This is an escalation without precedent in the terrorist war waged by...Hamas"

sherief

Generic Human
Any Palestinian activity is going to be pretense for the Israeli far right to attack the Palestinians, there's nothing particularly special about this sort of tactic- in fact, this is perhaps one of the most moderate moves I think could be taken without being completely inconsequential. The serious problem is not that both sides have their own set of problems and qualms that are somehow equal but we just don't realize that and all get along. That's empty rhetoric, and it fails to recognize that the problems in the region stem from determinate causes. The only problem I think with the recent events, and most of the insurgent activity in Palestine, is that their meaning has been too easily coopted--on one hand by the Israeli apparatus and on the other by the reactionary Arab right (whatever the hell it is). The palestinian resistance, because it is so heterogeneous and scattered, lacks the ability to produce the proper contexts and meanings necessary to them. I think that's one of the biggest problems as it stands now. This capture in itself, thinking of scale, is nothing, absolutely nothing- its importance lies in the posibility of creating a constellation of significance and meaning around the horrific reprisals and asymmetry that have ensued since.
 

Buick6

too punk to drunk
swears said:
It's bizarre, each side just seems to be antagonising the other as much as possible.
What did the Palestinians expect to achieve from this kidnapping?
And what do the Isrealis hope to achieve by bombing the shit out of them?
Good straight to the point comment.

Simple answer:

My god kills your god,
My cock beats your cock,
Oblivion is what you crave.
What happens when the oil runs out, does that render them all impotent?
 

Buick6

too punk to drunk
bruno said:
if it were up to me i'd raze the whole place to the ground, turn it into the world's largest golf course, or parking lot, give the north pole to the israelis, the south pole to the palestinians and that's it, end of story. let's see who they bomb then.
They'll melt the polar caps and drown us all.
 

swears

preppy-kei
Buick6 said:
Good straight to the point comment.
Well, I'm just saying it appears that way. There is some obsure, complex logic behind all this. Either side is locked into it and they can't back down or be seen to lose face.
 

bruno

est malade
the only logic behind all this is the thrill of escalation. there's nothing arab terrorist groups and israel love more than the rush of violence, confrontation, it's their lifeblood.

hezbollah knew it would get only retaliation from israel, and in exchange now they have a renewed cause and sympathy. israel knows it will never see armed groups capitulate through force, humiliation, destruction, but what it gets in exchange is a sense of unity, of common purpose.

without violence these people are nothing.
 

sufi

lala
it's down to the new israeli pm wants to impress the hawks with a manageable escalation in the the hostilities, hostage taking has long been a standard tactic for both sides, invading lebanon's a set piece.
 

Buick6

too punk to drunk
Taken from the Age via Reuters:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/07/14/1152637871549.html

"...The Israeli military said Hezbollah had fired more than 130 missiles into Israel in the past two days, killing two civilians and wounding more than 100.

The fragile Beirut Government, too divided to disarm the Islamic group that effectively controls south Lebanon, has urged the UN Security Council to call on Israel to halt its onslaught.

But Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert opted to ramp up the punishment. "The decision was made to intensify Israel's operations in Lebanon," Israeli army radio reported.

Mr Olmert is a new leader who has little to lose by gambling. Instead of seeking to contain the problems on Israel's borders, with Lebanon in the north and Gaza in the south, Mr Olmert has gone in hard after the Jewish state's enemies.

Should his tactics push Hezbollah or Hamas — whose militants captured an Israeli soldier in Gaza last month — into freeing or killing their captives, Israel could be in a position to knock its most bitter enemies out of the game for good. ...."

Tactically, it seems, the Islamic Militants have played their cards incorrectly in this war. I'll wager 100% they'll kill the Israeli soldiers, videotape the evidence and broadcast on Al-Jazeera. A mass retaliation will ensue as this will all perfectly feed into the 'war on terror' campaign. Not sure how they'll knock out their enemies for good though, but I guess that's up to their intelligence and covert ops that no-one on this board would know.
 
