Ship, not ships, right?

Documented: Ship -- not Ships (correct) -- however, I wouldn't doubt that they have played some games in the past, so plural MAY be correct!

No, I do not support the tactics used by either group. However, I support their right to protect their land -- they don't want another 1967 land-grab, and I don't blame them.

Also, plural MAY NOT be correct.

And the Isrealis don't want another rocket coming into their area. Hezbollah was using Lebanon as a staging area and was not disarmed, like it was supposed to be. So you see, it goes a lot more than a one sided thing. Both sides are afraid of each other doing this, that or the other. However, unlike what we had with the USSR, they have erupted to fighting to solve the issue instead of an arms race.

The "worker" came from "central casting." The uniform came from their costumes department.

If memory serves me right, the 1967 war was started when all the peace-loving nations attacked Israel, in an effort to cut Israel in half, drive the Jews to the sea and kill them all once and for all.

To call it a "land-grab" by Israel (which was only defending itself from arab-palestinian-muslim aggression) shows your true colors.

Man you are such a Jew-hater. And you are so transparent about it. What haveJews done to YOU for youto have such hatred?

Can we hear you say at least one bad thing about the thugs that flew planes into the WTCthus killing 1000s of innocent people? Or was that another Jewish plot to make poor arabs look bad?

Timing is everything. The surrounding nations had massed their armies and agreed on an Order of Battle. Israel got a copy of the plan and jumped them about a day before their plan to start, IIRC. Sneaky bastards, those Jews. Why can't they play fair and die like they're supposed to?

Yeah...those tricky guys...

Fair enough. I was looking at wiki and came across this blurb. Is that the land-grab you are talking about? You did mention a while back that you believed that Isreal started the whole thing going, didn't you?

Creation of Israel

May 14, 1948: Israel declares Independence from British rule, before the expiration of the British Mandate of Palestine at midnight.

After Creation

May 15, 1948:Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Transjordan and local Arabs attack the new Jewish state. The resulting 1948 Arab-Israeli War lasts for 13 months.

Do you dispute those dates and the peace loving intentions and land grab attempt?

AKLIM, why bother with facts?

GD wears an "anti-facts" suit of armor. Makes it easier for him to go on hating Jews.

What do you call a group of men who hide behind women's skirts...
 

...and then wail and cry when they finally get hit?

Hint...

Starts with an "h" and ends with an "h."

GD...and the rest of you pusillanimous, cowardly Jew-haters, read this:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,19955774-5007220,00.html

So now it is not only the Canadians accusing the hezbo-boys of hiding behind civilian and UN positions, but an Aussie paper has come to the same conclusion and they have...oh heavens...they have pictures...

I am shocked, shocked, shocked...
:rolleyes:

No, it can't be. Must be some muslim hating jew that wrote that. I am so shocked that they do that. SHOCKED, I tell you. You believe me, don't you?

Is all part of a plot, by the Jewish-controlled media, to make palestinians-arabs-muslims-terrorists look bad

Thank you for seeing beyond what some of the other more self-serving members.

No I'm talking about Golan Heights -- the land they "captured"...

That is a major bone of contention. Akin to the way the American Indians feel about us. Only in this case they can actually do something about it, unlike the American Indian.

Pete

From your article:

ISRAEL called up another 30,000 reserve troops.

That's perfect. Let them send all their troops, just not ours! -- Why don't you go and make it 30,001?

I have other ways of helping...

I see you don't address the issue of the hezbo-boys hiding behind the burkas of innocent women.

Good job of seeing the beam in another's eye while ignoring the mote in your own eye.

BTW, are you an Arab? A Palestinian?

Not that it matters,j ust wondering where your rabid anti-Jew hatred springs from.

"Captured"? How again? Wasn't that during the 6 day war where the arab armies gathered around for a picnic party and the Isreali army stemrollered all over them? That "captured"? The one where you start a war and got your butt kicked and now whine about what happens? The one where you planned to go into Isreal and do what? Hugs and Kisses, was it?

