| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/11/2006 11:32:31 AM · #126 |
From BBC an hour ago:
"More than 1,000 Lebanese, most of them civilians, have now been killed since the conflict erupted, Lebanon says. Some 123 Israelis, most of them soldiers, have also been killed."
That is represenative of all stories I read.
edit:
Here is a good article worth reading to consider my point of view:
click here
Here is an excerpt specifically about BBC:
"Also last week, one of the world's most prestigious news brands, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC), was taken to task by Tom Gross, a former Jerusalem correspondent for the London Sunday Telegraph, who wrote in the National Review:
"[I]n spite of several hundreds of hours of broadcast by dozens of BBC reporters and studio anchors, you wouldn’t really know that hundreds of thousands of Israelis have been living in bomb shelters for weeks now, tired, afraid, but resilient; that a grandmother and her seven-year-old grandson were killed by a Katyusha during a Friday night Sabbath dinner, that several other Israeli children have died. You wouldn’t have any real understanding of what it is like to have over 2,000 Iranian and Syrian rockets rain down indiscriminately on towns, villages, and farms across one third of your country, aimed at killing civilians."
Message edited by author 2006-08-11 11:42:55. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 11:56:47 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Sorry, I don't believe it. Why? Because they always over-inflate their numbers. |
Even Fox news acknowledges at least 670 Lebanese deaths.
//www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207381,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/mideast
Originally posted by theSaj:
- why would you [etc etc] |
I did not say that Israel does not have a right to exist, merely that the people in Palestine have genuine greivances that are being ignored by some here in their fulsome defence of Israel and damnation of every other surrounding state.
That said, I would seek clarification on a couple of points
Originally posted by theSaj:
- why would you make no political complain about the fact that Jordan, Syria & Egypt took much more land than Israel? |
what are you referring to?
Originally posted by theSaj:
- why would you complain about said group killing your families and then strap a bomb onto your child and send them out into the market to kill other children? |
how often do you think that this happens? How often does it occur compared to the frequency of Israeli soldiers shooting children? [PS this is a case of me giving a counter to your inflammatory example, not condoning the actions of Hezbollah].
Originally posted by theSaj:
Can we say this year....by Iran! Whether they are simply shouting their rhetoric while pulling Hezbolleh's strings. They're the ones financing, arming, & training Hezbolleh and also providing "green berets". Look, a group like Hezbolleh does not get drones by itself. |
If (getting back to the original question) a state providing backing to a terrorist organisation is itself to be considered an act of terrorist aggression against another nation state, then the US support of Al Queda, the IRA and various other terrorist groups at various times in the last couple of decades would be examples of the US perpetrating terrorism against other nation states. Or does the "you are a good guy or an evil guy" simplification need to be broken down when you are talking about your own nation?
Originally posted by theSaj:
I think the problem LegalBeagle is that most do not have faith that the "islamofascists" will ever accept tolerance. So if you have one entity that will not tolerate, then the goal of tolerance is impossible. |
I disagree: my problem is that people can be driven to fanaticism by the raining down of death anddestruction on their friends and family. I agree that fanatics need to be dealt with. However, in a way that does not create more fanatics than it deals with.
I also do not think, as you appear to do with your strinking condemnation of whole countries and peoples, that everyone within each Middle Eastern nation is an "islamafascist" - though I do think that our actions and the perceived slights are fanaticising more and more people.
By simplifying the war into "them" and "us", we force people to choose. People who have no love for Western society are not necessarily bad people, nor are they fanatics or supporters of terrorism. They are just different. If we lump "them" all together, and try and fight them as one, then we are encouraging the moderates to become or side with the fanatics.
By treating Christian and Jewish countries as "good", and Muslim countries as "evil", we also give a war against fanaticism a religious element: this simplification simply does not hold true, eg if you take the example of sectarian killings in Baghdad. The war is against fanaticism. By making all muslims out to be the enemy, you force moderate, supportive Muslims into the hands of the fanatics, because it is unlikely that you are going to give up your religion in order to avoid being tarred with the brush of enmity.
Message edited by author 2006-08-11 12:00:20.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 12:05:24 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
By making all muslims out to be the enemy, you force moderate, supportive Muslims into the hands of the fanatics, because it is unlikely that you are going to give up your religion in order to avoid being tarred with the brush of enmity. |
With every attack, every foiled plot, every suicide bombing, every act of fanaticism - Muslims world round force THEMSELVES into the same camp as the fanatics by the simple fact that they are doing nothing to solve the problems within their own religion.
It is not Israel's fault that Hezbollah is firing rockets at them - it is Hezbollah's, Lebanon's, Iran's and Syria's.
It is not America's fault that Shiites are killing Sunnis in Iraq - it is the fault of the Shiites and Sunnis and their manipulative and twisted religious leaders that do nothing to make amends among the followers of their religion. Ignorant people who proved themselves not to be worth one drop of American blood spent removing the dictator that had his foot on their neck because they get a chance to make something great out of their country and blow it to go back to the same centuries old squabbles.
What blame there is to be cast lies 100% at the feet of the world Muslim community. They do nothing to effect change within their own oppressive governments, they use their religion as a mean to teach their people that the 'thing to do' is blame America and Israel for the condition of their lives instead of educating them and teaching them to use diplomatic, passive or even armed resistance to oust the robber barons in control of their countries.
I don't shed a single tear for the plight of so-called 'peaceful muslims' being cast in such a bad light by the actions of 'a radical few'.
Message edited by author 2006-08-11 12:07:23. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 12:06:18 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Here is a good article worth reading to consider my point of view:
click here
|
Thanks - read. It struck me as being a little biased (the first reader comment is also interesting), although reflects a lot of what has been posted on the discussions concerning photo journalistic corruption already.
Here is an interesting counter-take on the reporting in the US:
//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5258240.stm
Message edited by author 2006-08-11 12:06:40.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 12:12:27 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
It is not America's fault that Shiites are killing Sunnis in Iraq - it is the fault of the Shiites and Sunnis and their manipulative and twisted religious leaders that do nothing to make amends among the followers of their religion. Ignorant people who proved themselves not to be worth one drop of American blood spent removing the dictator that had his foot on their neck because they get a chance to make something great out of their country and blow it to go back to the same centuries old squabbles. |
Isn't it the job of government to control the population? Who removed the government and failed to replace it? The US and the UK. There are *some* religious leaders who are vying in a power struggle to take control. However, blaming the breakdown on social order on religion as a whole is a little strong: social order is the job of government, not religion.
Why do you blame only Muslims for failure to change oppressive governments? There are oppressive governments all over the world, in all religions denominations.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 12:13:40 PM · #131 |
Yeah, the Jews are running America. Quite the shocking conclusion to come from a European news agency.
The reason the US expects Hezbollah to be dealt with before another sham resolution is passed is 1) there already was a sham resolution demanding Hezbollah be disarmed, 2) the US considers Hezbollah terrorists and in a war on terror the sort of people we would like to see killed and 3) Israel is a democracy.
I would not call news reporting in the US Israel biased. Same stuff here as there. All lebanese casualties are civilians, barely a mention of the civilan situation within Israel, and Israel got more than they bargained for by attacking Hezbollah. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 12:16:13 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
With every attack, every foiled plot, every suicide bombing, every act of fanaticism - Muslims world round force THEMSELVES into the same camp as the fanatics by the simple fact that they are doing nothing to solve the problems within their own religion.
It is not Israel's fault that Hezbollah is firing rockets at them - it is Hezbollah's, Lebanon's, Iran's and Syria's. |
Really? Are you seriously suggesting that it is the job of worldwide religion to establish peace within its ranks? Any act of aggression perpetrated by a country with a majority religion should have been stopped by the religious leaders, or people of that faith worldwide?
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 12:23:38 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
... the US considers Hezbollah terrorists and in a war on terror the sort of people we would like to see killed and 3) Israel is a democracy. |
Of course the list of countries that considers Hezbollah to be terrorists is quite short.
Lebanon is also a democracy.
Palestine was also a democracy until Israel arrested/kidnapped/killed a large part of its democratically elected government, but that kind of thinking does not necessarily have to figure here, I suppose (an Arab democracy being less valuable than a Western democracy).
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 12:56:09 PM · #134 |
"More than 1,000 Lebanese, most of them civilians, have now been killed since the conflict erupted, Lebanon says. Some 123 Israelis, most of them soldiers, have also been killed."
Even Fox news acknowledges at least 670 Lebanese deaths.
//www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207381,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/mideast
Not arguing the reporting. But if a 100 of those were Hezbolleh. Can you tell me how one could determine the difference between a civilian clothed Hezbolleh and a civilian?
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
- why would you make no political complain about the fact that Jordan, Syria & Egypt took much more land than Israel?
what are you referring to? |
Much more land was taken by Jordan, Syria, Egypt, etc than by Israel. It's history.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
- why would you complain about said group killing your families and then strap a bomb onto your child and send them out into the market to kill other children? |
About the same. I believe that more now that I've seen several videos that put into suspect and question prior reported deaths.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
If (getting back to the original question) a state providing backing to a terrorist organisation is itself to be considered an act of terrorist aggression against another nation state, then the US support of Al Queda, the IRA and various other terrorist groups at various times in the last couple of decades would be examples of the US perpetrating terrorism against other nation states. Or does the "you are a good guy or an evil guy" simplification need to be broken down when you are talking about your own nation? |
I don't recall us supporting Al Quaeda. I do know we supported factions in Afghanistan. A lot seem to think since we supported x factions we supported all.
I don't recall the U.S. government selling arms and directly aiding the Irish Republican Army. Did some Americans raise funds, etc. Yes...was it wrong to not crack down on such. Yes.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I disagree: my problem is that people can be driven to fanaticism by the raining down of death anddestruction on their friends and family. I agree that fanatics need to be dealt with. However, in a way that does not create more fanatics than it deals with. |
Well gee, is it any wonder Israel does what they do. Has anyone had death and destruction reigned down upon their friends and family more than the Jews?
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I also do not think, as you appear to do with your strinking condemnation of whole countries and peoples, that everyone within each Middle Eastern nation is an "islamafascist" - though I do think that our actions and the perceived slights are fanaticising more and more people. |
Sorry, that is not what I've ever said. And I see this as nothing more than putting words in my mouth.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
By simplifying the war into "them" and "us", we force people to choose. |
Okay, let me put it this way. "Islamifascists" = those who want strict Islamic practices the world over and are dedicated to bringing that by any means. And are willing to kill and terrorize to make it happen.
So yes, it is us against them. If you disagree...please feel free to live in their world.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
People who have no love for Western society are not necessarily bad people, nor are they fanatics or supporters of terrorism. |
Right, and that's why I did not say Muslims or Arabs. But Islamifascists. A specific sub-group...which are !@#$% BAD PEOPLE!
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
The war is against fanaticism. By making all muslims out to be the enemy, you force moderate, supportive Muslims into the hands of the fanatics, because it is unlikely that you are going to give up your religion in order to avoid being tarred with the brush of enmity. |
Please just STOP!!! STOP accusing me of things I am not doing. I am speaking against the Islamifascists. No, I'm not addressing every fascists/terrorist in history or the world over. Just those that we are currently heavily engaged with.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Why do you blame only Muslims for failure to change oppressive governments? There are oppressive governments all over the world, in all religions denominations. |
We don't but just happen to be more focused on this region and the extremist sub-group within Islam because they've made repeated attempts to kill us.
BTW, a little known fact. The first war America fought after the American revolution was with the muslim Barbary States of North Africa. So maybe we do have a longer history.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 01:23:15 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
With every attack, every foiled plot, every suicide bombing, every act of fanaticism - Muslims world round force THEMSELVES into the same camp as the fanatics by the simple fact that they are doing nothing to solve the problems within their own religion.
It is not Israel's fault that Hezbollah is firing rockets at them - it is Hezbollah's, Lebanon's, Iran's and Syria's. |
Really? Are you seriously suggesting that it is the job of worldwide religion to establish peace within its ranks? Any act of aggression perpetrated by a country with a majority religion should have been stopped by the religious leaders, or people of that faith worldwide? |
When religion runs the country - YES. Religion in these countries controls the hearts and mind of the citizenry. The governments fleece them to enrich the ruling families and nothing more.
As to Lebanon and Palestine being a democracy - no argument. They voted terrorists into power in their governments therefore they are responsible for the actions of those groups (hamas/hezbollah).
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 01:30:48 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Religion in these countries controls the hearts and mind of the citizenry. The governments fleece them to enrich the ruling families and nothing more.
. |
How often have you visited the Middle East and spoken to the citizens there to gain this information? Or are you just sitting at home gaining this insight from the media reports?
P
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 01:45:07 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Religion in these countries controls the hearts and mind of the citizenry. The governments fleece them to enrich the ruling families and nothing more.
. |
How often have you visited the Middle East and spoken to the citizens there to gain this information? Or are you just sitting at home gaining this insight from the media reports?
P |
I have not visited the middle east, nor do I need to in order to talk to the people that have lived there. If you haven't noticed, quite a large number of them leave and do not go back to their homelands. Hundreds of thousands of these folks live in the same city I do and are more than happy to share insight into their countries. Chief gripes - small amount of people at the top have all the money, everyone else lives in poverty, somehow the mullahs don't seem to be as poor as everyone else, and it's all because of the US and Israel.
You talk to the locals and got some different take on the situation? I really doubt it. You can also go buy or borrow any number of books by middle eastern authors and read exactly what I have heard firsthand from those who have lived there. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 01:59:48 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
When religion runs the country - YES. Religion in these countries controls the hearts and mind of the citizenry. The governments fleece them to enrich the ruling families and nothing more.
As to Lebanon and Palestine being a democracy - no argument. They voted terrorists into power in their governments therefore they are responsible for the actions of those groups (hamas/hezbollah). |
And why shouldn'they not vote those groups into power. They're the ones effectively telling them that they'll not only keep them safe but also provide regular everyday ammenities. Every country including Israel has the right to consider defence as the top most priority in chosing their govt. then why shouldn't they?
I asked a similar question during a chat I once had with a lebanese guy and the answer I got was that if someone considers their choosing a terrorist group as their helpers wrong then they'll throw back that they consider any transgressors of any country's soveriegnity as terrorists as well.
Message edited by author 2006-08-11 14:04:27. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 02:08:39 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by UrfaTheGreat:
And why shouldn'they not vote those groups into power. |
Hey, long live democracy. They can look around Lebanon and see firsthand the power of their vote. Remember, every vote counts. |
|
|
|
08/11/2006 02:19:42 PM · #140 |
Acually, Lebanon just tried to vote out many of the terrorists (Syria) and choose Democracy. I am very grieved by what's going on for the Lebanese. Problem is Syria assasinated their elected official. And Iran strengthened Hezbollah with the intention of regaining control of Lebanon. The real problem is the international community did little to support Lebanon nor condemn Syria and prevent Iran's intervention.
Hopefully, the end result will be a more established Democratic Lebanon.
In truth, I think Congress should be passing a $20 billion aid re-construction package for Lebanon. To be implemented upon a cessation and displacement of Hezbollah.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2006 02:24:37 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Acually, Lebanon just tried to vote out many of the terrorists (Syria) and choose Democracy. I am very grieved by what's going on for the Lebanese. |
2005 Lebanese elections:
First round
The first round was held on May 29, 2005 in Beirut. The Rafik Hariri Martyr List, a coalition of Saad Hariri's Current for the Future, the Progressive Socialist Party and other anti-Syrian parties, won all 19 seats. Saad Hariri is the son of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri who was assassinated in February 2005, in a car bombing in Beirut. The coalition left one seat free for a Shiite candidate from Hezbollah.
[ edit ]
Second round
The second round was held on June 5 in South Lebanon and Nabatyeh Governorate. The Resistance and Development Bloc, a joint ticket by the two main Shiite parties Amal and Hezbollah, in addition to Bahiya Al-Hariri, the sister of the assassinated late Prime Minister Rafic Al-Hariri and Oussama Saad from Sidon, won all 23 seats. Official tallies showed the Resistance and Development Bloc receiving more than 80% of the vote. The head of Amal, Nabih Berri, said in a news conference held in Mosseileh: "The South has declared clearly and before international observers its backing for the resistance as a path for the past, present and future." Berri said the elected MPs would not let Hezbollah be disarmed.
[ edit ]
Third round
The third round was held on June 12 in Beqaa and Mount Lebanon. In Mount Lebanon the Hariri List won 17 seats, as did the Aoun Alliance, made up of Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement and two smaller parties; Hezbollah won one. In Beqaa, the Resistance and Development Bloc won 11 seats, the Hariri List eight, and the Aoun Alliance four.
---
Welcome to 2006, your vote in action.
Message edited by author 2006-08-11 14:25:36. |
|
|
|
08/12/2006 12:04:48 AM · #142 |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 03:32:41 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Please just STOP!!! STOP accusing me of things I am not doing. I am speaking against the Islamifascists. No, I'm not addressing every fascists/terrorist in history or the world over. Just those that we are currently heavily engaged with. |
Sorry: when you broke the world up into two parties, this was your breakdown:
Originally posted by thesaj:
Party 1 (includes USA, Europe, Israel, Western World) endeavors to minimilize civilian casualties. Drops leaflets warning before hand. Endeavors focus to be on hostiles.
Party 2 (islamifascists) deliberately attack civilian populations and hide in and amongst civilians in order to ensure any attacks on them put civilians at risk. |
Originally posted by thesaj:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I disagree: my problem is that people can be driven to fanaticism by the raining down of death anddestruction on their friends and family. I agree that fanatics need to be dealt with. However, in a way that does not create more fanatics than it deals with. |
Well gee, is it any wonder Israel does what they do. Has anyone had death and destruction reigned down upon their friends and family more than the Jews? |
I agree with you totally: the Jewish people have suffered very heavily. I agree that it is no wonder that some of them have become fanatical. However, I think that the fanaticism is objectionable on both sides. You generally tend to recognise only one side as being the problem: the "islamafascists", not the "zionofascists" (or whatever derogatory wording you would like to apply to them).
|
|
|
|
08/13/2006 03:38:54 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Much more land was taken by Jordan, Syria, Egypt, etc than by Israel. It's history. |
Please tell me what event in history you are referring to?
|
|
|
|
08/13/2006 04:04:44 PM · #145 |
| Since the beginning of time people have been killing people in the name of anything they can think up at the moment. Whether it be a god, religion, land, food, water , or gold its human nature. Some have become civilized enough to control the killing to a point but none have erraticated it entirely. Where you see the most violence tends to be where you see the lack of the basic esentials of life. For over a thousand years people have been killing people in the middle east. It is inbreed in their nature. A shrink one told me if you argue your whole life with someone and then you suddenly stop they will magnify their side to fill the void. So what has been going on will not likely end in our life time. Do your part and just try to get along and understand. You don't have to agree to do this. Thanks |
|
|
|
08/15/2006 06:09:28 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Since the beginning of time people have been killing people in the name of anything they can think up at the moment. Whether it be a god, religion, land, food, water , or gold its human nature. |
I agree.
Originally posted by coronamv:
Some have become civilized enough to control the killing to a point but none have erraticated it entirely. Where you see the most violence tends to be where you see the lack of the basic esentials of life. |
What kind of killing are you talking about?
Wars happen in places for a lot of reasons. The lack of basic essentials might be the cause for war if people are being denied access to essentials.
Crime rates (and in particular violent crime rates) are sometimes linked to difficult social inequalities and the absence of law and order. There is a table of comparative 2003 homicide rates on page 10 of the pdf here:
//www.csdp.org/research/hosb1203.pdf
These have to be read with a lot of provisos, because crime is reported upon differently in various countries. However, it is striking that some of the poorest countries have rates at around 2.5 per 100,000, most rich European countries are around 1.5, whereas the US is at 5.56 per 100,000. This is only lower than certain countries where there is a breakdown in law and order, such as Russia (22) and S Africa (55!).
These figures do not include a breakdown for the Middle East. Israel in 2004 (//www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000396.htm) was at 4.3 per 100,000 and Palestinians at 11.2 (incidentally, the same rate as San Francisco). This includes deaths caused by the intifada.
There are not very many figures from poorer countries - all I could find was this WHO report which refers to homicide rate for youths aged 10-29 in 2000, which includes a map coded by reference to rates which show a general increase of violence in generally poorer regions, but with a number of huge exceptions (USA: high, China: low).
Originally posted by coronamv:
For over a thousand years people have been killing people in the middle east. It is inbreed in their nature. |
Maybe we could simplify that and just say that people with coloured skin are more prone to violence? Maybe we could use that to justify treating them differently?
Given that the Middle East is the cradle of civilisation, people have been settling and fighting over land in the region for over 12,000 years, not just 1,000.
|
|