F

foret

Guest
who are more likely to kill their captives, hezbollah or hamas? two different situations

did anyone see what happened to the two american soldiers in iraq, very nasty :x
 
F

foret

Guest
the bbc has the 15 lebanese civilian deaths as their leadng story, american sites like fox news and nytimes have the israeli military casualties first
 

sherief

Generic Human
foret said:
the bbc has the 15 lebanese civilian deaths as their leadng story, american sites like fox news and nytimes have the israeli military casualties first
I've been noticing stuff like this for days now- it seems particularly acute. Omission of details also becomes problematic when it's so one sided.
 

Buick6

too punk to drunk
sufi said:
what is your stake?
Hiroshima2?

foret said:
who are more likely to kill their captives, hezbollah or hamas? two different situations
Both. Hisbullah and Hamas are pretty much the same thing in different places, you know like America and East New York, I mean Israel (according to most anti-Zionites, anyway)

foret said:
did anyone see what happened to the two american soldiers in iraq, very nasty :x
Yeah shit happens. But look at that hick that went on the murder-rape rampage in Iraq. He gets labelled 'mentally unstable' and faces a death sentence. In the Middle-East they call you something along the lines a 'hero martyr of liberation champion of allah and the prophets' and hide you out in a cave with 20 virgins or some of yr hairy boyfriends.

It's the best offense the militants have - psychological media outrage, fear, revulsion, divide and conquer - all perfect rules of terrorism engagement, not the sort of stuff that entices you to hold hands and sing Koombayah is it?

The middle east, you've got every unsolvable paradox known to man - religious, genetic, classist, Marxist, corporatist. You know everyone seems to have forgot about Chaos theory in today's po-mo world, as things become more homogenised, choatic elements will blow everything apart - thats how I see the mid-East scenario. For all the fucken bullshit 'cradle of civilisation' waffle that region seems to have given mankind, the motherfuckers have never produced a decent rock band.
 
F

foret

Guest
Hisbullah and Hamas are pretty much the same thing in different places, you know like America and East New York, I mean Israel (according to most anti-Zionites, anyway)
though hezbollah are shi'ite khomeini-ites and hamas are sunni

For all the fucken bullshit 'cradle of civilisation' waffle that region seems to have given mankind, the motherfuckers have never produced a decent rock band
very good!
 

Buick6

too punk to drunk
foret said:
though hezbollah are shi'ite khomeini-ites and hamas are sunni
Yes, but their hatred of Jews, Zionists, Americans and homosexuals are so threatening to their own existence that it becomes absolutely irrelevant. Oh and Iran just happen to be one of Hamas's biggest financial sponsors ;)
 
Last edited:

sufi

lala
buick said:
sufi said:
what is your stake?
Hiroshima2?
what exactly do you mean here, numpty? you're 100% predicting hiroshima2??
buick said:
foret said:
who are more likely to kill their captives, hezbollah or hamas? two different situations
Both. Hisbullah and Hamas are pretty much the same thing in different places, you know like America and East New York, I mean Israel (according to most anti-Zionites, anyway)
what exactly are you trying to say here?
buick said:
foret said:
did anyone see what happened to the two american soldiers in iraq, very nasty :x
Yeah shit happens. But look at that hick that went on the murder-rape rampage in Iraq. He gets labelled 'mentally unstable' and faces a death sentence. In the Middle-East they call you something along the lines a 'hero martyr of liberation champion of allah and the prophets' and hide you out in a cave with 20 virgins or some of yr hairy boyfriends.
pure nasty prejudiced lies, buick, what has rape got to do with islamic martyrdom?
buick said:
It's the best offense the militants have - psychological media outrage, fear, revulsion, divide and conquer - all perfect rules of terrorism engagement, not the sort of stuff that entices you to hold hands and sing Koombayah is it?