So you see, the other side isn't exactly squeaky clean, is it? It isn't a simple case of Isreal running over a country like Hussien did with Kuwait, is it?

Can you follow a line of logic? I said I dont want my $ spend destroying a nation and killing people then more of my tax $ spent trying to solve the problem that those action created. You gave me WWII and I said that was a black and white case, meaning most others were not. I asked for other cases besides WWII and you gave me examples that do not apply at all. So try for a third time, he brain.
Oh we kicked as in Korea? We are still at war over there he-brain, and there is no victor.

I thought Bot explained it well enough to be understood by those with even a rudimentary, modicum of intelligence...apparently not.

Must have something to do with spending too much time incorrectly translating a simple string of straight-forward Spanish words.

Oy vey!!! :rolleyes:

The American Indians tried and died.

Those damned facts again....

Oh dear, and the North and South Koreas are no difefrent from each other. What an abject failure.

To me, the mission and cause and necessity of fighting in Iraq are as important as WWII. the difference is that it is as though we are going to war in 1934, by choice.

Bot

The ones who did not die are getting wealthy with their casinos...:rolleyes:

Maybe we will see Palestinian casinos ont he Gaza Strip...

WORD...

I only wish I had MedMech's picture for WORD...

Well at least we know who the bigot is now. That would be you.

Yeah right, with a wall built by Israel around them so people can't get in.

There was NO pre-emptive strike by Israel. Read the facts. Why do you think the Liberty was blown up? We told Israel NOT to invade -- they were hungry for land... and wanted us OUT of the picture.

You seem like a person that is willing to understand and read the full story. Do yourself a huge favor and read Attack on The Liberty. It will give you GREAT insight into the type of people leading Israel. When you couple this with the constant killing they advocate, the US Media is very biased.

If people only took their blinders off and looked at the full world-view of Israel, the world would be a better place.

Simple: They stole Golan Heights -- and they cry when people try to steal it back. Classic cry-babies.

I can't believe this thread surpassed the "Pretty Girl" thread.

We told the Israelis to stay out. Maybe.

The intentionally sunk a ship of the world's most powerful navy while they were at war with all of their neighbors so we wouldn't what....?

I have read the Liberty fiasco in detail. I was in the USN just after that time. Sailors aboard the vessel gave chilling, heart-wrenching accounts that were very detailed. There's was an extremely dangerous mission. Like the Pueblo's. Like Frances Gary Powers and his U-2. And like that surveillance aircraft that the chinese pilot accidentally rammed in 2001. And all the SOSUS missions in and near Soviet harbors. Like the numerous missions clandestine SF do under detail to CIA. Those are extremely dangerous missions because they DO NOT conform to the typical peacetime military profile. When you sign-up they tell you you're in deep doo-doo if you get caught.

The ship was not a typical conformation for a military vessel. It was in disputed waters during time of war. the Israeli pilots had orders to sink vessels in those waters. Do you suppsoe that it is impossible for a belligerent to fly the flag of another country on a ship at sea as a ruse?

If I were a pilot given those orders when my country was in peril, I'd have tried to sink the ship, too. That's what you do in a war, follow orders unless you know they are illegal. And in time of war in the face of the enemy, if you choose to disobey an order you damn-sure better be right.

Bot

Bot,

I'll grant there is logic in your thought there. But then, could you argue that a belligerent may perpetrate to be an Arab and blow a bus up to further zionistic goals?

Explain to me, how in the world asking your nationalor ethnic origin makes me a bigot?

Go on, explain that one to me.

You have called Jews and Israelis "animals." But you are a rational, peace-loving, caring, concerned person

I ask you where you come from and that makes me a bigot. You must be a member of the hezbo-boys propaganda machine.

Anything is possible. However, the arabs keep taking credit for it and keep paying off the families affected by the demise of the bomber. Yes, a few, maybe. But that many?

For those of you who still believe in the myth of a Palestinian nation and a Palestinian people...read on:

http://israel.net/timetospeak/2.htm

That is just about as dumb as believing that FDR knew that the Japnese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor and allowed them to bomb his beloved Pacific Fleet so the U.S. had a reason to get into WWII.

