babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » UN: Syria must leave Lebanon

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: UN: Syria must leave Lebanon
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 September 2004 08:57 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ha'aretz

quote:
UNITED NATIONS - The UN Security Council narrowly adopted a resolution on Thursday night telling Syria to withdraw from Lebanon, calling for the disbanding of Hezbollah and warning against outside interference in Beirut's upcoming presidential election.

...This is the first Security Council resolution clearly directed against an Arab state.

This is also the first time the Security Council has addressed Hezbollah.



It's about time.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 03 September 2004 09:12 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fianly, maybe we'll have one real democracy in the Middle-east.
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 September 2004 09:20 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It seems that so many still wish to interfere in the internal affairs of Lebanon.

I hope that our babbler in/from Lebanon will drop by to give us his reading of the constitutional amendment first, and then of the UN resolution.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 03 September 2004 09:37 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
the ones interfering are the syrians and the syrians only. Maybe once in a while israel. they already left mostly.

whats interfering in demanding the syrians leave?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 03 September 2004 10:17 AM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
I guess I support the message of the resolution, but any headline about a UN resolution these days raises about the same level of interest as "Denmark Waffles on Trade Deal".

(With apologies to H. Simpson).


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Khadiija
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6142

posted 03 September 2004 10:47 AM      Profile for Khadiija   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is the first Security Council resolution clearly directed against an Arab state.

Pretty amazing, with all the human rights abuses by Arab states and this is the 1st.


From: the twilight zone between Canada and the U.S. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 03 September 2004 10:50 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you think it will be enforced with equal rigour as resolutions imposed against Israel?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 September 2004 10:52 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:
the ones interfering are the syrians and the syrians only. Maybe once in a while israel. they already left mostly.

whats interfering in demanding the syrians leave?


I might be wrong, but I thought skdadl was referring to Syria when she said that.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 September 2004 11:05 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Um, people are missing the difference between this UN resolution and those addressed to Israel.

The UN is here intervening in the internal affairs of a member state. It is my understanding that technically, anyway, the Syrians are in Lebanon by agreement with the Lebanese government. Now, that's a complicated story, which is why I was hoping that our Lebanese babbler (so sorry I can't remember his handle) would show up soon.

UN resolutions addressed to Israel don't concern matters internal to Israel but their actions in the OT.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 September 2004 11:07 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, then I did misunderstand. Sorry, skdadl. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

I didn't realize that Syria was in Lebanon by agreement with the Lebanese government. So I'm actually kind of confused by the resolution too, in that case.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 September 2004 11:07 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And a PS: I wonder when the USians are ever going to make up their minds about Syria. They sometimes seem to find the Syrians so useful -- when they need someone to be tortured, eg.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 September 2004 11:10 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, Michelle, I can well believe that Syria's influence in some sections of the Lebanese government is less than benign. But a modus vivendi seems to have been worked out, for the time being.

I'm no expert on this complicated situation, although the current peace is definitely to be preferred to the civil war and the Israeli and USian invasions.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 September 2004 11:13 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
And a PS: I wonder when the USians are ever going to make up their minds about Syria.

When Syria has something (preferably a natural resource) that the US wants, and that Syria isn't willing to let US corporations control.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 September 2004 11:24 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Oh, then I did misunderstand. Sorry, skdadl. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

I didn't realize that Syria was in Lebanon by agreement with the Lebanese government. So I'm actually kind of confused by the resolution too, in that case.



Well as Skdadl said it is pretty convoluted. I highly doubt that Lebanon had much choice in "welcoming" Syria's "help" .

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 03 September 2004 12:05 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
1976, the Arab Deterrent force enters lebanon, after a request of president Suleiman Franjieh, to help quell the uprising in palestinian camps, an uprising, caused by the presence of Fedaeyyeen, PLO, PFLP and other organizations in lebanon, after their expulsion from jordan (Black September and 1970 come to mind) and after the Cairo agreement forced upon Lebanon by Abdul Nasser and Arab Nationalist regimes. Syria, controlling the ADF, enters the civil war down and dirty. Israel joins in 1978, then in 1982 enters beirut and *APPOINTS* a president by threatening the MPs into electing him, syria stays under the pretext of israeli presence and the raging civil war, all the time actively participating in it, israel too openly and actively participates. US marines join in later.

Fast forward to the end of the civil war, syria emerges as the main power broker (with the utmost consent of the US, france and israel) . The corrupt politicians, quite true to their long tradition of following the lead of the stronger, supported syria whole-heartedly, much as they had supported israel, the US, france, etc.. when they wielded the Ax. If the US or israel or someone else becomes the new power broker, then the same story will happen, with different players.

Honestly, I'm truly suspicious of the intentions of the US (why shouldn't I?) , Lebanon has become a soccer ball in the feet of ruthless players. I don't think we'll ever be allowed
to live in peace, we weren't in the 70's, 80's, 90's, why should we now?


From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 03 September 2004 12:06 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*shrugs* I doubt the Palestinians had any 'choice' in accepting Israel's help. Its all a matter of opinion. I think it would be best if all of them pulled out of the others territories be it the Golan, West Bank, Lebanon or anywhere else and all concentrated on their citizens greater good in their own territories
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 03 September 2004 05:26 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Syrians aside, I note that the resolution calls for the disbanding of Hezbollah. I really don't see what the UN should be doing calling for the disbanding of political parties in member states. If Lebanese people stop voting for them, they'll fade away. If not, then either the Lebanese people feel their original purpose, defense of Lebanon against Israeli aggression, is still compelling, or else they've successfully broadened their appeal and mandate to other issues (much like NATO). In either case, I don't see what it's got to do with the UN. It's analogous to the UN, rather than putting sanctions on concrete actions of Israel as a state, calling for the disbanding of the Likud party.
I find it somewhat weird that the very first time the UN puts sanctions on an Arab state, they do it to the most democratic one in the region. If they were going to sanction an Arab or otherwise Muslim middle eastern state, surely there are more pressing issues in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or, if it has to be someone the US considers a "bad guy", Iran.

Why Lebanon?


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 06 September 2004 11:38 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Syria's bullying ways" from the Toronto star

quote:
But for all their progress, the 4 million Lebanese have yet to free themselves from the suffocating "fraternal" grip of Syria, a bullying Arab neighbour.
Damascus President Bashar Assad, a 38-year-old despot who succeeded his father Hafez in 2000, pulls every string that counts, backed by the 20,000 Syrian military and security agents that have been in Lebanon for decades since the 1975-1990 civil war. And he's at it again.
Assad has just forced the Lebanese to keep their pro-Syrian president, Gen. Emile Lahoud, in office well past his constitutional sell-by date.
On Friday, the Lebanese parliament ignored the United Nations and key Lebanese clergy and democrats, bowed to pressure from Damascus, and rewrote the constitution to give Lahoud three more years in power after his current six-year term ends on Nov. 24.
Lawmakers opposed to the change were threatened.
Most Canadians, including many of the 300,000 of Lebanese descent, will be appalled by this spectacle.
While Syria has been a genuine force for stability in Lebanon, where rival communities waged a savage war in the 1970s and 1980s, its continued meddling in Lebanese affairs, and denial of democracy, puts it on the wrong side of history.
Choosing a president should be a strictly internal matter.
And the United Nations Security Council has wisely reaffirmed that principle, by denouncing Assad's latest string pulling, the third such meddling in a decade.
The United Nations passed an American-sponsored resolution last week, demanding respect for Lebanon's sovereignty and calling for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Lebanese soil.
Lebanese Sunni Muslim, Christian and Druze religious figures have also denounced Assad's manoeuvring.
Assad has shrugged off international outrage. But this will haunt him.
While Canada has always tried to cultivate good relations with both Syria and Lebanon, people here recoil from Assad's bullying.
Syria has already been rightly criticized for giving sanctuary to Palestinian extremist groups, for letting Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerrillas run riot on the Israeli border and for spurning Israeli peace overtures over the Golan Heights.

