeli attack

Actually, this is not true. Al Qaeda had always had a hot head when it came to the Palestinian territory and Israel but they had by and large kept their presence absent, leaving the terrorism to Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.

Whereas Hezbollah is concerned, they are Shia and as such al Qaeda has fundamental differences with them. In general, the Sunni Arab states have not been receptive to Hezbollah for that reason.
 
[q]Israel is not targeting to the civilian population. Unfortunately because Hezbollah uses and imbeds itself within the civilian population, it makes it very difficult to limit damage to innocent civilians. In my opinion, Israel has been to restrained and slow in its targeting which could prolong the immediate conflict, and lead to more civilian casualties than there might have to be.
[/q]


but this is precisely the point. this is why Israel's tactics are doomed to fail in the long run and why Hezbollah (or any terrorist organization that implants within the local population) has actually defeated Israel, or whoever, with this particular move. this is why bombing is such a bad idea -- innocent civilians die, because hezbollah wants them to die, because dead 6 year olds killed by Israeli bombs mean more recruits. Israel is doing Hezbollah's recruiting work for them. violence begets violence. in some ways, it's very simple.



[q]So you think Hezbollah should be allowed free use and access of roads, bridges, airports, and electical plants through out Lebanon? Do you think the United States military was right when it targeted the same infastructure in Iraq(2003), Afghanistan(2001), Serbia(1999), Bosnia(1995), Iraq(1991), Panama(1989), France(1944)?[/q]

but why are they bombing the regular Lebanese army north of Beirut if their real enemy is Hizbullah, a southern Shiite paramilitary? why are they bombing radio relay stations?
again, it's HILARIOUS that you compare each and every single conflict to WW2, as if these are even remotely comparable. does the word "distinction" mean anything to you? how about "nuance"? it's not that i think Hezbollah should be allowed to use roads (way to re-frame the question and ignore the issue) and that i don't think civilians in Beirut should suffer enormous damage to infrastructure that will foment a humanitarian crisis.



[q]Israel is currently only using at most 10% of its ground and air forces in this conflict. It is a limited and restrained operation and Israel has always expected Hezbollah to fight as intensely as they have been.[/q]


hmmm ... guess not. check out Yolland's post.

[q]Israel is not concerned about an exit strategy, they are concerned about doing what is necessary to prevent their towns from being rocketed. If that means they have to take more territory and hold onto, that is what they will do. If it means removing all Lebanese citizens whether they are in Hezbollah or not, from an area within 20 miles of the Israeli border, that is what they will do.
[/q]


and we'll all go back to 1982, and the Israeli population will be bled by another prolonged occupation that will engender the hatred of Israel in yet another generation of Arabs. the only way this conflict can end is for the Lebanese state to be strengthened so that it has a hope of dealing with Hizbullah. Israel's actions are not strengthening the Lebanese state and are making average Israeli's less safe in the long run.
 
Last edited:
STING2 said:
Hezbollah has tactically made a huge error and now military forces and equipment that has taken Hezbollah and its allies years to build up and cost hundreds of millions of dollars is being rapidly destroyed or used up.

Wow, this is a really short-sighted perspective on what Hezbollah is about (and capable of). Do you really not see the bigger picture here?

With al-Zawahiri's blessing, Sunnis and Shiites can now put aside their differences and focus their effort and energy on their real Zionist, imperialist enemies.

One step further toward a united Islam and Israeli and American governments seem to be playing right into it at every turn like brainless bullies who can't control their tempers when poked ...why???
 
AliEnvy said:


With al-Zawahiri's blessing, Sunnis and Shiites can now put aside their differences and focus their effort and energy on their real Zionist, imperialist enemies.


There really putting aside there differences in Iraq. Does this make Bin Laden and his mini me The pope and Archbishop of Islam and do they represent modern islam. Whch for me right now shows hatred towards others, Death and rejoice over the death of innocents and the people who are brainwashed by it. Why do we never see any one who represents Islam condem the acts of there religion.
 
Last edited:
Justin24 said:


There really putting aside there differences in Iraq. Does this make Bin Laden and his mini me The pope and Archbishop of Islam and do they represent modern islam. Whch for me right now shows hatred towards others, Death and rejoice over the death of innocents and the people who are brainwashed by it. Why do we never see any one who represents Islam condem the acts of there religion.

Plenty of Muslims have come out against terrorism by Muslim terrorists. Turkey has a terrible terrorist problem and they know what it's like. Muslim leaders in Jordan and Egypt, both moderate Islamic states which recognize Israel, have come out against terrorism. The not-so-moderate Saudis have come out against terrorism, even though you could hold them indirectly responsible for it because they still teach Wahhabism and Osama bin Laden and other leading terrorists are from there.
 
Western Media and Arab media have never shown such things as you described.

What about Clerics???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom