Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Ya Aba 3abdillah

M.B.- Morsi Just Declared President Of Egypt.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

A better question would be...What is correct with my description?

The answer is nowt. Hizbullah won hands down.

What did Hizbollah win?

And can you please tell me which of these statements that I made, that are not correct? If you are unable to explain why, maybe someone else can do that:

1. Israel did not have any intentions to occupy Lebanon.

2. The Israeli attack was a reaction to Hizbollah aggression - the kidnaping of 2 (I think) Israeli soldiers.

3. It was meant as a punishment.

4. Lebanon was ideed punished. Many innocent Lebanese had to suffer from Hizbollahs irresponsible acting.

5. If Hizbollah had returned the soldiers and offered Israel an excuse, the war could have been avoided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did Hizbollah win?

And can you please tell me which of these statements that I made, that are not correct? If you are unable to explain why, maybe someone else can do that:

1. Israel did not have any intentions to occupy Lebanon.

2. The Israeli attack was a reaction to Hizbollah aggression - the kidnaping of 2 (I think) Israeli soldiers.

3. It was meant as a punishment.

4. Lebanon was ideed punished. Many innocent Lebanese had to suffer from Hizbollahs irresponsible acting.

5. If Hizbollah had returned the soldiers and offered Israel an excuse, the war could have been avoided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a blithering fool who is not entitled to an opinion on the 2006 war. You base your entire arguments on hearsay, conjecture and racist-elitist misconceptions of others. You are far, far from civilized. Then again, any person who has to declare how civilized he is probably knows very little about what it means to be civilized.

The 2006 war was a continuation of a much larger war that goes back decades. Do you not realize that, between 2000 and 2006 (i.e., between the the two periods of hot war), Israel violated Lebanese sovereignty thousands of times? Most are under the impression that Hezbollah liberated South Lebanon from Israeli occupation in 2000. While true, Israel: (1) continued occupying parts of Lebanese terroritory (and sitll does today); and (2) continued to make various incursions into Lebanon on a regular basis, as it has been doing since the 1960s. Why do you think Hezbollah was allowed to maintain its weapons after the culmination of the Lebanese Civil War? The Ta'if Agreement which ended the Civil War stipulated two important conditions: (1) the restructuring of the Lebanese political system into what it is today (i.e., a 50-50 split between Muslims and Christians, among other things); and (2) that all militias in Lebanon, Christian, Muslim or otherwise, would be dismantled and weapons surrendered. However, Hezbollah was omitted from surrendering its weapons because it was fighting Israeli occupation in the South.

Israel continued occupying Lebanon well after the end of the Civil War (1989). Israel continued occupying Lebanon officially until 2000, when Hezbollah's military campaign proved successful. That culminated an official 22-year Israeli occupation of most of Lebanon. This doesn't mean the war ended in 2000, you civilized fool.

Between 2000 and 2006 Hezbollah used Israeli soldiers as bargaining chips to negotiate the return of Lebanese prisoners, who number in the thousands and who were, in many cases, taken indiscriminately. The 2006 hot war was planned; Hezbollah's actions were an excuse to invade Lebanon and crush the only potent resistance remaining in the region. But people who don't understand the full story fail to realize this and instead treat the kidnapping of the two soldiers as isolated events in an otherwise happy, peaceful relationship between two good friends. Even after the 2006 war, Israel continues to violate Lebanese sovereignty through various means, many of which are deemed official acts of war by international law.

You're a civilized man. Go read those books on your shelf. They've obviously collected a lot of dust over the years.

I agree that the 2006 war was a continuation of a much larger war. Hizbollah and before that PLO have continuosly attacked Israel from the Lebanese side and Israel has responded to the aggression. The motive for Israeli occupation was to prevent PLO from carrying on these attacks. And Israel succeded in chasing the PLO leadership to Tunisia. I admit I cannot read minds. So I cannot know how the Israelis were thinking. But I cannot see why Israel would be interested in continuing an expensive and impopular occupation of a neighbour country. The only motive I can think of is that Israel is unhappy with the attacks from Lebanese territory. If you can see other motives, I am interested to know.

