News1 min ago
war on terror
5 years ago america was attacked by terrorists. in reaction to this america and england went to war with the country habouring the terrorists, then went to war with another country who we didnt much like, claiming it to be part of the war on terror.
israel has been attacked by lebanese terrorists and lebanon is doing nothing to try and weed them out, therefore israel went to war with lebanon, or rather, they are continuing the war on terror.
yet blair has condemed their actions. we did exactly the same thing, but now were saying that the israelis are bad bad people.
we claim to fight for democracy yet ourselves, we stand for hypocrisy. we are not a democratic nation. we are a constitutional monarchy but the war on terror showed that we stood for the right to defend oneself when threatened.
i used to like blair, even during the war on terror, but after denouncing the israelis i feel he is making a mockery of his position and of the people who voted for him.
more of a statement than a question i know but feel free to comment anyway
israel has been attacked by lebanese terrorists and lebanon is doing nothing to try and weed them out, therefore israel went to war with lebanon, or rather, they are continuing the war on terror.
yet blair has condemed their actions. we did exactly the same thing, but now were saying that the israelis are bad bad people.
we claim to fight for democracy yet ourselves, we stand for hypocrisy. we are not a democratic nation. we are a constitutional monarchy but the war on terror showed that we stood for the right to defend oneself when threatened.
i used to like blair, even during the war on terror, but after denouncing the israelis i feel he is making a mockery of his position and of the people who voted for him.
more of a statement than a question i know but feel free to comment anyway
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by boobesque. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have also noticed that for some reason the news (that I have seen anyway) has a decidedly anti-Israeli slant! As you say (I'm guessing it's Mr boob here lol) it's ok for America (and us I think) to go and bomb Afghanistan after 9/11 but it's not ok for the Israeli's to defend themselves and fight back against the terrorists?? Madness.
It's amazing what governments will do or say for money (or oil)!
250 years ago, a group of people, experiencing just what is going on now said "ENOUGH" and told the government to **** off. Now that same group of poeple is terroising the world because it can!
As an American living in England, I'm ashamed of my country. Especially since I was active duty Air Force, I know exactly what the goverment is doing under the lie of "terrorism". They did the same for "Communism".
The free world needed a new enemy. And people will die, to protect "our interests".
Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts obsolutely. But what's even worse? The American and British people will stand by and do nothing. Thay may complain, but will do nothing.
It just makes me sick.
250 years ago, a group of people, experiencing just what is going on now said "ENOUGH" and told the government to **** off. Now that same group of poeple is terroising the world because it can!
As an American living in England, I'm ashamed of my country. Especially since I was active duty Air Force, I know exactly what the goverment is doing under the lie of "terrorism". They did the same for "Communism".
The free world needed a new enemy. And people will die, to protect "our interests".
Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts obsolutely. But what's even worse? The American and British people will stand by and do nothing. Thay may complain, but will do nothing.
It just makes me sick.
Sorry, I'm confused like Lazygun here! Blair has refused to condemn or even criticise Israel over their actions in Lebanon - and, together with the US, have effectively vetoed any motion to urge for an immediate ceasefire.
He may be many things (that I am unable to reproduce in a family web-site), but, (in this case at least), not hypocritical - in that he supported the likelihood of massive collateral damage in going to war in Iraq against a "terrorist target / supporter of terrorism", and, as far as I have seen, has hardly shown concern at Israel doing the same.
He may be many things (that I am unable to reproduce in a family web-site), but, (in this case at least), not hypocritical - in that he supported the likelihood of massive collateral damage in going to war in Iraq against a "terrorist target / supporter of terrorism", and, as far as I have seen, has hardly shown concern at Israel doing the same.
You're partially wrong - there has been no condemnation from the UK PM on this, despite the apparent war crimes being carried out by Israel
example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/a rticle/2006/07/31/AR2006073100772.html
The reason there's an anti Israeli slant in the media is because of the totally disproportionate attack on the people of Lebanon. They're being punished as a nation due to the actions of Hezbollah. It's similar to Nazi action against entirevillages during WW2 when members of the population turned out to be resistance fighters.
Another reason is their apparent lack of interest over who they're shelling. They've killed UN personnel - http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php ?id=130441®ion=6
and targetted Red Cross ambulances http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/08/1731848.p hp
If you feel this helps stem a war on terror, please explain, as I can't see it.
Actually, your question confuses me - you denounce Blair for not fully backing Israel, yet you agree that to do so would be hypocrisy and against democracy. Not sure where you're coming from.
example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/a rticle/2006/07/31/AR2006073100772.html
The reason there's an anti Israeli slant in the media is because of the totally disproportionate attack on the people of Lebanon. They're being punished as a nation due to the actions of Hezbollah. It's similar to Nazi action against entirevillages during WW2 when members of the population turned out to be resistance fighters.
Another reason is their apparent lack of interest over who they're shelling. They've killed UN personnel - http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php ?id=130441®ion=6
and targetted Red Cross ambulances http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/08/1731848.p hp
If you feel this helps stem a war on terror, please explain, as I can't see it.
Actually, your question confuses me - you denounce Blair for not fully backing Israel, yet you agree that to do so would be hypocrisy and against democracy. Not sure where you're coming from.
I would have to argue that the UK is in fact a democracy - our government is elected by the people (well, a few of them anyway).
I have major issues with the notion of a 'war on terror' - it's such a soundbite, and it doesn't mean anything. You might as well have a 'war' on sunshine!
One man's 'terror' is another man's fight for freedom, and the habit of George Bush's regime to appoint itself as the world's Police Officer ( which makes Blair the fawning Special Constable) is repugnant in the extreme.
If you asked the Lebanese being bombed and shot out of existance whom they thought were terrorists, they'd probably argue that it is Israel, but that particular catch-all label has been slapped on Hezbullah by Mr Bush. In fact, Hezbullah is part of the fabric and government of Lebanese society, it has founded schools and hospitals, and fought to evict the invading israeli army.
Terrorism is a matter of perspective - look at the American settlers fighting the British - freedom fighters or terrorists - time lends distance and heals rifts.
If I look at the world leaders and see who terrorises me - a 'terrorist' - it is George Bush, and by his ineffectual simpering hand-wringing, Tony Blair.
By all means let's have a war on terrorists - people who frighten and intimidate others for financial and political gain - but let's make sure it includes everyone who falls into that catagory.
I have major issues with the notion of a 'war on terror' - it's such a soundbite, and it doesn't mean anything. You might as well have a 'war' on sunshine!
One man's 'terror' is another man's fight for freedom, and the habit of George Bush's regime to appoint itself as the world's Police Officer ( which makes Blair the fawning Special Constable) is repugnant in the extreme.
If you asked the Lebanese being bombed and shot out of existance whom they thought were terrorists, they'd probably argue that it is Israel, but that particular catch-all label has been slapped on Hezbullah by Mr Bush. In fact, Hezbullah is part of the fabric and government of Lebanese society, it has founded schools and hospitals, and fought to evict the invading israeli army.
Terrorism is a matter of perspective - look at the American settlers fighting the British - freedom fighters or terrorists - time lends distance and heals rifts.
If I look at the world leaders and see who terrorises me - a 'terrorist' - it is George Bush, and by his ineffectual simpering hand-wringing, Tony Blair.
By all means let's have a war on terrorists - people who frighten and intimidate others for financial and political gain - but let's make sure it includes everyone who falls into that catagory.
maxximus you call Hezbollah a 'resistance movement a people's army defending it's country'
If this 'resistance army' had not kidnapped Israeli soldiers and continued launching rockets, they would have had no need to 'resist', they would have not been attacked.
Also, this 'peoples army' controls 25% of the Lebanon and has an annual budget of �279m (source of this info Naim Kassem Hezbollah's number two) It is supplied with the latest weapons from Iran and Syria. It owns banks, supermarkets, hotels, bus and taxi companies.
Not exactly like the French Resistance then. But of course the French did not go around kidnapping and bombing other people before being invaded.
If this 'resistance army' had not kidnapped Israeli soldiers and continued launching rockets, they would have had no need to 'resist', they would have not been attacked.
Also, this 'peoples army' controls 25% of the Lebanon and has an annual budget of �279m (source of this info Naim Kassem Hezbollah's number two) It is supplied with the latest weapons from Iran and Syria. It owns banks, supermarkets, hotels, bus and taxi companies.
