30 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeYour bloodthirstiness is in for a disappointment when Israel withdraws soon while declaring "mission accomplished" or some such.
Marauder: "Nasrallah's speech today made clear he's perfectly willing to continue the struggle if Israel doesn't agree to the terms offered by Finiora."
I'm afraid he will have to fight on .... unless of course he is going to take the short cut to Syria and Iran.
30 Jul 06
4 edits
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "Nasrallah's acceptance of Israel's right to exist is irrelevant to the present situation in Lebanon."
Please try to stay on on-topic.
Nasrallah's acceptance of Israel's right to exist is irrelevant to the present situation in Lebanon. Hezbollah's stated goals are concerned with Lebanon, not with Israel's ultimate fate. And saying that a Jewish run state shouldn't exist in Palestine doesn't make you an "anti-Semite". Name calling of a foreign lled in large numbers and being exposed to misery and suffering in far greater ones.
You are definitely drunk.
marauder: "And saying that a Jewish run state shouldn't exist in Palestine doesn't make you an "anti-Semite". "
No, that doesn't make you an anti-Semite ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Nasrallah
"Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah announced on October 22, 2002: "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."[3][4] The New York Times qualifies this as "genocidal thinking"[5], whereas the New York Sun likens it to the 1992 Hezbollah statement, which vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth."[6] Michael Rubin qualifies his goal as genocide too, quoting Nasrallah ruling out "co-existence with" the Jews or "peace", as "they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment."[7] The Age quotes him like so: "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."[8]
.... but the above does.
Marauder: " Name calling of a foreign leader is a bit childish."
Stop the sentimental non-sense, marauder. The man is a hard-core anti-Semite .... and you are defending him.
.
30 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderOh well. Continue with your own personal word war. May be you both can reach some valid conclusion. The vetos to the UN resolutions, becoming mostly from US, don't ring a bell in your brains?
It's a direct answer to your question. I don't see that you've "addressed this point" at all.
By the time you reach a "valid" conclusion lots of innocent people will be assasinated.
This has became an sterile thread a long time ago.
- J
30 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI will be disappointed when there will be no lasting peace .... and reading the statements of gentlemen like Mr. Nasrallah, who wants to destroy every Jew on earth, I doubt whether there will be peace in the Middle East soon .... but that is of course the Jews's own fault that this man wants to kill them all, right ?
Your bloodthirstiness is in for a disappointment when Israel withdraws soon while declaring "mission accomplished" or some such.
30 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeYour hysteria is tiresome. Surely you don't justify Israel's present attack on Lebanon on the rationale that otherwise every Jew on Earth will be killed? Or do you?
I will be disappointed when there will be no lasting peace .... and reading the statements of gentlemen like Mr. Nasrallah, who wants to destroy every Jew on earth, I doubt whether there will be peace in the Middle East soon .... but that is of course the Jews's own fault that this man wants to kill them all, right ?
30 Jul 06
2 edits
Syria and Lebanon have rejected outright a renewed United Nations Security Council call for Damascus to pull its troops out of its tiny neighbour, calling the international body's decision "interference". The declarations came after the 15-member UN Security Council agreed on a statement calling on Damascus to comply with Resolution 1559, adopted in September, that demanded foreign troops be pulled out of Lebanon. Syria is believed to have around 16,000 troops on the ground in Lebanon, the remains of a much larger force sent in during Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war.
Syrian Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara, speaking in Brussels, said 1559 was "illegal intervention" in his country's relations with Lebanon. "Our position remains as it was ... 1559 is illegal intervention in Syrian-Lebanese bilateral relationship," he said.
globalpolicy.igc.org/security/issues/lbisarchindx.htm
30 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI see, you are now representing Syria's position and advocating it in this Debating Forum. How come you always fail to pick the right side, genius ?
Syria and Lebanon have rejected outright a renewed United Nations Security Council call for Damascus to pull its troops out of its tiny neighbour, calling the international body's decision "interference". The declarations came after the 15-member UN Security Council agreed on a statement calling on Damascus to comply with Resolution 1559, adopted in Sept ...[text shortened]... ateral relationship," he said.
globalpolicy.igc.org/security/issues/lbisarchindx.htm
Ill answer for you ..... because your positions are dictated by your anti-Israel and anti-Bush attitude ....
If the N.Korea-issue pops up you will advocate the North Korea cause .... not that North Korea is right, but because you have to oppose the US government.
30 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderSurely you do not think that Hezbollah's non-acceptance of Israel's right to exist is relevant to the present situation in Lebanon ?
Your hysteria is tiresome. Surely you don't justify Israel's present attack on Lebanon on the rationale that otherwise every Jew on Earth will be killed? Or do you?
Or do you ?
30 Jul 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeActually I was answering the question you kept asking. Rather than your usual off-topic ranting, you might try some time to actual respond to the points raised in this forum. Instead, you quickly resort to personal attacks and non sequiturs.
I see, you are now representing Syria's position and advocating it in this Debating Forum. How come you always fail to pick the right side, genius ?
Ill answer for you ..... because your positions are dictated by your anti-Israel and anti-Bush attitude ....
If the N.Korea-issue pops up you will advocate the North Korea cause .... not that North Korea is right, but because you have to oppose the US government.
30 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, I understand. I wish you a good night, Marauder. I have to run now.
Actually I was answering the question you kept asking. Rather than your usual off-topic ranting, you might try some time to actual respond to the points raised in this forum. Instead, you quickly resort to personal attacks and non sequiturs.
30 Jul 06
Originally posted by ivanhoePlease answer my question.
Surely you do not think that Hezbollah's non-acceptance of Israel's right to exist is relevant to the present situation in Lebanon ?
Or do you ?
No, I don't think that Hezbollah's non-acceptance of Israel's right to exist had any direct bearing on the massive Israel attack on Lebanon commenced a few weeks ago. Perhaps to the Israelis it's a big deal, but I doubt it; most Arabs in the Middle East don't think a Jewish state should have been created in Palestine. Israel hasn't bombed all of them lately.
30 Jul 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeUmmmmmm....Condi, yes, the darker the berry, the sweeter the juice. Oh, you asked a question, sorry. Yes she was right, however she should have made a further demand: that Israel smash Hisbollah until not one of them is left standing. Then Israel should attack Syria, destroy its army and help the U.S. and GB subdue Iraq....then all three smash full force into Iran and meet up with the 10th Mountain Division and Marines in Afghanistan. After that, we give an ultimatum to Musharef to invade the northern Pakistani provinces and find bin-Laden. If he refuses, then we go right in ourselves, and if he so much as farts, we nuke Karachi and give Kashmir to India. Simple enough. War is hell, and this is WW3!
'
Was Condoleezza Rice right in Rome to hold firm that just a cessation of hostilities is not good enough and Hezbollah must disarm ?
30 Jul 06
Originally posted by sasquatch672It's already happening whether we believe it to be or not....we need to be as aggresive as we were in WW2...full-on force! It's time to quit pussy-footin' around with this 'war of attrition' like Vietnam was; that's how we were defeated, and that is how we will lose this war if we continue to play the same ol' political game as we did back then.
You're calling for WWIII, Chanc, and while I'm not sure it's avoidable, I sure don't want to see it happen.