I consider myself to be utilitarian so the question is are more people better off with Syria in Lebanon or with Syria out of Lebanon?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 September 2004 12:06 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The United Nations passed an American-sponsored resolution last week, demanding respect for Lebanon's sovereignty and calling for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Lebanese soil.

The irony here is appalling.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 07 September 2004 12:09 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes it is.

Too bad more people don't care about the Lebanese


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 September 2004 12:13 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You say that as if some Lebanese aren't happy with Syria's presence. Many prefer the order that Syria brings to the chaos of the civil war and the butchery of Israel's invasion.

It would be preferable if Lebanon could be left alone, but with bloodthirsty vipers like Ariel Sharon in the neighbourhood, what are the chances?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 07 September 2004 12:28 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It would be preferable if Lebanon could be left alone, but with bloodthirsty vipers like Ariel Sharon in the neighbourhood, what are the chances?

quote:
Syria has already been rightly criticized for giving sanctuary to Palestinian extremist groups, for letting Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerrillas run riot on the Israeli border and for spurning Israeli peace overtures over the Golan Heights.

According to that comment looks like the chances would be really good if the Syrians weren't there.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 September 2004 01:00 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerrillas run riot on the Israeli border

Gee, is this supposed to be an example of objective journalism?

Invoking the infidel Iranian boogie-man? Guerrillas "running riot", with nary a fact to substantiate the emotive language? Are babble's IDF apologists writing copy for the Star now?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 07 September 2004 01:35 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Manufacturing consent are we now?

Yes that was an editorial so there is no denying it is biased however I don't think there really is any denying Iran's support of the Hizbollah which couldn't have been with out Syrians help. WMD's in Iraq don't exist, a connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam is laughable but Iran's and Syria's support of terrorist has long been established not something that was trumped up yesterday or even 30 years ago to excuse a war.

P.S. it maybe possible that a military elites have lied to their troops. Heck we've even seen it recently. But a lie like that??? That had lasted so long??? With so much detail??? Now that’s quite a stretch!!! Therefore I don't believe Israel officers would lie to their troops in such a manor or even intelligence fowl up that much

[ 07 September 2004: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 07 September 2004 01:39 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lebanon got ruined because all those Palestinian foreigners insisted (against the will of the Lebanese) on using Lebanese territory as a base for terrorist strikes against Israel in the 70s. When they tried to pull this stunt in Jordan, King Hussein wisely drove the PLO out. Lebanon wasn't strong anough to do likewise. On top of that the delicate power balance between the Christians and Muslims in Lebanon was upset by the Palestinians who tried to spearhead an effort to turn the Lebanese Christians into second class citizens.

Ask any Lebanese cab driver in Ottawa and they will tell you that Lebanon was the pearl of the Middle East until the PLO came along and ruined it for everyone.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 September 2004 02:46 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Right. Syrians, Palestinians...Lebanon's problems are because of all those Arabs about.

Remind us again why those Palestinians were in Lebanon in the first place.

The first blow of the civil war was when Israel-backed Christian Falangists attacked and killed a busload of Palestinian men, women and children in Beirut.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 07 September 2004 03:00 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
When they tried to pull this stunt in Jordan, King Hussein wisely drove the PLO out.

Ah. The slaughter of thousands of people is now "wisdom". How joyful.

Remember this the next time Stockholm accuses us babblers of being soft on Arab atrocities.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 September 2004 04:57 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I consider myself to be utilitarian so the question is are more people better off with Syria in Lebanon or with Syria out of Lebanon?

Syria out of Lebanon, Israel back to New York, USA off the Planet!

[ 07 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 07 September 2004 08:06 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
You say that as if some Lebanese aren't happy with Syria's presence. Many prefer the order that Syria brings to the chaos of the civil war and the butchery of Israel's invasion.

It would be preferable if Lebanon could be left alone, but with bloodthirsty vipers like Ariel Sharon in the neighbourhood, what are the chances?



Oh silly me of course its all Israel's fault.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 07 September 2004 08:08 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Gee, is this supposed to be an example of objective journalism?

Invoking the infidel Iranian boogie-man? Guerrillas "running riot", with nary a fact to substantiate the emotive language? Are babble's IDF apologists writing copy for the Star now?


Oh silly me of course we own the Star how could I have forgotten?


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 07 September 2004 08:10 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

... Israel back to New York, ...!

[ 07 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


"Israel back to New York"!! This can easily be misunderstood. Perhaps you should explain what you mean before it is.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 07 September 2004 08:19 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Y'know, Stockholm, you are making some assumptions about the backgrounds -- or lack of backgrounds -- of other posters to this thread that are highly questionable. If I were you, I'd stop doing that.

And no, I don't think I should have to explain that further. But I'm pretty sure that you don't really know what any Lebanese taxi-driver in Ottawa would say about this situation or its history, so maybe you could curb the overgeneralizations.

Also, from the little I know about Hizbollah, it is an exceptionally disciplined organization, and "running riot" is hardly a careful or even intelligent description of any of its activities. Yes, Justice: such slanted phraseology is simply provocative and intended to play, insultingly, on the naivete and fears of readers here; and yes, that is the process of manufacturing consensus.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 07 September 2004 08:28 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Will wonders never cease! I find myself in agreement with Macabee...

What did you mean, Cueball??


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 September 2004 08:51 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think maybe he was being facetious about the settlers with Brooklyn accents displacing people who had been on the land for generations, claiming that it's "their" land.

However, since Israeli Jews come from all over the place, it's not very accurate.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 07 September 2004 10:27 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes there were Palestinian refugees in Lebanon before the 1970 and Israel is partially to blame for that however The Lebanese economy and society only really seemed to collapse after the Syrians entered Lebanon.

So please stop blaming Israel for everything someone else take a little responsibility or is that too much too ask?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 07 September 2004 11:27 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And, BTW, when the Syrians created their first puppet government in Lebanon, who did they give a plum cabinet position to? The Phalangist militia leader who ordered the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla!!

Gee, maybe the Syrians should have just invited Sharon himself to be honorary Gov-Gen of Lebanon.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 07 September 2004 01:36 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I think maybe he was being facetious about the settlers with Brooklyn accents displacing people who had been on the land for generations, claiming that it's "their" land.

However, since Israeli Jews come from all over the place, it's not very accurate.


Such facetiousness is too easily misunderstood. I await his/her explanation though I appreciate your assumption, Im not sure that it is correct.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 07 September 2004 02:02 PM      Profile for praenomen3        Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm, that's exactly what the nuttier faction of the Islamic Amal movement in Lebanon says: Syria's just a puppet of the cunning Zionist entity - they're in it together.
From: x | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 September 2004 02:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Such facetiousness is too easily misunderstood. I await his/her explanation though I appreciate your assumption, Im not sure that it is correct.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 September 2004 02:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Americans are not from outer space either, and I don't see anyone trying to score vanity points by being outraged by me saying "USA off the planet."

I remember this commedian from New York: "I think we should give back the occupied territories, except for New York." So, in answer to your question Macabee, no I will not clarify or expound upon my previous jape. I will reconsider this position when you answer the following question with a yes or no answer:

quote:
Is calling for a single secular state in the region of Palestine/Israel, shared both by Jews and Palestinians, antisemetism or not?


Yes, or no?

[ 07 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 September 2004 02:52 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And, BTW, when the Syrians created their first puppet government in Lebanon, who did they give a plum cabinet position to? The Phalangist militia leader who ordered the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla!!

Because dude, politics is not about people standing on soap boxes and engaging in outraged moral polemics and finger pointing (skills I know you value highly), politics is about building workable governments, and national reconciliation after a civil war is usually about appeasing your enemies.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 07 September 2004 03:08 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the Syrians are so into appeasing their former enemies, why don't they invite Sharon to their little reconciliation party?

For the past 20 years, Ariel Sharon is consistently described as the devil incarnate for his role in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres (and probably deservedly so), yet the man who actually led the killing was quickly forgiven and given a plum position in the Syrian puppet government of Lebanon.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 September 2004 03:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dude they have. Assad made it clear that he was willing do discuss Golan last year. The oveture was rejected, because Israel could "not negotiate peace on 2 fronts!"

The Syrian Threat

quote:
"Out of the north an evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land" (Jer 1:14) is a verse every Israeli pupil learns by heart. This biblical truth has never been more true than these days: the Syrian President, in a major threat to the Jewish state, offers Israel to resume peace talks. A blatant crime against war itself. Israel, understandably, is forced to defend itself.

There are several convincing reasons why Israel should reject the peaceful Syrian hand. First of all, Syria should come to the negotiation table without any preconditions. When Assad proved evil enough to accept this, Israel demanded that Syria stop it alleged support for "terrorism" (and accept the Israeli-American definition of terrorism, to include resistance to occupation). Fair enough: both sides, except the Israeli side, should come to the negotiation table without any preconditions. Imagine Syria demanding that Israel end its occupation, or just dismantle its death squads, as a precondition to resume peace talks.



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 07 September 2004 03:41 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All the more reason why Israelis should defeat pig Sharon and his rightwing acolytes elect a nice moderate Labour Party government, make peace with Syria, isolate Arafat even more and then everyone will live ahppily ever after. Maybe that's why Arafat keeps doing everything he can to make sure that the far right stays in power in Israel. A moderate Israeli government making peace with Syria would be the PLO's worst nightmare.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 September 2004 03:50 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Any Israeli politician who seriously negotiates with the Palestinians or Syria will be executed by the right, as they did with Rabin. Golan and the West Bank are ultimatley non-negotiable, Sinai was nothing, mostly sand.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 07 September 2004 04:55 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:


Is this picture in relation to Michelle's assumption as well. I must take it therefore that your non-answer suggests that Michelle's assumption was mistaken and you meant exactly what you said that the "Jooze" of Israel should go back to New York.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 07 September 2004 05:24 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually I wish more of those idiots from Brooklyn would take out Israeli citizenship. Those fanatics tend to vote Republican if they can vote in the US.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 September 2004 05:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is this picture in relation to Michelle's assumption as well. I must take it therefore that your non-answer suggests that Michelle's assumption was mistaken and you meant exactly what you said that the "Jooze" of Israel should go back to New York.

Yes that is exactly what I am saying. As I said the Jews should go back to New York where they can be shipped off into space with the rest of the Americans, as I made clear in my original statement:

quote:
Syria out of Lebanon, Israel back to New York, USA off the Planet!

The fact that you are trying to make hay out of an obviously facetious remark, is only a further example of the paucity of your debating skills, your integrity and your intelligence.

Is acting like an idiot serving the purposes of defending Israel? If you are ever going to be a good PR hack, you should learn to let some things slide once in while.

If you need to know the liniage of my witicism, then you should know it is derived from an 80's anarchist slogan:

"USA out of Central America! Russia off the planet!"

And what is it with this mispelling of the word jew? Why 'Jooze?' Are you secretly harbouring some dark antisemitic intent?

[ 07 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 07 September 2004 05:44 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Any Israeli politician who seriously negotiates with the Palestinians or Syria will be executed by the right, as they did with Rabin. Golan and the West Bank are ultimatley non-negotiable, Sinai was nothing, mostly sand.
Just like Barak and Yossi Beilin. The Rabin assasination was an aberration. Nothing like it has happened since. Not to say that there are not right wing fascist elements that are dangerous but Israel's internal security is not like that of their neighbors

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 September 2004 05:45 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No labour politican has seriously negotiated with the Arabs since Rabin, and Likud has been in power for most of that time anyway.

And Israel's internal security is run by facist elements, as is the government. Exactly who do you thing Areil Sharon is?

[ 07 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 07 September 2004 05:51 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes that is exactly what I am saying. As I said the Jews should go back to New York where they can be shipped off into space with the rest of the Americans, as I made clear in my original statement:


really the "Jews" should go back to America huh? Which "Jews" exactly? Many "Jews" in Israel. Are we talking about the "Jews" who immigrated say after 1948; before 1948; since 1967 or are you just referring to all "Jews". Lord have mercy. Surely I am not the only one to find this offensive.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 September 2004 05:52 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All of them.

Thats right! Back to New York and then off into space. That is exactly what I said and I mean it!

What is amazing is that you are so concerned about me talking about sending 8 million Jews back to New York, yet my statement that we send 300,000,000 Americans into space doesn't even warrant a raised eyebrow.

I find the fact that you are a moron offensive.

[ 07 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 07 September 2004 05:56 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Surely I am not the only one to find this offensive.

Well, I might have, but since it's you carrying on about it, it's probably another one of your faux-indignant jeremiads to which I've become completely de-sensitised.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 September 2004 06:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually what I am proposing is that given that the Jews have an inalliable right to a free and indepent homeland, because of the thousands of years of oppression, that they moved to New York, which can be renamed New Israel. This is most sensible given that the US is the primary aid sponsor of the present Israel, and its biggest backer.

Are you denying the inalliable right of Jews to self determination and a free homeland? Why! Opposing the right of Jewish people to self deterination, and an independent Jewish state is antisemtic.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 07 September 2004 06:12 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have a better idea. Sinc e Israel was created as a direct result of the Holocaust, Germany shoudl have been the source of a Jewish homeland. Why not simply expell all Germans from Bavaria just like Germans were expelled from Silesia and East Prussia and let Bavaria be the Jewish homeland with the capital in Munich. Much nice city than Tel Aviv anyways. Imagine having a Jewish version of Oktoberfest!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 September 2004 07:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Another excelent idea.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 07 September 2004 07:28 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Michael Moore suggested it in...Stupid White Men? Or in the book previous to that one, maybe? I forget.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 07 September 2004 08:52 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is really turning into an antisemitic rant. Im sure you think you are being funny. I personally find it hateful and offensive. That you couldnt care less is equally disquieting.

Btw 8 million. Again another offensive hit at jews. You know full well that as a result of the Holocaust there are only 13 million Jews world wide. That you find it funny to poke fun at this is pretty awful.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 07 September 2004 09:03 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Who are you addressing, Macabee?
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 07 September 2004 09:14 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball's pushing buttons again. Naughty boy.

Michelle's right that the "Brooklyn Jew" settler is a bit of a misnomer now (but it wasn't at one time; some of the first settlements named streets after the streets the settlers grew up on in New York). Many of today's new settlers are Peruvian, oddly enough.

Getting angry at something as pithy as that comment, though, is just waiting to get angry. I mean, seriously people.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 07 September 2004 11:59 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
Who are you addressing, Macabee?

Cueball...and Coyote for me anti-Semitism just isnt funny. While Cueball may think he is poking fun, it remains hurtful and unecessary.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 08 September 2004 12:22 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So now you admit that you knew that I was being facetious. Therefore we know that the statement below was just muckraking.

quote:
Is this picture in relation to Michelle's assumption as well. I must take it therefore that your non-answer suggests that Michelle's assumption was mistaken and you meant exactly what you said that the "Jooze" of Israel should go back to New York.

Nice! Are you ever sincere about anything?

[ 08 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 08 September 2004 12:28 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Cueball...and Coyote for me anti-Semitism just isnt funny. While Cueball may think he is poking fun, it remains hurtful and unecessary.

I know, it's terrible. I've thrown myself on my pillow and am presently crying my eyes out.

Larmes de crocodiles, my friend. I certainly don't believe you anymore, and you only have your disingenuousness to blame.

I'm not sure what I'm more dismayed about; your propagandising, or the fact that you're so terribly bad at it.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 08 September 2004 12:36 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For God's sake I've heard variants of that in Israel.


And I wasn't in Israel for very long, either!

[ 02 October 2008: Message edited by: Coyote ]


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 08 September 2004 12:38 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Actually what I am proposing is that given that the Jews have an inalliable right to a free and indepent homeland, because of the thousands of years of oppression, that they moved to New York, which can be renamed New Israel.

The Palestinians got gypped.

They didn't even get a handful of glass beads for their land.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 08 September 2004 08:09 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

The Palestinians got gypped.

They didn't even get a handful of glass beads for their land.


The term "gypped" is racist.


quote:
I was GYPPED. The word "gypped" derives from Gypsy and is a racist slur based on the stereotype that Gypsies always cheat people; it implies that you have been swindled. We have been raised with the expression, (and even today people continue telling it to their children): "If you don't behave I'm going to leave you out and Gypsies are going to steal you". Czechs are
calling Rroma "dirty Gypsies, horse thieves, uneducated", etc... Bulgarians are calling us or refer to Rroma as "dark-skinned, villains, incorrigible perpetrators, criminals", etc... Hungarians are referring to Rroma as "Olive
skinned". In ex-Yugoslavia where I come from, they call us "beggars, dirty Gypsy", etc...

Please call me Rom


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 08 September 2004 08:30 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
So now you admit that you knew that I was being facetious. Therefore we know that the statement below was just muckraking.

Nice! Are you ever sincere about anything?

[ 08 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


No not exactly. You tried to defend yourself by insinuating (rather clumsily) that this was all being done in jest. All Im trying to explain is that even if that is the case ,
it is not funny to many Jews to joke about anti-Semitism.

That also didnt seem to move you (or some others here). So I have to surmise, that possibly in your case, many a truth is spoken in jest.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 September 2004 08:36 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A) "Gypped" is an ethnic slur, so let's not use it.

B) Cueball was joking, as I realized right away, and as everyone else realized right away. It was a tasteless joke, though, and considering the tensions that there are in this forum, probably not the best place to do it. As Coyote said, "pushing buttons" describes it well.

C) I also agree with the others in this thread that Macabee is making mountains out of molehills and looking for reasons to be offended. So, why are you giving him reasons, and defendable reasons at that? Let's not turn "baiting Macabee" into the babble board sport, okay?

D) Enough pictures of bananas.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 September 2004 10:01 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
And what is it with this mispelling of the word jew? Why 'Jooze?' Are you secretly harbouring some dark antisemitic intent?

It's a Mandos-ism or a Mohammad Khan-ism. It's intended to indicate a line of argument often used in Islamic countries when that line of argument probably doesn't stand up to serious examination, so it's basically indicating a hasty generalization about all Jewish people.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 September 2004 10:02 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I have a better idea. Sinc e Israel was created as a direct result of the Holocaust, Germany shoudl have been the source of a Jewish homeland. Why not simply expell all Germans from Bavaria just like Germans were expelled from Silesia and East Prussia and let Bavaria be the Jewish homeland with the capital in Munich. Much nice city than Tel Aviv anyways. Imagine having a Jewish version of Oktoberfest!

Michael Moore suggested something like this in his book Downsize This!.

With this in mind, I said elsewhere that maybe the Allies should have given East Germany to the surviving Jews.

[ 08 September 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 08 September 2004 10:26 AM      Profile for praenomen3        Edit/Delete Post
This was actually an ongoing debate when T. Herzl first started rolling the ball. There were some more practical Zionists who were content to have the state wherever it was easiest to establish. A site in South America had considerable appeal to many, and was a serious contender. Ultimately, though, it was realized that Israel was so central to the world Jewry's sense of identity that nothing else would do - the traditional toast “Next year in Jerusalem” is an example. In 1948, I doubt the Jewry of the western hemisphere would have been eager to pull up stakes and emigrate to East Germany.
From: x | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 08 September 2004 02:34 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Firstly, the joke is a variant on two jokes, one an old anarchist joke, and a common Israeli joke first told to me by a former IDF soldier.

Secondly, I am one of the semites that Macabee is endanging with his reckless abuse of charges of antisemetism, and his dillution of its meaning to serve the purposes of the facist clique that runs Israel at the moment. (I never mention this before because I think identity politics suck.)

Thirdly, the absurdity of Macabees charge and his faux-humanitarian concern is highlighted by the fact that he has not raised an eyebrow at the idea that 300,000,000 US citizens should be sent into space. In fact his blindness to one, and 'outrage' at the other is racist by exclusion.

Fourthly it is not racist to suggest that persons illegally immigrated to colonial enclaves by a rogue states should return to there countries of origin. It may be impractical, and in most case not even desirable but it is not racist.

[ 08 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 08 September 2004 05:22 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Firstly, the joke is a variant on two jokes, one an old anarchist joke, and a common Israeli joke first told to me by a former IDF soldier.

Secondly, I am one of the semites that Macabee is endanging with his reckless abuse of charges of antisemetism, and his dillution of its meaning to serve the purposes of the facist clique that runs Israel at the moment. (I never mention this before because I think identity politics suck.)

Thirdly, the absurdity of Macabees charge and his faux-humanitarian concern is highlighted by the fact that he has not raised an eyebrow at the idea that 300,000,000 US citizens should be sent into space. In fact his blindness to one, and 'outrage' at the other is racist by exclusion.

Fourthly it is not racist to suggest that persons illegally immigrated to colonial enclaves by a rogue states should return to there countries of origin. It may be impractical, and in most case not even desirable but it is not racist.

[ 08 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]



As I said I find nothing funny about anti-Semitism. That you do is your problem.

Lastly no legitimate citizen of Israel immigrated their illegaly. It is a member of the family of nations and that you would claim oterwise is another way that you promote hatred against israeli citizens.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 08 September 2004 07:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A great number of Israeli citizens have immigrated to areas outside of the mandate given them by the original partion zone of 1948. They have been authorized to do so by the state of Israel and no one else. There is no legal basis for them to be there. The fact that they authorize this illegal immigration, and use the Israeli armed forces to support this immigration, against the will of the international community that allowed the state to come into existence, makes Israel a rogue state.

I would argue that the original partition is fundamentally illegal and and immoral, as it was devised by the UN without the participation or consent of the Arab people who lived there. The fact that the UN authorized it is the only legal basis for partition. There is certianly no other legal basis for it.

Engaging in ironic tongue in cheak commentary on political situations is not racism.*

*Note: I am using the term racism, in place of antisemetism, seeing as Macabee and I have distinctly different views of what antisemetism is, mine strictly meaning racism directed a Jewish people, his being whatever Macabee wants it to mean at any given time, will-nilly, based on whatever seems to suit the purposes of the Zionist-colonialist expedition in Palestine.

Anyway, this is about the Syrian stabilization force in Lebanon, so I will desist from pandering to this silly and unprofitable digression.

[ 08 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 08 September 2004 07:48 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
A) "Gypped" is an ethnic slur, so let's not use it.


It hadn't occurred to me that "gypped" might have been derived from "Gypsy," so I was rather taken aback that I may have used an ethnic slur.

I therefore consulted the Oxford Dictionary, and found this:

gyp 1 n. college servant at Cambridge and Durham [perh. for obs. gippo scullion, orig. man's short tunic, f. obs F jupeau]

gyp 3 v.t. (-pp-), & n. cheat, swindle. [19th c; perh. f. GYP1]

According to Oxford, "gyp" and "jupe" have the same linguistic root.

While "some guy on the Internet" is often cited as an authority in many areas, I'll follow the OED's lead on matters pertaining to the English language.

[ 08 September 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 09 September 2004 08:15 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

I would argue that the original partition is fundamentally illegal and and immoral, as it was devised by the UN without the participation or consent of the Arab people who lived there. The fact that the UN authorized it is the only legal basis for partition. There is certianly no other legal basis for it.

[ 08 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]



As I said , Israel is a legitimate member of the family of nations. To deny Israel and Israelis this status and to suggest they are a rogue nation is hateful and spreads a poisonous attitude towards all Israeli citizens. Your comments continue to fuel this hatred IMHO.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 09 September 2004 12:15 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Um, maybe all occupations are bad.

There are many Lebanese in Canada. Many fled the civil war and few I have met have ever had anything positive to say about their Syrian "brothers".

I think this UN resolution is a positive step for the Lebanese people and for the Arab world. It can also in the long term be good for Israelis if the UN is serious: one could then point out to Israelis that the international system is acting more even-handedly about conflicts in the region and that, while one can understand their fears of unfairness at being singled out all the time, this is perhaps growing less true. A strong UN stand against occupations of all sorts can perhaps help convince Israelis they are not seen as the only source of negative things in the region and they'll loosen up a little.

That's wishful thinking for a day in the future but in the meantime, it is heartening to see the world community finally tackling the issue of Syria's occupation and illegal interference in Lebanon.

All occupations deserve some attention.

[ 09 September 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 09 September 2004 12:15 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
Oh - this was a double post

[ 09 September 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 09 September 2004 03:51 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I still find it weird that this stuff got rolled into one resolution:
quote:
The UN Security Council narrowly adopted a resolution on Thursday night telling Syria to withdraw from Lebanon, calling for the disbanding of Hezbollah and warning against outside interference in Beirut's upcoming presidential election.

So that, while one might consider it legitimate to call for Syria to withdraw from Lebanon (although surely calling for the US to withdraw from Iraq would be far more legitimate), the other portion shows quite clearly that this is a sop to the US and its obsession with propping up Israel.

It's also kind of ironic that the resolution calls for a major political party to be banned, and then warns against "outside interference in Beirut's upcoming presidential election". So, no outside interference--except banning political parties. Just like the US' Iraq "freedom of the press" policy. The press is free--except ones that say stuff we don't like. Yeah, the US and Israel don't like Hezbollah; monkeywrenching the UN into calling for them to be banned is cynical and illegitimate.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 09 September 2004 04:07 PM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post
What's the deal with Hizbollah?

I get that they run candidates, like a party, but they're also a paramilitary group, (defined as terrorists by some states) right?

Are there two linked organisations which share a name, but with different structures and functions like IRA/Sinn Fein or are they just fighters who also happen to run for office? And how Iranian are they--usually reports suggest Iranian connections, does that mean partially foreign-funded, like the Venezuelan opposition, or are they actually foreign controlled?

The foreign funding/control, and the armed-ness (as a pol. party) would be reason enough for the
UN to disapprove, no?


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 09 September 2004 04:40 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It sounds like it runs on the IRA/Sinn Fein model.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 September 2004 04:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So that, while one might consider it legitimate to call for Syria to withdraw from Lebanon (although surely calling for the US to withdraw from Iraq would be far more legitimate), the other portion shows quite clearly that this is a sop to the US and its obsession with propping up Israel.


It may part of building UN justifications for a future invasion of Syria. Bush and co., may think Iran is too much to take on right now, but Syria is another thing altogether.

[ 09 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 09 September 2004 05:02 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
To answer the question, all historical accounts describe how Hezbollah was set up in the Bekaa valley of Lebanon by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards organization in the early 1980s (these are the lovely guys who used to throw acid in feminists' faces on university campuses). To this day, it continues to be funded by the Syrian secret service and by segments of the Iran government apparatus. As to whether the political and paramilitary wings are separate, different authors and area specialists come to very different conclusions so it is an open debate.

It is a bit odd that the UN would call for disbanding a party. On the other hand, under the agreements that ended the Lebanon civil war, all factions must disarm. The only faction that never disarmed is Hezbollah. The agreements were in 1989 and factions had 6 months to disarm. That was 15 years ago.

Syria is also in violation of UN Security Council resolutions that called for all foreign occupiers to leave Lebanon.

The US obviously has its hegemonic motives in this. But this still does not explain why a majority of the Council would vote for the resolution being discussed here. Maybe Syria (and Iran - through its creature Hezbollah) just happen to be in the wrong. After all, an occupation is an occupation.

[ 09 September 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 September 2004 05:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think this is very stilted and propgandized version of the creation of Hizbollah, and its activities, and also inaccurate, on several historical points.

For intsance, Hizzbolah, may recieve support from outside elements, but your historical narrative above makes it sound as if it is entirely a creation of Iranians and Syrians which is completely untrue. It's popular base within Lebanon is evidence clearly by it successful election track record.

As well, the peace agreement ending the civil war called for the militias to disarm; true, but none did, they just stopped fighting each other.

Hizbollah continued military actions against Israel, who was not a party to the truce, and while Israel continues to occupy portions of Lebanon.

n fact Israel continues to occupy the Cheba farms, on the basis that both Lebanon and Syria claim the area (the fact that both parties agree that it is not part of Israel matters not to Israel of course.*)

When one hears of rocket attacks by Hizbollah Guerillas against Israel, what is rarely mentioned is that the targets are more or less all in this district; in other words they are attacking Israeli's in occupied Arab land.

*Interestingly Areil Sharon owns substantial property in the Cheba farms area.

[ 09 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 09 September 2004 05:36 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
My short account of Hizbollah's creation is quite accurate. You can find many history books on Lebanon which tell the story. The main Shiite movement at the time was called AMAL which wanted to remain aloof or autonomous from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the Bekaa Valley. The Iranians then set up Hezbollah. Of course, in the wake of the Iran Revolution of 1978-79, there were certainly Lebanese Shi'a activists enraged at the violence of the Israeli invasion who looked to Khomeini as a model. But one cannot erase from the history books the documented fact Hezbollah was set up by the Revolutionary Guards as a counterweight to AMAL. They even fought armed battles against each other in the 1980s. Various historians have interviewed the Iranian Guards who were there in the Bekaa in 1982 who were instrumental in organizing Hezbollah. You can go to Guy Kepel or Oliver Roy or numerous other prominent Lebanon and Near East specialists. If you don't read French (Kepel, Olivier et al.) here is just one of many overview articles -it includes some brief info about the role of the Iran in creating Hezbollah and about the mini civil war between AMAL and Hezbollah: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17060

Just because the party has a popular base today does not negate the fact it was set up by/with funding and weapons support from the Iranians. (And as the article does point out, not all Lebanese are happy with the role it plays)

Lebanon area experts have been writing about this for at least 2 decades. Use your library card and spend a few hours going through the accounts. I find it fascinating reading (nasty too, everyone who intervened in that region has been absolutely brutal, Syrians, Israelis, Iraqis, Iranians, the local factions)

[ 09 September 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 09 September 2004 06:06 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
The point of all this is that it is not wrong for the UN (or others) to want Lebanese factions to disarm and for foreign occupation troops to leave, be they Syrian or Israeli. Israel has withdrawn (the UN cartography service considers Chebaa Farms to be part of Syria so the UN thinks Israel has completed the withdrawal of its occupation forces from Lebanon). Syria should eventually do the same.

The Lebanese have probably had enough of outside influence and interference and weapons from this or that foreign power.


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 09 September 2004 07:15 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
When one hears of rocket attacks by Hizbollah Guerillas against Israel, what is rarely mentioned is that the targets are more or less all in this district; in other words they are attacking Israeli's in occupied Arab land.


Tell that to the citizens of Metullah and Kiryat Shmona both cities bordering Lebanon and within Israel proper.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 09 September 2004 07:36 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yeah, the US and Israel don't like Hezbollah; monkeywrenching the UN into calling for them to be banned is cynical and illegitimate.

Yeah, the US and Israel would like to see a defenceless Lebanon, wouldn't they?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 September 2004 09:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Just because the party has a popular base today does not negate the fact it was set up by/with funding and weapons support from the Iranians. (And as the article does point out, not all Lebanese are happy with the role it plays)


Getting support and funding is quite a bit different than being a stooge for a foreign power, which is the way your original script read. The electoral base of support fpor Hizzbollah is evidence that it is not simply a stooge, but an indiginous movement -- that was my main thrust of this point.

Again, the thing that really bothered me about your post was the confusion of details around the cease-fire, suggesting that Hizbollah had somehow broken its agreements by remaining armed and in action, when its main target was Israel not the Christian Felange.

Think of it this way: do you actually believe that the Christians have dismantled their militia, and given up their arms? I'll put it to you this way, if I were a Christian living in Beriut, no one would get my weapon, I might burry it but I certainly would not give it up.

Thanks for the article, I am sure there is much of value there. In my experience there are usually as many versions of political events as there are parties.

Frankly the US occupation of Iraq, and the Israeli occupation of Palestine are much more pressing issues, given that Palestinians and Iraqis are in open revolt, while the Syrian force in Lebanon seems to operate with at least the tacit aproval of many Lebanese -- if this were not the case then I am sure we would be hearing of many armed actions against Assad's troops, would we not?

There is no doubt in my mind that outside influence is detrimental to Lebanese interests, and theoretically I support Syrian disengagment, but the timing of this UN resolution has the smell of coming intervention. It is just this kind of resolution which was the backdrop upon which the United States decided that it had the unilateral right to remove the government of Iraq.

Are you saying that you would support a UN intervention in Lebanon and the possible removal of the Syrian government by force? Do you really think that this would benefit anyone?

[ 09 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 10 September 2004 10:19 AM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
I don't think they are a stooge of Iranian foreign policy. They don't go against Iranian policy.

I was answering a question about where Hezbollah came from and the scholars and historians I have read (all of them pre-911, pre the "war on terror", none of them in the employ of US media or government) all tell the story of how Hezbollah was created by Iran. Dates, conferences, names, etc. That's what historians do I suppose.

There is a difference between establishing whether a fact is true and then interpreting a fact.

John Kerry either commanded that Vietnam river boat or he didn't and he either received those medals or he didn't. I am not a historian or scholar but I assume they have the professional training to determine the factual nature of Kerry's wartime career. Bush will say his wounds were self-inflicted and therefore Kerry didn't deserve the medeals. The Democrats will say te facts prove what a hero Kerry is, what a great commander in chief he would make and so American voters should elect their man as president. That part is spin or interpretation or propaganda.

But Kerry was either awarded those medals or he wasn't. That is a matter of factual verification.

Hezbollah, according to all credible accounts, was set up by the Iranians. Other outsiders were intervening too: the Israelis funded or created their allies, the Syrians had theirs, the Iraqis funnelled money to theirs, the US, the Russians, the Egyptians etc. Those are factual questions historians and analysts can determine. How one interprets that is a different question.

The creation of Hezbollah in the early 80s is just one example among others of outside interference in Lebanon.

I am not a scholar in Lebanese affairs so I have no idea which outside interference is worse: Russian, US, Israeli, Syrian, Iranian, Turkish. There are no doubt many victims attributable to the violence of each of these players.

[ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: Critical Mass ]


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 10 September 2004 10:23 AM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post
I doubt the United Nations will intervene in Syria and I doubt the US will invade that country. It's perhaps just posturing as a prelude to some eventual Israeli-Syrian negotiations over the Golan Heights.
From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 September 2004 01:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is more or less the attitude that people had about Iraq, when the Security Coucil added its whish list of demands to its 1991 cease-fire agreement with Iraq. That was when the UN added all the stuff about WMD to its demand for a withdrawl from Kuwait and an end to hostilities.

There is an emerging patern to post-cold war US intervention, and they all begin with this kind of innocuous and well-seeming UN resolutions. This is true of Yugolslavia and Iraq. Over time this demand is added to and used as the center piece of an ongoing PR campaign that lays the ground work for creating public consensus in the US, and elsewhere, supporting intervention.

Soon we may see injured Christians trotted out by the media talking about the Syrian opression* and a hodge podge of other accuasations will be added. Leading questions might be asked, such as: "Where did Saddam's WMD' go?"

I don't see any reason this would not be the case here. Syria is very weak, and almost allyless since the removal of Saddam. There is an Israeli angle here of course, but as far as the Golan Heights are concerned, the Israelis operate on the basisi that there is no reason to negotiate a position they can hold by force.

*Not that there wont be a basis in fact, but there will be exagerations, and the obvious comparison to the ongoing abuse of Palestinians will slip beyond the reach of the media eye.

[ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 September 2004 01:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Addition: I am not saying that the above scenario will happen, just noting with wariness the past patern of US manipulation of the UN, and a potential direction.

[ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 21 September 2004 06:17 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You say that as if some Lebanese aren't happy with Syria's presence. Many prefer the order that Syria brings to the chaos of the civil war and the butchery of Israel's invasion.

Come on man. The Syrian army did some bad shit in Lebanon, and while there may not be as much anti Syrian hatred as there is anti Israeli(Assad did manage to stop the war for a brief time after all) there is still quite a lot of animosity towards Damascus.(Don't ask me to find sources, I'm just going by what mjollnir told me, and by what I have read in pity the nation)
Why not celebrate? The Syrians are gone. Lebanon has no oil. It's safe. Isn't this good news? I certainly think it is.
Vive La Liban!
No Pasaran!


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 21 September 2004 06:27 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You say that as if some Lebanese aren't happy with Syria's presence. Many prefer the order that Syria brings to the chaos of the civil war and the butchery of Israel's invasion.

This reminds me of how the South Vietnamese "invited" the Americans to their country and how the Afghans supposedly invited the Soviets to occupy them in 1979 etc... I think the Russians also claimed that the Czechs invited them to come into Prague in 1968 to rescure them from the ravanges of Dubcek!

Does anyone take it seriously when a totally UNdemocratically elected government that speaks for no one, "invites" another country to invade?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 September 2004 10:10 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Those are completely inappropriate examples. Mainly because the Arabs of Syria and Lebanon of a linked culture that goes back centuries. There are also many strong political ties. Both the Soviets and the US had no such standing relationship with the countries you mentioned.

The commonality of language and culture makes it possible for a much more subtle realtionship with the local population. Add to this the fact that many Arabs think off all the Arab states as being one nation, anyway, and the Damascus is one of the three centers of that nation, and you can see how the Syrian occupation could go forward with at least tacit approval of a large sector of society.

And anyway, like a good international citizen, Syria has agreed to end its military role in Lebanon as per the UN reslolution.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 21 September 2004 10:24 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
See? Lookit that. One UN resolution, and bam, Syria pays attention.

HOW many UN resolutions on the US, USSR or Israel and not one of them gave a hoot?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 21 September 2004 10:42 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Those are completely inappropriate examples. Mainly because the Arabs of Syria and Lebanon of a linked culture that goes back centuries. There are also many strong political ties. Both the Soviets and the US had no such standing relationship with the countries you mentioned.

The commonality of language and culture makes it possible for a much more subtle realtionship with the local population. Add to this the fact that many Arabs think off all the Arab states as being one nation, anyway, and the Damascus is one of the three centers of that nation, and you can see how the Syrian occupation could go forward with at least tacit approval of a large sector of society.

And anyway, like a good international citizen, Syria has agreed to end its military role in Lebanon as per the UN reslolution.


The proof will be in the puddin

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 September 2004 10:48 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ROFL!!! I was so waiting for that piece of trite commentary.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 21 September 2004 11:28 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The commonality of language and culture makes it possible for a much more subtle realtionship with the local population. Add to this the fact that many Arabs think off all the Arab states as being one nation, anyway, and the Damascus is one of the three centers of that nation, and you can see how the Syrian occupation could go forward with at least tacit approval of a large sector of society.


Well you know, Russians and Czechs are all Slavs and their languages are mutually intelligible, so I guess it was OK for the Russians to invade Czechoslovakia on Czech "invitation".

I suppose that it wasn't so bad when Germany invaded the Netherlands in 1940 - after all Germans and Dutch are so closely related.

Glad to see that you agree that all Arabs are "one nation". Since they are all one nation, it should be no problem at all for Arabs from Palestine to move to Jordan or Syria and assimilate - after all Palestinians, Egyptians, Syrinas, Jordanians...what difference does it make? they are all one nationality and if anything they should be breaking down borders between them.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 21 September 2004 11:41 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Were Czechoslovakia or Holland in the midst of a civil war or invasion from another country when they were invaded by the USSR or Germany respectively?

The examples you give aren't similar to the situation in Lebanon.

And yes, Syria and Lebanon are closely linked in ways that can't be matched by your Czechoslovakian (which had been part of Austria) or Dutch (which had never been German) examples.

Lebanon was part of Syria as little as 80 years ago, as was Palestine and Jordan, until Europeans broke Syria apart for their own Imperial reasons.

[ed.] Should we expect Israeli forces to leave the Golan, Gaza and West Bank now, and the US to leave Iraq?

Didn't think so.

[ 21 September 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 September 2004 12:04 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well you know, Russians and Czechs are all Slavs and their languages are mutually intelligible, so I guess it was OK for the Russians to invade Czechoslovakia on Czech "invitation".


That is a more appropriate comparison. It is not the one you made however.

quote:
Glad to see that you agree that all Arabs are "one nation". Since they are all one nation, it should be no problem at all for Arabs from Palestine to move to Jordan or Syria and assimilate - after all Palestinians, Egyptians, Syrinas, Jordanians...what difference does it make? they are all one nationality and if anything they should be breaking down borders between them.