The middle east, you've got every unsolvable paradox known to man - religious, genetic, classist, Marxist, corporatist. You know everyone seems to have forgot about Chaos theory in today's po-mo world, as things become more homogenised, choatic elements will blow everything apart - thats how I see the mid-East scenario. For all the fucken bullshit 'cradle of civilisation' waffle that region seems to have given mankind, the motherfuckers have never produced a decent rock band.
this shows clearly where you're coming from - this whole disingenuous shpiel about 'unsolvable paradox' is just a way of avoiding acknowledging any of the real issues of power politics in the region (same with n ireland - 'o that conflict is down to age-old tribal conflicts among primitive peoples'). the fact that you seem to have swallowed that bullshit shows you up as a sucker who don't know what you're on about, dood

give us a break from your incoherent bullshit please, buick - best stick to chatting about what you know = 'rock' music, dood :)
 
D

droid

Guest
Theres so much going on here that its difficult to know where to start. As I mentioned in previous posts, the original pretext that Israel has to take extreme measures in order to defend itself from Qassam rockets launched from the Gaza strip (ironically named, as the original Qassam was far more symbolic than he was effective), is exposed as exactly that when you look at the horrendous imbalance in the casualties on both sides. Once again this is all about Israel stamping its authority on the region and sending out a clear message that it will brook no resistance, regardless of whether it is directed at military or civilian targets, a postition seemingly supported by Bush as he calls for 'restraint on both sides' (echoing China's ambivilant attitude to N.Korea's missile tests), and for Hezbollah to 'lay down their arms'.

Hezbollah's attack in the North is far more problematic, as despite the apparant show of solidarity with Hamas, Hezbollah has in fact been attacking Israeli troops along the border for months now, in an attempt to gain a bargaining chip to secure the freedom of Lebanese hostages held by the Israelis since their withdrawal, and as part of their operations in the disputed Sheeba Farms area. But once again, the point should be made that this is business as usual in the North, and has been for over 20 years - arguably not the 'escalation' its painted as, and hardly a justification for the bombardment of an entire nation.

Now it goes without saying that Hezbollah's extremeist brand of Islam, its anti-semetism, homobhobia and attitudes to women are abbhorent, but it has to be said that they are widely supported by Lebanese Shi-ites for their role in ousting Israel from Southern Lebanon, and that most of their 'terrorist' attacks have been aimed squarely at the IDF operating on Lebanese soil - which hardly qualifies them as terrorism at all - not something that can be said about Katayusha rocket attacks against civilian targets. Nonetheless, I dont think there can be any serious debate about the disproportionate nature of Israel's response - would the British army be justified in bombing Dublin airport if the IRA captured some British soldiers and fired mortars from across the border? Would they be justified in launching airstrikes and naval bombardments which have killed over 100 civillians in just a few days? Lets not forget that Lebanon has no real army of note and is effectively defenceless other than the presence of Hezbollah Guerillas - so Israel's reponse only adds to Hezbollah's popularity in the long term.

The latest hint of the real motives behind this is Israel's announcement yesterday that the attack on its ship came from an 'Iranian'' made missile. Now apart from the fact that its hardly news that Hezbollah has Iranian made weapons, nor does it demonstrate that iran was 'behind' this, this statement does perhaps offer a glimpse of the logic behind Israel's actions - do they really want to draw Iran into the conflict by inventing a pretext for attack, and then provoking a response? (as David Horowitz suggests)

No mention of course that the missiles, bullets and shells pulverising the Gaza strip and Lebanon are all American made, and of course, no one asks the question - does this fact justify a future Syrian or Iranian attack on US cities?

Putting aside all moral concerns and talk of silly distractions like the UN charter or the Geneva Conventions (or the Universal declaration of Human Rights for that matter), this all just underpins the idea that Israel has no long term strategic plan other than to continue to crush anybody who offers the slightest sign of resistance, whilst consolidating territory in the west bank, extending their contol over water resources in Northern Israel, and enroaching on Palestinian enclaves through the construction of the Security 'fence'. All strategies which put them in direct conflict with an increasingly desperate Palestinain population and inflame opinion in neighbouring sates, leading to more attacks and further escaltion.

Meanwhile, the only power with any real influence sits on its hands and offers complicit approval whilst commentators worldwide ponder on the 'unsolvable paradox' of how the 3rd greatest miltary power in the world (9.45 billion in 2005) can hope to defend itself from unprovoked terrorist attacks.