Or that the US blew up the Maine to have an excuse to get into a war with Spain.

Man, you HAVE drank the hezbo-kool-aid...you are one lost cause.

So let me ask you something, since asking your national origins is bigoted :silly: , what is your deal with Pella windows?

Israel has enough nuts to provide a bumper harvest.

But just as I have never heard of Hezbollah or Hamas dynamiting civilians in their own land to blame Israel, I have never heard of israelis killing their own. That is self-defeating and could NEVER be suppressed in a society as free and open as Israel.

I could much more easily imagine some Israeli doing a tit-for-tat suicide bombing on an Arab bus. But Israel generally suppresses lone acts of vengeance, even among the religious kibbutzim where violence against arabs is greatest. Israel has jailed some of them. Probably not all, but how can one tell?

Must be yourself you are speaking of in the intelligence department if you think all spanish speakers speak the same dialect.
A spanish phrase spoken in Cuba may not have the same meaning in Puerto Rico or Panama or Spain, for your information. The same word or phrase can vary in meaning within parts of the same country. Now you know that all spanish is not the Caliuba version, perro.

I have read some stuff on the Liberty. I may not be as detailed as Botnst who served with some of the people but I fail to see what it has to do with your point of view. All your statments have been that "Isreal started this, They had it coming, etc, etc." However, not once have I heard that you recognize that the other side is also doing some shady crap. There are no angles in this whole affair.

What do you consider "stole"? You fight me in a war and you expect that fter that, we hug, kiss and make up? You start a war and then you lose some territory, what of it? If your sdide had won, you think they would have just withdrawn?

You must have some sort of complex about your own lack of education and mental horsepower. You have gone around, for example, insulting (or at the very least questioning Bot's intelligence. I am not here to defend Bot (he can do very well on his own) but that chap has more intellectual horsepower that you will ever attain in your life. You have done the same thing with other posters as well.

Then you question my own intelligence when:

a. you are the one who made the stupid comment about women, referring to them in terms of *******. It is hard to top that one in terms of mental immaturity.

2. Then you claim that your wife was able to read, into three random words, some ridiculous statement about dogs eating ******* at night.

You are, truly and without a doubt, a first-class perro sarnoso y pulgoso.

Your leaps of illogic, at every turn, would make Mr. Knievel turn green with envy.

A Spanish phrase spoken in one part of the vast, Spanish-speaking world may have different meanings depending on where it is spoken?

Really, you don't say so...

WOW...you are truly a linguistic genius and a Master of the obvious.

You impress me with your seemingly endless stores of knowledge, wisdom and erudition...:wacko:

Now, tell me again, in what part of the Spanish-speaking world was your wife raised where three random words like "perros tacos noche" could possibly have the meaning that you pegged on them. I just got to meet her, perrito.

Buena suerte...

I enjoy this conversion, and the sides and views presented. If you support the views of the Arabs or the Israelis, great. If you want to support one or the other, great. I believe in the seperation of religion and state, and think if other nations want to not have this , fine, but they should not get USA $. I think all aid to the middle east should cease. I you support Israel, great, send your own $. If you support the Arabs, great, send your own $. We want democracy over there and then we don't like the people they elect. War is war if you ask me- if you use a bulldozer or a bomb or a rocket. Both sides use all three.(edit: Arabs dont use bulldozers and crush live humans inside buildings, but so what.) There are no terrorists in a war. Terrorists are created when the war is lopsided and one side cannot win wearing a uniform, so they fight any way they can. Giving $ to either side is a waste of $.

All this is true. However, the issue is whether we need someone there that we have some influence over or a bunch of people there we have no influence over. Now, choose carefully since they both come with their own baggage.

I agree with 100%, now for the magic question. How do we help people understand that we (meaning people that share this view) are not anti-semites, Jews, Arabs, etc.

***

That we are Americans.

***

On this board, there are MANY pro-Israel teams. If you don't agree with them you are an anti-semite.

Any help would be appreciated,

Pete

Agreed and well put, why do we get involved in this crap, it serves only to have us switch sides and ending up pissing everyone off, we can't help the Arabs without pissing off the Israelis, and our ardent support of Israel pissed off the Arabs...and for what US domestic goal? If we want oil, lets negotiate, buy it or militarily take it, if there's no more oil, we move on.

No one 'helped' us during our democratic bout, the French, Spanish and German's assisted only because they too were at war with England, if that were not the case all of our shipes would be likely named HMS... today. So why push democracy on others, democracy is an evolution, circumstances must be present for it to evolve and succeed on its own right, the peole must want it.

If you have a position for either side in any conflict worldwide, then by all means support it, but in terms of spending US tax dollars, if we don't have a clear economic demonstratable return in terms of increased wealth or stability for all citizentry in this country...then move on. We have more than enough problems of our own that desperately need money and attention rather than trying to fix others problems.

It would be nice but it isn't that simple. In the world of politics, we are friends as long as our goals TODAY are common. Tomorrow is another story. I don't know that you are going to be in power tomorrow so we will discuss tomorrow when it comes. Often is is not the oil, per se. We are buying it and certainly not taking it militarily. Last time people tried it, they ended up getting tried in Nerurmberg.

It isn't about democracy so much as that we are trying to eastablish places that are friendly to us. Yes, that is the cover story but that is all it really is.

There is never a clear demonstratable thing in the economy. Problem is that a typhoon in Asia might have consequences for somebody else who might have a problem which becomes our problem. As I have said before, if I find a sournce of oil in the US that could feed the US, would that end the problem if somebody else has an issue? Probably not. If the effects of a stock market crash can be felt in Asia, albeit months later, do you think the reverse is untrue?

Parts of Germany were on one side and parts were on another side and other parts didn't give a flip. For example, the much feared "Hessians" were from the principality of Hess.

My buddy Bot'll likely sneer but Paul Krugman has one of the best analysis (pl) I've read on the current storm in today's (7-31) NY Times. I won't post it as it costs money to download it and I wonder how many of ya'all would read it if I bought it.

Why we should be worried about Islam...

Taken from:

www.mikelief.com

The appeal of Islam to the self-loathing West

I had a discussion yesterday with a colleague about the novel Prayers for the Assassin, that posits a future where mass conversions to Islam occur in the aftermath of nuclear attacks on American cities -- while the Bible Belt remains reliably Christian.

My colleague expressed skepticism with the central conceit, that Americans would find the strict, text-based tenets of Islam appealing, especially given the seemingly growing hostility toward religion in general amongst much of the liberal public.

I responded that it seems to be liberals, or as I prefer to think of them, Moonbats, who seek spiritual fulfillment, responding to a feeling of loss, of an emptiness at their spiritual core, that sends them babbling into the arms of the Scientologists, the Moonies, the New-Age Crystal Clubs and Transcendental Navel Gazing societies, while recoiling from the strictures of traditional Judeo-Christian religions.

Of course, Mark Steyn comes along to point out that converts to Islam are enthusiastic jihadis, and the appeal to non-Muslims seems to be growing despite -- or because of? -- the war against the West.

In 2002, I asked a Muslim in Paris why Islam was the fastest-growing religion in the West and he said four out of five converts in Europe were women, positing therefrom that, aside from spousal conversions, significant numbers of western females found the feminist notion of womanhood degrading and unworthy. But, whether or not that's true, it doesn't seem to be the whole story.

In Britain, there are high-profile celebrity conversions--star footballers, Asquith's great-granddaughter, the son of the BBC director-general, and the Earl of Yarborough, who now goes by the name Abdul Mateen, though whether Burke's Peerage will list him as such remains to be seen.

This makes Islam sound like the Brit equivalent of Richard Gere Buddhism. It's not. It's bigger.

Over on the other side of the world, about 200,000 Filipinos in the Manila area are estimated to have converted to Islam. This is in addition to the four million Filipino Muslims in the south of the country. The raw math is quite impressive: aside from its surging birthrate, Islam has managed to increase its population by five per cent just through conversion.

I wonder what the equivalent numbers would look like for Norway or Belgium--or Ontario.

Taking the prize for chutzpah (if they'll forgive the expression), the Canadian Islamic Congress has conceded some young Muslim men may have assimilation issues but feels the best solution is if the government hands over a big pile of cash so it can run some research on "integration." I think that money could be better spent identifying the types of imams these young chaps are attracted to.

But the problem goes beyond the Muslim community and cuts to the heart of what Canada is, or believes itself to be: "Radical Islamism," wrote Fouad Ajami recently, "has come to mock the very principle of nationality and citizenship." But is that really so hard to do? Contemporary Canadian, British, Dutch and Swedish nationality is to a large extent self-mocking.

[...]

The jihad is everything the multiculti left's flopped at. The left talked up sappy Benetton-ad one-worldism, while the pan-Islamists got on with their own particular strain of one-worldism, fierce, implacable and slipping across borders with ease.

Meanwhile, the UCC and other post-Christian churches long ago decided the Gospel was a bore and if they could no longer convert the unbelieving to Christ, they could at least convert them to the boggiest of soft-left political clichés. Yet if the purpose of the modern church is to be a cutting-edge political pacesetter, it's Islam that's doing the better job.

The contemporary mosque or madrasah is not the place to go for spiritual contemplation so much as political motivation. The Muslim identity of those gold-toothed Punjabi yobs in northern England or Berber pseudo-rappers in French suburbs may seem spiritually vestigial but it's politically potent.

Pre-modern Islam beats postmodern Christianity--and, for young men in search of an identity, transnational jihad beats multicultural nullity. There's no amount of taxpayer money you could throw at the Canadian Islamic Congress that would satisfactorily explain just what it is in contemporary Canada Steven Chand is supposed to identify with.

It's interesting to note that the meme of "education and the eradication of poverty will end the appeal of jihad," something I hear from the Left as a solution to the "Why do they hate us?" problem, always seems to miss the fact that the 9-11 hijackers were from wealthy families, were well educated, and had been exposed to all that the West had to offer.

Unfortunately, all that money, education and international travel may have served to increase the perceived injustice of a dissolute West, filled with sinful and disrespectful unbelievers who mock the Koran and its tenets, infidels who prosper and succeed while the Muslim world remains mired in repression and war.

And yet . . . .

The only hopeful note in this mournful symphony, this funereal dirge for the West, is the growing numbers in the evangelical churches, and the Catholic Church, in the Third World. While the if-it-feels-good-do-it liberal churches see their membership decline, and the anything-goes Church of England moves closer to shuttering its vacant, unused sanctuaries, the faiths that demand more of their followers seem to be gaining converts, too, and not just the imams, but priests and pastors, too.

Say what you will, but I'm not hearing about Evangelical Christians and their fundamentalist brethren blowing themselves up in pizza parlors.

But I'm afraid that in the race to win new converts, the nihilistic mullahs are winning, and that scares the hell out of me.

Regarding Koffi i-hate-Jews Annan's wild accusations, read the info in the link below.

It is very long, but the detailed analysis is worth the time it takes to read it:

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/07/knife-thrower-at-carnival.html

Sneer.

Forget what the Belmont Blog wrote. Instead read the original article from the U.K.'s Independent Newspaper:

Published: 26 July 2006
The UN secretary general Kofi Annan says an Israeli attack on a UN observation post was "apparently deliberate". Four unarmed military observers were killed in the air strike in southern Lebanon.

The Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, spoke by phone to Mr Annan. Mr Olmert expressed his "deep regret" and said the peacekeepers were killed mistakenly. He expressed dismay over Mr Annan's accusation and promised a thorough investigation , saying the results would be presented to Mr Annan.

Mr Annan later called for participants at a Mideast conference to push for an immediate ceasefire to end fighting between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas.

Hizbollah must stop its "deliberate targeting of Israeli population centers". And Israel must put an end to all bombing, ground operations and blockades of Lebanese ports.

In a statement in Rome, Mr Annan said: "A key stipulation for such a halt in fighting would be that the parties must not, I repeat, must not take advantage of such a pause to conduct offense operations, redeploy or resupply." And he added that an international force will be vital to keeping peace.

Since fighting between Israel and Hezbollah militants began two weeks ago, there had been several dozen incidents of firing close to UN peacekeepers and observers, including direct hits on nine positions, some of them repeatedly, a UN official said.

As a result of these attacks, 12 UN personnel have been killed or injured, the official said.

Last night's bomb made a direct hit on the building and shelter of the observer post in the town of Khiam, near the eastern end of the border with Israel, said Milos Struger, spokesman for the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon known as Unifil.

Four unarmed military observers were in a bunker and the bunker collapsed as a result of the bombing, the UN official said.

Rescue workers were trying to clear the rubble, but Israeli firing " continued even during the rescue operation", Struger said.

Annan said two UN military observers were killed with two more feared dead. Later, the UN official confirmed that a third body was recovered from the rubble.

The victims included observers from Austria, Canada, China and Finland, UN and Lebanese military officials said.

Chinese foreign minister Li Zhaoxing said he was saddened by the news and that it showed "we should try harder to call on the parties to be restrained and to be calm and restore the peace process of the Middle East immediately".

China's official Xinhua News Agency identified the Chinese victim as Du Zhaoyu.

It was not immediately known which of the others were confirmed dead.

Annan said the "co-ordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long-established and clearly marked UN post at Khiam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by prime minister Ehud Olmert that UN positions would be spared Israeli fire."

Furthermore, he said, General Alain Pelligrini, the UN force commander in south Lebanon, had been in repeated contact with Israeli officers throughout yesterday "stressing the need to protect that particular UN position from attack".

But Gillerman said he was "shocked and deeply distressed by the hasty statement of the secretary general, insinuating that Israel has deliberately targeted the UN post", calling the assertions "premature and erroneous".

He said Olmert's assurances to the secretary-general were "a clear indication" of Israel's commitment to ensure the safety and security of UN personnel.

As reports of the attack emerged, Annan rushed out of a hotel in Rome following a dinner with US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and Lebanese prime minister Fuad Saniora.

"I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defence Forces of a UN observer post in southern Lebanon," Annan said in a statement later.

"I call on the government of Israel to conduct a full investigation into this very disturbing incident and demand that any further attack on UN positions and personnel must stop."

Gillerman said "Israel is carrying out a thorough inquiry into this tragic incident and will inform the UN of its results as soon as possible" .

The UN Security Council is expected to receive a briefing on the bombing today.

Since Israel launched a massive military offensive against Lebanon and Hezbollah guerillas on July 12, a Nigerian civilian employee working with Unifil and his wife had been killed in the crossfire in the southern port city of Tyre.

Five Unifil soldiers and one military observer had also been wounded, Struger said. They included four Ghanaians injured by artillery fire on Monday and a peacekeeper shot through the back on July 23.

The UN secretary general Kofi Annan says an Israeli attack on a UN observation post was "apparently deliberate". Four unarmed military observers were killed in the air strike in southern Lebanon.

The Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, spoke by phone to Mr Annan. Mr Olmert expressed his "deep regret" and said the peacekeepers were killed mistakenly. "


I can't agree that the Secretary General of the U.N. deserves the ephitet:
"Koffi i-hate-Jews Annan" as it sounds very bigoted.

Israel is "hungry for land?"..... Oh, jeez.... here we go with that nonsense again.

Perhaps you should take YOUR blinders off, and look at a MAP for once!

BOY, those Israelis sure are expanding their real estate at an astounding rate!

:rolleyes:

Mike

You are right...but the things that I really, really, really want to write about Koffi would: (a) take too long and (b) not be suitable for publication on a website where children may visit.

So for the time being Koffi jew-hater Annan willjust have to do.

BTW bigoted means: Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false.

If you can persuade me that Koffi is nothing more than a tool for the anti-US, anti-Israel, third world lobby, then I will change my opinion...