I believe Israel would be very interested in a peace agreement with Lebanon, where the integrity of both states was respected. You mention that Israel continues to occupy parts of Lebanon. This is a rather complicated issue, as there are different opinions about whether those parts belong to Lebanon or Syria. According to UN they belong to Syria. So if that is correct, no Lebanese territory is occupied. But anyway I believe this issue could be resolved by negociations between the 3 states concerned and with the assistance of UN.

I do not base my argument on hearsay or racism. But I admit that concerning the intentions of Israel I am guessing. I am unable to read other peoples minds. I suppose so are you. But I am convinced my guess is a good one and very logical. If you disagree, I would like to know why you believe Israel would be more interested in occupying Lebanese territory, than in peaceful coexisting with mutual respect for the borders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USA needs Saudiarabia because its oil. This has nothing to do with Israel. But as long as stupid Muslims keep talking about wiping Israel off the map, Israel will of course side with USA.

Hmmm im sure the last ones to "wipe israel off the map" were the Romans.

Then im pretty sure it was the European Christians who persecuted them, then during WW2 slaughtered 8 million of them.

Im pretty sure when all of this was happening , it was alot closer to sweeden, then it was Lebanon.

So who is stupid now ?

I agree that the 2006 war was a continuation of a much larger war. Hizbollah and before that PLO have continuosly attacked Israel from the Lebanese side and Israel has responded to the aggression. The motive for Israeli occupation was to prevent PLO from carrying on these attacks. And Israel succeded in chasing the PLO leadership to Tunisia. I admit I cannot read minds. So I cannot know how the Israelis were thinking. But I cannot see why Israel would be interested in continuing an expensive and impopular occupation of a neighbour country. The only motive I can think of is that Israel is unhappy with the attacks from Lebanese territory. If you can see other motives, I am interested to know.

I believe Israel would be very interested in a peace agreement with Lebanon, where the integrity of both states was respected. You mention that Israel continues to occupy parts of Lebanon. This is a rather complicated issue, as there are different opinions about whether those parts belong to Lebanon or Syria. According to UN they belong to Syria. So if that is correct, no Lebanese territory is occupied. But anyway I believe this issue could be resolved by negociations between the 3 states concerned and with the assistance of UN.

I do not base my argument on hearsay or racism. But I admit that concerning the intentions of Israel I am guessing. I am unable to read other peoples minds. I suppose so are you. But I am convinced my guess is a good one and very logical. If you disagree, I would like to know why you believe Israel would be more interested in occupying Lebanese territory, than in peaceful coexisting with mutual respect for the borders.

Peaceful Co-Existance ? Yeah i would sign a peace deal with a peaceful JEWISH state, not a ZIONIST one.

As for the rest of your blabber, alot of people on this site might fall for your deceiving innocence, but i know how you troll sorry i meant roll, and your a hell of alot smarter then you make yourself out to be and have a VERY clear idea about whats going on. Your just on here because

A- You have been paid to do so , or

B - Your really bored & want to get some kicks out of sledging Muslims, because your too afraid to do so in real life.

So go to bed.

Thanks bra

Salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hejsansvejsan, and others like him from Continental Europe, are just acting out on their accumulated "Guilt" for the last 1000 years.

They have to defend Israel, because it is indirectly defending the guilt they feel for the actions of their forefathers for the last 1000 years, who never could accept Jews as normal human beings (unlike the Muslims of the Middle East who always treated the Arabic speaking Jews and Christians almost equally) which ultimately culminated in the genocide of 6 million people, oh yes which neither USA nor Britian nor USSR wanted to stop (thats the truth) , Defending Israel and blasting Arabs is just the easiest way out for Swedes and Germans and Italians and Frenchmen.

( I wonder at how even the most non-racist, broadminded, liberal and left-leaning of Germans cannot bring themsleves to criticize Israel too harshly, because they do not have the "social capital" to do so. In other words, they have killed too many Jews already, so better shut up about Israel. )

Edited by Professor Higgins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historically most countries are created by force and violence. The Islamic empire long ago was no exception. I agree it is detestable. But it does not make those countries illegitimate. Israel was created 65 years ago and is recognised by most countries - including my own. Arabs and Muslims should realise that they have nothing to win by questioning the existance of Israel but a lot to win by cooperating with and learning from the clever and succesful Israelis. I think more and more educated Palestinians are beginning to understand this. This is also as far as I understand, the policy of the Palestinian authority on the West Bank.

You did not answer my question about the Palestinian identity.But from your answer I can guess that the Palestinian nationality is just an invention in order to question the state of Israel.

Palestinian nationality has been there since the times of the Roman Empire whereas Israel is a mere religious fiction. Israeli identity or nationality was non-existent among Jews for most of the last 1000 years. Most Jews called themsleves by the country in which they lived rather than by the "israeli" identity.

Even when the British colonized Palestine they called it "Mandate of Palestine" rather than Israel. There is a loose concept of the "Tribes of Israel" even in the Quran but nowhere are they referred to as a Nation-State, especially since it is worthwhile to remind you that the State of Israel is a Jewish State where other religions are legally inferior than Judaism and where all Jews of the world are legally entitled to unconditional, free immigration and settlement, even at the cost of the non-Jewsih residents of Israel / Palestine.

Edited by Professor Higgins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historically there have never been many Jews in Sweden. But those who were, have been treated rather well. So I do not think swedes feel any guilt (at least I don´t).

During WWII Sweden saved many Jews. (Maybe you have heard of the swedish diplomat Raol Wallenberg, who was a Jew himself.) We recieved many Jewish refugees. And today we recieve lots of Muslims.

I am not defending Israel. Arabs and Israelis have all committed crimes. I am seeking the truth. And also I am trying to make you see things from the other side - how would you see the situation if you were an Israeli? Do you really believe Israel is interested in occupying Lebanese territory?

But it seems you are too filled with hatred to look at things objectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not base my argument on hearsay or racism. But I admit that concerning the intentions of Israel I am guessing. I am unable to read other peoples minds. I suppose so are you. But I am convinced my guess is a good one and very logical. If you disagree, I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Palestinian nationality has been there since the times of the Roman Empire whereas Israel is a mere religious fiction. Israeli identity or nationality was non-existent among Jews for most of the last 1000 years. Most Jews called themsleves by the country in which they lived rather than by the "israeli" identity.

Even when the British colonized Palestine they called it "Mandate of Palestine" rather than Israel. There is a loose concept of the "Tribes of Israel" even in the Quran but nowhere are they referred to as a Nation-State, especially since it is worthwhile to remind you that the State of Israel is a Jewish State where other religions are legally inferior than Judaism and where all Jews of the world are legally entitled to unconditional, free immigration and settlement, even at the cost of the non-Jewsih residents of Israel / Palestine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Day After / How we suffered a knockout

Haaretz

By Reuven Pedatzur

The United States' defeat in the Vietnam war started becoming evident when Gen. William Westmoreland, commander of the U.S. forces in Vietnam, started using body counts as an alternative to military victories. When he could not point to achievements on the battlefield, Westmoreland would send a daily report to Washington of the number of Vietcong soldiers his forces had killed.

In the past few weeks, the Israel Defense Forces has also adopted the body count approach. When the largest and strongest army in the Middle East clashes for more than two weeks with 50 Hezbollah fighters in Bint Jbail and does not bring them to their knees, the commanders are left with no choice but to point to the number of dead fighters the enemy has left behind. It can be assumed that Bint Jbail will turn into a symbol of the second Lebanon war. For the Hezbollah fighters it will be remembered as their Stalingrad, and for us it will be a painful reminder of the IDF's defeat.

Ze'ev Schiff wrote in Haaretz on August 11 that we had "gotten a slap." It seems that "knockout" would be a more appropriate description. This is not a mere military defeat. This is a strategic failure whose far-reaching implications are still not clear. And like the boxer who took the blow, we are still lying dazed on the ground, trying to understand what happened to us. Just like the Six-Day War led to a strategic change in the Middle East and established Israel's status as the regional power, the second Lebanon war may bring about the opposite.

The IDF's failure is eroding our national security's most important asset - the belligerent image of this country, led by a vast, strong and advanced army capable of dealing our enemies a decisive blow if they even try to bother us. This war, it soon transpired, was about "awareness" and "deterrence." We lost the fight for both.

read the whole thing here:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750990.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your arguments are hearsay.....and you continue saying the same things and ramble about how your "guesses" are good and logical even after someone took the time to give you a long detailed reply of the true situation.

the Litani river

And why must the issue about water supply be resolved by the use of violence? I guess Israel would prefer peaceful negociations. But I also guess Hizbollah prefers war. Do you think my guess is wrong? If so - why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did Hizbollah win?

And can you please tell me which of these statements that I made, that are not correct? If you are unable to explain why, maybe someone else can do that:

1. Israel did not have any intentions to occupy Lebanon.

2. The Israeli attack was a reaction to Hizbollah aggression - the kidnaping of 2 (I think) Israeli soldiers.

3. It was meant as a punishment.

4. Lebanon was ideed punished. Many innocent Lebanese had to suffer from Hizbollahs irresponsible acting.

5. If Hizbollah had returned the soldiers and offered Israel an excuse, the war could have been avoided.

1. Israels intention was to crush and disarm hezbullah once and for all. FAIL they came out stronger then ever.

2. Israel wanted the lebanese public to become anti-hezbullah by blaming them for the attack. FAIL they came back more popular than ever, and not just in lebanon but worlwide.

3. Israel wanted to recapture the two soldiers without negotiating- FAIL! negotiations took place with the biggest amount of prisoners returning for two soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why must the issue about water supply be resolved by the use of violence? I guess Israel would prefer peaceful negociations. But I also guess Hizbollah prefers war. Do you think my guess is wrong? If so - why?

This is the key word in all of your arguments...."guess".

Anyway what negotiations are you talking about? Why should a country ever have to negotiate about their own water?

Edited by ImAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why must the issue about water supply be resolved by the use of violence? I guess Israel would prefer peaceful negociations. But I also guess Hizbollah prefers war. Do you think my guess is wrong? If so - why?

Nothing would be more peaceful than to just pack up and leave our water supply, without them being asked to in the first place, as it is not theirs, they know that it's not their right... Too bad they won't leave "peacefully"...

Edited by Violently_Happy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing would be more peaceful than to just pack up and leave our water supply, without them being asked to in the first place, as it is not theirs, they know that it's not their right... Too bad they won't leave "peacefully"...

Today your water and rivers, tomorrow, your entire land. Next, year, the whole Middle East, for the advanced, "civilized" Israelis. It is better that the clever Israelis manage the land, rather than stupid Muslims. And the entire West will sit back and support its "right to defend itself" :sick:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the key word in all of your arguments...."guess".

Anyway what negotiations are you talking about? Why should a country ever have to negotiate about their own water?

It is more complicated than so. Just because a river originates from or flows through a country, this country cannot do as they wish with the water. Compare e.g. the Indus Waters Treaty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Waters_Treaty

Nothing would be more peaceful than to just pack up and leave our water supply, without them being asked to in the first place, as it is not theirs, they know that it's not their right... Too bad they won't leave "peacefully"...

Who are "we" and which water supply are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is more complicated than so. Just because a river originates from or flows through a country, this country cannot do as they wish with the water. Compare e.g. the Indus Waters Treaty: http://en.wikipedia....s_Waters_Treaty

Who are "we" and which water supply are you referring to?

The river doesn't even flow into IsraHell.....it is at least 4 to 8 km or more away from the border. It is our water and "we" means the people of Lebanon. What part of that don't you understand? It is obvious that you are not here to learn! You are here to argue and the only side you care of hearing or show any type of concern for is the side of IsraHell. I am sure you wouldn't say a word if IsraHell was to occupy the river and send us into a famine would you? What excuse would you use then?

Oh and the link you gave about the Indus river can't be compared because if i am not mistaken it flows through 3 countries! The water supply we are discussing is in 1 country! If the Israelis are so clever why don't they make desalination plants?

Lebanese_rivers_litani.jpg

Edited by ImAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Även om Sverige ofta kritiserar Israel så har vi diplomatiska förbindelser. Om vi inte släpper in för många korkade muslimer, kommer det att förbli så. Men i Libanon är förmodligen de korkade muslimerna i majoritet.

(As you live in my country, I suppose you can understand Swedish. Or maybe you belong to the category of Muslims who do not wish to adapt to our civilised society.)

It's my country too dear, I'm born here, raised here and Swedish is my primary language.

Helt ärligt förväntar jag mig inte att du ska förstå innebörden av den Israelisk-Libanesiska konflikten för Libaneser, dock bör du tänka på att inte yttra dig om någonting som du inte har någon som helst förståelse för. Varför skulle Libaneserna skriva på ett fredsavtal med det landet som endast orsakat förödelse och död för dem?

Israels mål i 2006 kriget var inte att straffa Libanon, det var att eliminera Hezbollah.

Förstår inte riktigt varför du går in på detta forumet och argumenterar mot Shiitiska grupper när det enda religiösa hot Sverige står inför utgörs av Salafisterna, vilka även är Hezbollahs fiender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Israels intention was to crush and disarm hezbullah once and for all. FAIL they came out stronger then ever.

2. Israel wanted the lebanese public to become anti-hezbullah by blaming them for the attack. FAIL they came back more popular than ever, and not just in lebanon but worlwide.

3. Israel wanted to recapture the two soldiers without negotiating- FAIL! negotiations took place with the biggest amount of prisoners returning for two soldiers.

1. I think it is correct that the IDF hoped to crush Hizbollah. And of course it was a failure. The article you provided - http://www.haaretz.c...ges/750990.html - was interesting to read. The author is very critical towards the way the IDF handled the situation.And I can agree with him that this was a moral defeat for Israel and consequently a moral victory for Hizbollah. But if I understood the article correct, what the author also wanted to say was this proves that Israel cannot rely on violence to resolve the conflict. Anyway I know that many Israelis dislike the violent policy of Israeli government. And as Israel is a democracy, I think it is important to strenghthen the influence of this opinion among Israelis. This is definitely not done by denying the right of Israel to excist.I know there are also Lebanese who wish to have peaceful relations with Israel. So I hope peaceloving people from both countries will manage to make their governments see that violence is no solution.

Anyway my first statement was that Israel had no intentions to occupy Lebanon. Can we agree that this is correct?

2. I don´t know. Maybe you are right. Do you have any statistics proving it? The few Lebanese that I know in Sweden definitely condemn what Hizbollah did. And I believe most Westerners - if they have heard of Hizbollah - still consider it to be a terrorist organisation that is supported by bad guys like Iran and Syria. But I suppose it is different in the Muslim world.

3. Israel returned a large amount of living prisoners in exchange for two dead bodies. This was very generous. But it was made out of empathy for the families of the murdered soldiers (I wonder if Hizbollah know what empathy is.)

This also shows that Israel treats its prisoners a lot better than Hizbollah.

Edited by hejsansvejsan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I think it is correct that the IDF hoped to crush Hizbollah. And of course it was a failure. The article you provided - http://www.haaretz.c...ges/750990.html - was interesting to read. The author is very critical towards the way the IDF handled the situation.And I can agree with him that this was a moral defeat for Israel and consequently a moral victory for Hizbollah. But if I understood the article correct, what the author also wanted to say was this proves that Israel cannot rely on violence to resolve the conflict. Anyway I know that many Israelis dislike the violent policy of Israeli government. And as Israel is a democracy, I think it is important to strenghthen the influence of this opinion among Israelis. This is definitely not done by denying the right of Israel to excist.I know there are also Lebanese who wish to have peaceful relations with Israel. So I hope peaceloving people from both countries will manage to make their governments see that violence is no solution.

Anyway my first statement was that Israel had no intentions to occupy Lebanon. Can we agree that this is correct?

2. I don´t know. Maybe you are right. Do you have any statistics proving it? The few Lebanese that I know in Sweden definitely condemn what Hizbollah did. And I believe most Westerners - if they have heard of Hizbollah - still consider it to be a terrorist organisation that is supported by bad guys like Iran and Syria. But I suppose it is different in the Muslim world.

3. Israel returned a large amount of living prisoners in exchange for two dead bodies. This was very generous. But it was made out of empathy for the families of the murdered soldiers (I wonder if Hizbollah know what empathy is.)

This also shows that Israel treats its prisoners a lot better than Hizbollah.

http://gawker.com/5614131/israels-own-military-prisoner-photo-scandal-on-facebook

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khiam_detention_center

Hezbollah doesn't know what empathy is? In 2000 when the Israelis retreated, they left their Lebanese allies, the SLA, in the hands of Hezbollah. If I remember correctly Sayyed Hassan Nasrullah himself denied the south Lebanese people to kill the SLA soldiers trying to cross the Israeli border while Israel killed some of the escaping SLA soldiers, until giving in to international pressure and letting them in to their side of the border that is.

Long story short, Israel betrayed their most important ally after 22 years of loyalty by retreating without giving them any notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's my country too dear, I'm born here, raised here and Swedish is my primary language.

Helt ärligt förväntar jag mig inte att du ska förstå innebörden av den Israelisk-Libanesiska konflikten för Libaneser, dock bör du tänka på att inte yttra dig om någonting som du inte har någon som helst förståelse för. Varför skulle Libaneserna skriva på ett fredsavtal med det landet som endast orsakat förödelse och död för dem?

Israels mål i 2006 kriget var inte att straffa Libanon, det var att eliminera Hezbollah.

Förstår inte riktigt varför du går in på detta forumet och argumenterar mot Shiitiska grupper när det enda religiösa hot Sverige står inför utgörs av Salafisterna, vilka även är Hezbollahs fiender.

I am not arguing specifically against Shiitic groups. I am arguing against those who deny Israels right to excist - and obviously there are both Shias and Sunnis doing that. I am happy to notice that President Mursi -(who is Sunni) recognises Israel. And I have the impression that it is more difficult for Shias than for Sunnis to accept the excistance of Israel. Mursi has understood that Egypt has benefitted and will continue to benefit from good relations with Israel. I think the Lebanese ought to understand this too. My Lebanese friends here in sweden understand this.

Another reason why I am arguing against Shiites in this forum, is that have not yet found a Sunni forum, where it is possible to discuss. If you know such a Sunni forum, please tell me!

I have said it before but I can say it again: I really appreciate this forum, because of the possibility to express different opinions - at least I have not been banned yet. THANK YOU, Shia.chat!

BTW do you agree that it is good that Sweden has diplomatic relations with Israel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not arguing specifically against Shiitic groups. I am arguing against those who deny Israels right to excist - and obviously there are both Shias and Sunnis doing that. I am happy to notice that President Mursi -(who is Sunni) recognises Israel. And I have the impression that it is more difficult for Shias than for Sunnis to accept the excistance of Israel. Mursi has understood that Egypt has benefitted and will continue to benefit from good relations with Israel. I think the Lebanese ought to understand this too. My Lebanese friends here in sweden understand this.

Another reason why I am arguing against Shiites in this forum, is that have not yet found a Sunni forum, where it is possible to discuss. If you know such a Sunni forum, please tell me!

I have said it before but I can say it again: I really appreciate this forum, because of the possibility to express different opinions - at least I have not been banned yet. THANK YOU, Shia.chat!

BTW do you agree that it is good that Sweden has diplomatic relations with Israel?

The reason some Sunnis seem to accept Israel is because of their leaders. The people however reject Israel.

If you're looking for some Sunni forums:

http://www.salafitalk.net/st/ http://forums.islamicawakening.com/forum.php#main-topics

And I do believe that Sweden should be as neutral as possible in conflicts that don't affect it. They should have relations with Iran and Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3. Israel returned a large amount of living prisoners in exchange for two dead bodies. This was very generous. But it was made out of empathy for the families of the murdered soldiers (I wonder if Hizbollah know what empathy is.)

This also shows that Israel treats its prisoners a lot better than Hizbollah.

I dont think israel knows the meaning of the word, that is the root problem. Its all me me and my at the cost everyone else. Do you know they arrest and torture children? Do you know they detain innocent people with out charge for indefinite periods? Empathy is not a word that you can associate with israel.

Edited by Asr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason some Sunnis seem to accept Israel is because of their leaders. The people however reject Israel.

If you're looking for some Sunni forums:

http://www.salafitalk.net/st/ http://forums.islami...php#main-topics

And I do believe that Sweden should be as neutral as possible in conflicts that don't affect it. They should have relations with Iran and Israel.

What is this salafitalk site ROFL

It looks like a cheap low budget spam/hate site (not surprising)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think israel knows the meaning of the word, that is the root problem. Its all me me and my at the cost everyone else. Do you know they arrest and torture children? Do you know they detain innocent people with out charge for indefinite periods? Empathy is not a word that you can associate with israel.

Not to mention burning Palestinian children to death with white phosphorus. Its quite clear that there cannot be any sort of "deal" with people who burn children to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The list is extensive: this an israeli based human rights organisation thatfollows the abuses in the occupied lands. http://www.btselem.org/ota i would higly reccomend for its credible and objective reporting.

A guardian report on israels treatment of children;

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/26/israel-palestinian-children-injustice?cat=world&type=article

Edited by Asr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who started the 1967 war? Don't tell us it was the "Arabs", as it is a discredited propaganda lie. Similarly, the Arabs did not start the 1982 war against Lebanon. Nor did they "start" the massacres and bombings of the Irgun. I see that Israeli propaganda has been very successful at erasing history and placing an alternate timeline into the minds of most "logical, rational" Westerners. Similar to the "wiping Israel off the map" lie.

The very fact that Jews were persecuted everywhere they lived, even though "contributing" to the host country is suspicious. Why were they hated in all those countries, despite contributing so much to their host countries? Logically if a minority is helping my countries' economy I wouldn't want to persecute them.

Jews were persecuted in countries like Germany because Germany was big on nationalism at the time. Jews were a foreign identity. If you read the journals of Jews that lived during that time, you would know that they were indeed prosecuted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Palestinian nationality has been there since the times of the Roman Empire whereas Israel is a mere religious fiction. Israeli identity or nationality was non-existent among Jews for most of the last 1000 years. Most Jews called themsleves by the country in which they lived rather than by the "israeli" identity.

What a ridiculous, absurd statement. Regardless of my views of the Zionist regime: All nationalities emerged in the early 20th century. That is because the entire idea of a 'nation' didn't exist before that period. Buffoonery in historical revisionism is why the Zionist regime survives today, stop peddling the Palestinian cause with eroded romantic propaganda.

As for Morsi, whenever someone called an "Islamist" wears a tie, it's best to have reservations about him. Morsi is fulfilling the role of Muslim-democrat, similar to Christian-democrat in the West, these 'christian' groups have paved the way for countries in Western-Europe to become staunchly atheistic and only Christian by lip service. I believe that is why "Islamists" can participate in Egypt and elsewhere. We are already seeing this trend evolve in Turkey, where much of the metropolitan life is Western.

A junta does not simply allow Islamist parties to participate, unless there are preconditions.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

What did Hizbollah win?

And can you please tell me which of these statements that I made, that are not correct? If you are unable to explain why, maybe someone else can do that:

1. Israel did not have any intentions to occupy Lebanon.

2. The Israeli attack was a reaction to Hizbollah aggression - the kidnaping of 2 (I think) Israeli soldiers.

3. It was meant as a punishment.

4. Lebanon was ideed punished. Many innocent Lebanese had to suffer from Hizbollahs irresponsible acting.

5. If Hizbollah had returned the soldiers and offered Israel an excuse, the war could have been avoided.

Your main error is that you misunderstand the goals and aims of Hezbollah as a political party and organization. Any rejection of Israel, be it through propaganda or military force, is successful provided the organization and its millions of ardent transnational supports emerge from it with the ability to strike again.

It could easily live in a comfortable, albeit somewhat strained coexistence (as many surrounding Arab countries do) if that was the aim of the group. They have never been shy about their mission statement of goals, so you have to redefine terms like "success" and "failure" to fit into an equation where the mere ability to continue resisting is the ultimate payoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Not only does the quoted person fail to understand Hezbollah's own goals and aims, but the very characterstic of irregular warfare itself.

The guerrilla does not intend to inflict a military defeat on the battlefield in the conventional sense - such a tactic is doomed for failure on epic proportions.

The ultimate aim of an irregular army is to attain the superior political will over the conventional enemy - who is also supposedly restricted by (even though not neccessarily so with Israel) by rules of engagement.

Hezbollah managed to successfully send home the message that it isn't worth Israel's while to commit to a long war of attrition, and that they have the capability to strike again (in a smart tactical move, Hezbollah unleashed a record number of missiles in one day, as well as firing deeper into Israel than before, immediately after Israel released a press conference stating how they have successfully damaged Hezbollah's infrastructure and capability to strike against Israel).

As long as they reach out to the policy makers, the media and the citizens of the enemy - rather than their military - showing they have the stronger political will - that is all that matters.

Hezbollah won to fight another day, they managed to retrieve prisoners in exchange for the kidnapped Israelis.

Their image was strengthened throughout the Arab world as a competent force to be reckoned with, that had managed to humiliate the almost invincible and mythical IDF.

Moreover, Israel failed to acheive all stated objectives.

So it is a mistake to view the conflict in terms of conventional military victories or body counts in isolation - because that is an epic flaw when studying war and warfare - for War is nothing but a tool of politics

Hezbollah thus attained a huge political victory, which we are still seeing today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

^Not only does the quoted person fail to understand Hezbollah's own goals and aims, but the very characterstic of irregular warfare itself.

The guerrilla does not intend to inflict a military defeat on the battlefield in the conventional sense - such a tactic is doomed for failure on epic proportions.

The ultimate aim of an irregular army is to attain the superior political will over the conventional enemy - who is also supposedly restricted by (even though not neccessarily so with Israel) by rules of engagement.

Hezbollah managed to successfully send home the message that it isn't worth Israel's while to commit to a long war of attrition, and that they have the capability to strike again (in a smart tactical move, Hezbollah unleashed a record number of missiles in one day, as well as firing deeper into Israel than before, immediately after Israel released a press conference stating how they have successfully damaged Hezbollah's infrastructure and capability to strike against Israel).

As long as they reach out to the policy makers, the media and the citizens of the enemy - rather than their military - showing they have the stronger political will - that is all that matters.

Hezbollah won to fight another day, they managed to retrieve prisoners in exchange for the kidnapped Israelis.

Their image was strengthened throughout the Arab world as a competent force to be reckoned with, that had managed to humiliate the almost invincible and mythical IDF.

Moreover, Israel failed to acheive all stated objectives.

So it is a mistake to view the conflict in terms of conventional military victories or body counts in isolation - because that is an epic flaw when studying war and warfare - for War is nothing but a tool of politics

Hezbollah thus attained a huge political victory, which we are still seeing today.

That is a mistake many people make when assessing wars and battles, winners and losers. I see it happen all too often when people discuss the Iraq war and its implications for the Iraqi people without understanding the history of the Shia or Kurdish plight in Iraq. While I am not Southern Lebanese and I do not buy into the notion of a transnational Shia identity which somehow fixates on the liberation of Sunni Arabs, I cannot help but marvel at the idiocy of someone who claims that Hezbollah lost because "it could have just given Israel what it wanted an avoided the whole matter altogether."

Baffling.

It has been explicitly stated by Nasrallah on many occasions that every example of negotiations with the enemy has produced less than fruitful outcomes. This was not a war of defensive tactics or strategy. It was the first time Israel had faced a formidable opponent in the Middle East that didn't mince words or alter its objection based on casualties.

To my knowledge (and people from Southern Lebanon can correct me if I am wrong because I have few references beyond literary accounts) many of the cities in the South were rebuilt to to previous or even additional glory and people continue to live in the line of fire without any semblance of hesitancy. They could leave but they choose to stay because (much like Hezbollah) they sincerely believe there is no honor in a life of cowardice.

Who are we to tell them otherwise?

Edited by Zahratul_Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zahratul_Islam

A coward dies a thousand deaths, a soldier dies but once.

Meh- I am not one for romanticizing warfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...