A few articles:

Horowitz advocates attack on Iran

Jonathan Cook on Gaza

Irish Times - Battle of Beruit

Fisk on Lebanon

Fisk on hezbollah

Fox cant believe its own eyes
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Buick6

too punk to drunk
sufi said:
what exactly do you mean here, numpty? you're 100% predicting hiroshima2??
I didn't put a figure in there you did, but it could happen.

sufi said:
what exactly are you trying to say here?
pure nasty prejudiced lies, buick, what has rape got to do with islamic martyrdom?
I find both of them equally disgusting. Both evolved out of repression, one sexual and the other by a religion. And how 'pure' are these lies, as 'pure' as your own 'facts'?

sufi said:
this shows clearly where you're coming from - this whole disingenuous shpiel about 'unsolvable paradox' is just a way of avoiding acknowledging any of the real issues of power politics in the region (same with n ireland - 'o that conflict is down to age-old tribal conflicts among primitive peoples'). the fact that you seem to have swallowed that bullshit shows you up as a sucker who don't know what you're on about, dood
I haven't swallowed any bullshit, the Northern Ireland was another deeply religious/land based conflict. God is on the side with the more weapons. And everybody calls on god for help when these manmade issues arise. I guess when one lives and the other dies or one has more money than the other you thank god. The Israelis think they are better than everyone, and now they are getting shocks with the range of the Hizbullah weapons which 'know one exactly knows where they came from'. Well obviously someone is making and providing them to even the score, someone who's got WAY bigger plans than any Israeli expansionism.

sufi said:
give us a break from your incoherent bullshit please, buick - best stick to chatting about what you know = 'rock' music, dood :)
I will, it makes me far happier than this fucken shit, habib. :cool:
 
Last edited:

D7_bohs

New member
Buick6 said:
I haven't swallowed any bullshit, the Northern Ireland was another deeply religious/land based conflict. :
There's so much wrong with that, from the grammar upwards

On the substantive issue; i spent the weekend reading Daniel Deronda, George Eliot's weird book about the position of Jews in 19th c. England; as I heard about the bombing of Lebanon, I was reading the section where Mordecai, a visionary proto- Zionist talks about how a jewish state in Palastine will be a beacon in the region, how the jews will bring the values of the enlightenment, absorbed through their long exile, to flower in the desert. It brings home with a shock - because it is expressed in a language jarring to a modern ear - the colonialism at the heart of the Zionist project, the noble undertaking of a civilising mission, echoes of which can still be heard when Israel is held up as being worthy of support as the only democracy in the area. The arrogant assumption that such an influence would improve the area, and the even bigger assumption at the heart of western liberalism, the believe that it alone can explain and assimilate other discourses - such as Islam - once exposed to the clear light of reason
 

bruno

est malade
my gut feeling on watching the footage of bombs puncturing the tarmac of beirut international was that this was wrong. the legality of this and other actions is scrutinised in this hrw document, a sample:

The real, unstated reason for Israel’s attack on the airport may be precisely to impose a cost on Lebanese civilians to encourage them to press their government to rein in Hezbollah. Leaving aside the question of whether the Lebanese government is militarily capable of reining in Hezbollah, it is illegal under international humanitarian law, as noted below, to use military force to squeeze the civilian population, to enhance its suffering, or to undermine its morale, regardless of the ultimate purpose. Under these circumstances, the attack on the Beirut airport does not appear to have been legitimate under the standards of international humanitarian law.

whatever happened to israeli covert operations? thunderbolt, wrath of god. even their worst enemies respected the cunning and sheer guts on display here. more important is that these were carried out to right wrongs, not humiliate and kill indiscriminately. the difference between this israel and the one i see today is like day and night, the moral compass is lost.
 

Buick6

too punk to drunk
droid said:
Meanwhile, the only power with any real influence sits on its hands and offers complicit approval whilst commentators worldwide ponder on the 'unsolvable paradox' of how the 3rd greatest miltary power in the world (9.45 billion in 2005) can hope to defend itself from unprovoked terrorist attacks.

A few articles:

Horowitz advocates attack on Iran

Jonathan Cook on Gaza

Irish Times - Battle of Beruit

Fisk on Lebanon

Fisk on hezbollah

Fox cant believe its own eyes
Fantastic. This guy is defintely bi-polar! Got any other non-polarising opinions, or is it just the shitty weather in Ireland?
 
Last edited:
Top