Not exactly like the French Resistance then. But of course the French did not go around kidnapping and bombing other people before being invaded.
Isn't it ironic that the US helped fund the IRA.
Didn't they also help fund and train organisations in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet army? The same organisations the US and UK invaded Afghanistan to get rid of many years later.
And of course the UK created Iraq after World War 1, forcing together factions in a region that never get on.
History has a habit of turning round and biting you in the arse.
Didn't they also help fund and train organisations in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet army? The same organisations the US and UK invaded Afghanistan to get rid of many years later.
And of course the UK created Iraq after World War 1, forcing together factions in a region that never get on.
History has a habit of turning round and biting you in the arse.
"It is supplied with the latst weapons from Iran and Syria"
And?
Is there something inherently bad, or idealogically unsound about weapons manufactured in the Middle East, as opposed to good, decent weapons and munitions manufactured here in the West and sold 'responsibly' with a money-back* guarantee?
* - The money-back gurantee offer applies, of course, only to the arms dealers, and is underwritten by the Government (ie, the Taxpayer), so that in the even that the 'organisation' purchasing the weapons defaults on payment.
Don't forget that it was the West that sold arms to Iraq when they were embroiled in a war against (then) public enemy no.1, Iran.
It was the West that funded Freedom Fighters / Terrorists* (Delete where applicable) to fight guerilla warfare against elected Governments in Central and Southern America.
The US provided funds for "the Boys".
Both the West and the old 'East' are happy to unload obsolete, 'bargain basement' stock to African Nations (since they can't afford top-whack prices for 'the new stuff').
Which, all in all, means when we take it upon ourselves to 'sort it out', for whatever justification, there's many that will succumb to a 5.56 or 7.62 mm round - (or worse) - originating from their own, sweet, mother land.
And?
Is there something inherently bad, or idealogically unsound about weapons manufactured in the Middle East, as opposed to good, decent weapons and munitions manufactured here in the West and sold 'responsibly' with a money-back* guarantee?
* - The money-back gurantee offer applies, of course, only to the arms dealers, and is underwritten by the Government (ie, the Taxpayer), so that in the even that the 'organisation' purchasing the weapons defaults on payment.
Don't forget that it was the West that sold arms to Iraq when they were embroiled in a war against (then) public enemy no.1, Iran.
It was the West that funded Freedom Fighters / Terrorists* (Delete where applicable) to fight guerilla warfare against elected Governments in Central and Southern America.
The US provided funds for "the Boys".
Both the West and the old 'East' are happy to unload obsolete, 'bargain basement' stock to African Nations (since they can't afford top-whack prices for 'the new stuff').
Which, all in all, means when we take it upon ourselves to 'sort it out', for whatever justification, there's many that will succumb to a 5.56 or 7.62 mm round - (or worse) - originating from their own, sweet, mother land.
I pointed out the facts about Hezbollah's weapons and financial status in response to the impression that they were a small bunch of men bravely defending their land with little more than their bare hands.
They are not. They have thousands of trained, well equipped fighters, who prefer to hide amongst the civilian population. This serves the dual purposes of cover and the inevitable propaganda effect when these civilian buildings are hit.
They are not. They have thousands of trained, well equipped fighters, who prefer to hide amongst the civilian population. This serves the dual purposes of cover and the inevitable propaganda effect when these civilian buildings are hit.
http://www.doublestandards.org/gaza_time.html# 1 playbill this timeline is in response to your first post, please note june 24. hezbollah is a resistance movement created by the israeli occupation of lebanon in 1982 and no doubt started as you describe 'a small bunch of men bravely defending their land' and as for their use of the latest weapons, they are firing pretty much the same type of rockets now as they were then. http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060630_kidn apped_by_israel.php this explains my position on all of this better and faster than typing a book. http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/a vnery/1152991173 also bearing in mind what has been happening all along in gaza and now again in lebanon is called 'collective punishment' and is deemed a war crime by article 33 of the fourth geneva convention. the massacre at sabra and shatila claimed over 3000 lives and the occupation itself is said to have claimed over 20000. these resistance fighters or(terrorists if you prefer) lived through it or were born into it, they did not have the option or privilage of changing the channel and watching a different movie.
1 to 20 of 20