Is miscomprehension a problem for you. Read my post again, where did I say '"that all Arabs are "one nation"'

I pointed out that many Arabs felt this way, and in point of fact they feel this way to a varying degree. Some more some less. People are not all like you, they do not see the world in black and white. They might see themselves as Labanese Arabs, and Syrian Arabs, but were they confronted with a war with non-Arabs, say Israel or the US, they might find that there joint cultural heritage made them think of themselves as Arabs first.

Here a word for you...

nu·ance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (näns, ny-, n-äns, ny-)
n.
A subtle or slight degree of difference, as in meaning, feeling, or tone; a gradation.
Expression or appreciation of subtle shades of meaning, feeling, or tone: a rich artistic performance, full of nuance.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 22 September 2004 12:15 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Were Czechoslovakia or Holland in the midst of a civil war or invasion from another country when they were invaded by the USSR or Germany respectively?
The examples you give aren't similar to the situation in Lebanon.


Austria had a mini-civil war between socialists and Catholics in the 30s and was in a state of near anarchy when Germany "saved the day" by marching in (in the wake of a so-called referndum approved by 90% of Austrians) and having an Anschluss.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 22 September 2004 12:18 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Lebanon was part of Syria as little as 80 years ago, as was Palestine and Jordan, until Europeans broke Syria apart for their own Imperial reasons.


So, were it not for western imperialists all of what is now Lebanon, Jordan and Israel would eb part of a Greater Syria. So why do we waste our time taking about Palestine this and Palestine that and Jordan this and Jordan that. The only just solution is to have Syria annex all of Jordan, Lebanon AND Israel and put the whole super state under Assad's benevolent dictatorship!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 22 September 2004 12:28 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Austria had a mini-civil war between socialists and Catholics in the 30s and was in a state of near anarchy when Germany "saved the day" by marching in (in the wake of a so-called referndum approved by 90% of Austrians) and having an Anschluss.

When did Syria annex Lebanon? Again, your examples miss the mark.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 22 September 2004 12:38 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Austria had a mini-civil war between socialists and Catholics in the 30s and was in a state of near anarchy when Germany "saved the day" by marching in (in the wake of a so-called referndum approved by 90% of Austrians) and having an Anschluss.

I seem to recall that this mini-civil war was partly prompted and egged on by fifth column Nazi supporters and the German-financed Nazi movement within that country.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 22 September 2004 01:10 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I seem to recall that this mini-civil war was partly prompted and egged on by fifth column Nazi supporters and the German-financed Nazi movement within that country.


and Syria was not exactly a disinterested bystander in the Lebanese civil war either. They were constrantly funneling money and arms to the more pro-Syrian factions in the war to try to maximize Syrian influence in Lebanon. Remember that as far as Syria is concerned, all of what is now Lebanon, Jordan and Israel are really part of Syria since they were all part of the old Ottomoan province of Syria.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 22 September 2004 01:12 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Comparing Syria to Naziism is anti-Arab and demonic. I will be advising the moderators.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 22 September 2004 01:28 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Don't be ridiculous. Syria is one of the most repressive police states in the world. The only people who should be offended by a comparison between Nazi Germany and Syria are the Germans! Syria's jails are filled to the brim with dissidents, Assad murdered 20,000 people in 1982, Syria practically annhilated its own Jewish community a long time ago. Until very recently typewriters were banned in Syria in case iof people used them to type up anti-government messages.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 22 September 2004 01:45 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And yet the Syrians are preferred over the Israelis!

By all means, the Syrians should leave Lebanon; but what guarantee is there that Butcher Sharon won't re-invade once Syria leaves?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 September 2004 03:21 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Don't be ridiculous. Syria is one of the most repressive police states in the world. The only people who should be offended by a comparison between Nazi Germany and Syria are the Germans! Syria's jails are filled to the brim with dissidents, Assad murdered 20,000 people in 1982, Syria practically annhilated its own Jewish community a long time ago. Until very recently typewriters were banned in Syria in case iof people used them to type up anti-government messages.

Yes, and most of those killed were the very same Islamic fundametalists, who you have applauded beign killed by Saddam, because you believe that the real war that should be fought is the one between "fundamentalism" and "secularism." I wont bother to find the posts or refer to them.

You are basicly full of shit, changing your tune from one post to the other, weasling through arguements that are only consitent in there posed outrage and your black and white analysis.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 22 September 2004 08:17 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Comparing Syria to Naziism is anti-Arab and demonic. I will be advising the moderators.


The icon tells me that you think this little quip is some how funny.

Starnge I dont find Nazism at all humerous. Forgive me but joking about a regime that murdered untold millions of innocent people is just not funny.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 22 September 2004 08:22 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Um, Mac? That icon is not meant to connote funniness. It is the tongue-sticking-out smiley. It is the icon we use to signify that we find something distasteful.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 22 September 2004 08:26 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post
[rises on a point of order]

Really? I thought the 'razz' smilie was to be interpreted as 'nyah, nyah', or possibly 'thppbt'.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 22 September 2004 08:36 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's more or less what I meant, Oliver dear, although I admit that your translations have more punch and colour.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 22 September 2004 08:44 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post
[Honourable member nods his head respectfully in the direction of the Speaker and sits down to resume his slack-jawed horror at yet another invective-laced thread in the ME forum.]
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 22 September 2004 08:56 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Invective? Moi? *innocent smiley*
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 22 September 2004 02:28 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mac, you gotta chill. If I were making some serious statement supporting Naziism, you would have a point. I'm not. I was taking a shot at your constant hall-monitoring and claims to some kind of mind-reading ability (which you display again, here).


It was a small dig, Mac; try your best not build it into anything more - even if it does fit your goals as a hack propagandist.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 26 September 2004 11:48 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry if this is off topic, but I seem to recall hearing on the radio today (or yesterday?) that a prominent Syrian Shiite leader had condemned the kidnappings and beheadings. Anyone have some info on this?
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 27 September 2004 02:16 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's impossible, for as we have heard so often on babble, Arab Muslims are crazed terrorists.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 27 September 2004 08:05 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So often you say? Name one person who has done this "so often"
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 27 September 2004 08:15 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Please, do not feed the troll.
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 27 September 2004 09:20 AM      Profile for praenomen3        Edit/Delete Post
In a not-totally unrelated story, a Hamas ringleader was blowed up real good in downtown Damascus yesterday in broad daylight. It was the classic Israeli-style cell phone detonation. Arab media are hinting that it was done with tacit approval and possibly active support of Syria.
From: x | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 27 September 2004 02:35 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
FIRED, Macabee. You hear me? YOU ARE SO FIRED.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 27 September 2004 03:02 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
FIRED, Macabee. You hear me? YOU ARE SO FIRED.

Stop acting idiotic. Im still waiting for one example of anyone who "often" refers to all Arabs Muslims on babble as "crazed terrorists"

Just another example of hyper-exagerration.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 27 September 2004 03:22 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
At least I amuse myself more than when I post a reasoned discussion of the defects inherent in religiously motivated assumptions of superiority and watch it go completely ignored.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 September 2004 06:12 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought he was fired, Doc? He keeps showing up to work though. What's up with that?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 27 September 2004 06:14 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps that cereal really is crunchy.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca