Reporter Says War with Iran Has Begun [Archive]

MACDRIVE

Jul 13, 2006, 02:36 AM

http://www.nysun.com/article/35990

By DAVID TWERSKY
July 13, 2006

TEL AVIV, Israel — The war with Iran has begun.

Just last Friday, Iranian President Ahmadinejad warned that Israel's return to Gaza could lead to an "explosion" in the Islamic world that would target Israel and its supporters in the West. "They should not let things reach a point where an explosion occurs in the Islamic world," he said.

"If an explosion occurs, then it won't be limited to geographical boundaries. It will also burn all those who created [Israel] over the past 60 years," he said, implicitly referring to America and other Western nations who support Israel.

Years from now, the kidnapping of Corporal Gilad Shalit will be regarded like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. Against the backdrop of Kassam rocket fire on Israelis living within range of the Gaza Strip, it was the fate of Corporal Shalit that triggered the Israeli return to Gaza, which in turn brought the Hezbollah forces into the game.

Israel is fighting two Iranian proxies on two fronts. It may, or may not, open a third front against a third Iranian proxy, Syria. It is from the Syrian capital that Khaled Meshaal, the exiled leader of Hamas, has been laying down Palestinian Arab negotiating conditions. Why listen to Mr. Meshaal? Because the Hamas troops are loyal to him, rather than to their erstwhile leader, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah, let alone the increasingly (as if that were possible) hapless Palestinian Arab leader, Mahmoud Abbas. As one senior Palestinian Arab close to Mr. Abbas told me Mr. Meshaal believes that any resolution of this crisis, and of the wider crisis brought on by the surprising Hamas election win last January and the ensuing isolation of the Palestinian Authority from its European and American funding sources, must await the outcome of the discussions between Iran and the West over its nuclear enrichment program.

Perhaps a grand bargain is in the works, in which Tehran will forgo its nuclear weapons ambitions in exchange for Washington's recognition of its emergence as the new regional power. Every day, Iran grows more powerful; any deal should reflect Iran's growing importance. For example: forcing Israel to bargain for prisoner swaps, cutting the Israeli military advantage down to size, and scuttling both the possibility of unilateral disengagement in the West Bank (the preferred Israeli option) and renewed negotiations with weakened Palestinian Arab moderates (the option preferred by the Europeans).

Even more loyal to Tehran is the Hezbollah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, whose forces yesterday kidnapped two more Israeli soldiers, opening up the second front. Sheik Nasrallah is warning Israelis that they must not think Lebanon is unprotected as it was in 1981 and 1982 when Israeli forces came pouring across the border to silence Palestinian Arab guns. Sheik Nasrallah's men are the recipients of tens of thousands of rockets — longer range and presumably more deadly than their roughly engineered younger Kassam cousins — that put central Israel in their range.

Each one of these players — Hamas inside Gaza and in Damascus, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Assad dictatorship in Syria — are chess pieces on the Iranian board. The pawn moves, drawing in the Israeli bishop; the Lebanese rook challenges; the Syrian queen is in reserve.

Just listen: A few weeks ago, the Swedish government announced that it would label Golan Heights wine as a product from "Israeli Occupied Syria."
The Swedes were oblivious to the little dance played out around a request by the United Nations that Syria demarcate its view of the 1967 border. Turtle Bay was aiming to push Syria to claim the Sheeba farms, a small tract held by Israel and claimed by Hezbollah for Lebanon. The United Nations recognizes Sheeba Farms as belonging to Syria; should Israel and Syria ever negotiate a peace treaty, it is clear the Security Council would expect Sheeba Farms to be returned to Syrian control.

The United Nations wanted Syria to assert its claim, in order to deny Hezbollah its basic raison d'etre — "liberating" all Lebanese soil from "the Israeli occupation forces."

Passed in 2004, Security Council resolution 1559 requires the dismantling of all Lebanese militias and their replacement by a Lebanese state army. Thus far, this has been as successful as the requirement by the Quartet (America, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations) that all independent Palestinian Arab terrorist groups and militias be disarmed.

Guess what? The Syrians refused. Just turned the United Nations down flat. Apparently Sweden is more passionate about asserting Syrian territorial rights than Syria itself.

The reason is simple: Iran does not want to deny Hezbollah the justification for maintaining its armed presence in southern Lebanon, along northern Israel, and Syria does Iran's bidding.

Ephraim Sneh, a former general and Labor Party leader who is the Israeli longest drawing attention to the approaching conflict with Iran, is saying that the current moment reminds him of the Spanish Civil War. The broader global forces are aligned; local actors are committed. It is a bloody test, a macabre dress rehearsal, for what lies over the horizon.

The war with Iran has begun.

SmurfBoxMasta

Jul 15, 2006, 03:21 PM

Nuke 'em till they glow :)

zimv20

Jul 15, 2006, 03:27 PM

Nuke 'em till they glow :)
could you push the button?

FFTT

Jul 15, 2006, 04:01 PM

iGary

Jul 15, 2006, 04:07 PM

I hope every peace loving citizen will make an effort to reach their local representatives and call for some freeking sanity here!

All we need is a bunch of hot headed, war mongering, Rapture Republicans
cheering on a bunch of neo-con Zionists to bring us closer to a world wide blood bath.

Israel's actions this week have now galvanized the Muslim world into fury.

The moderates are now driven to support extreme measures to control
Israel.

Israel is out of control and we need to put a screeching halt to this madness.

Wait, you think disabling the entire infrastructure of an already destitue country and killing 200 Lebanese citizens in the process over a few rockets and two soliders is out of control?

How dare you? :p

Like I said earlier - at least we TRY to clean up what we destroy. I can tell you Israel has no intentions of that.

Christ I hate to see what oil and the market does this week.

aquajet

Jul 15, 2006, 04:10 PM

could you push the button?

Of course! And with a smile to boot. :)

xsedrinam

Jul 15, 2006, 04:18 PM

Twersky is Editor in Chief of the New Jersey Jewish News. He doesn't declare war, not even prophetcially, yet. I only hope with millions of others that this flash point doesn't escalate because he just could be right. Aside from the obvious concerns over Iran's intentions, Syria's actions are just as much a concern. Neither side is interested in dangling carrots or facade and I'm afraid we're seeing once again just how "propped up" the peace agreement has been to both.

"Control" might be the right choice of wording, but statements that Israel are "out of control" while implying that the Arab nations are under control are not quite on target, imo.

The call to "nuke" anyone is just plain scary. Let's only hope that leaders will not be that irresponsibly reckless and that rhetoric will buy some time to think rationally.

iGary

Jul 15, 2006, 04:19 PM

Twersky is Editor in Chief of the New Jersey Jewish News. He doesn't declare war, not even prophetcially, yet. I only hope with millions of others that this flash point doesn't escalate because he just could be right. Aside from the obvious concerns over Iran's intentions, Syria's actions are just as much a concern. Neither side is interested in dangling carrots or facade and I'm afraid we're seeing just once again just how "propped up" the peace agreement has been to both.

"Control" might be the right choice of wording, but statements that Israel are "out of control" while implying that the Arab nations are under control are not quite on target, imo.

I think he is stating that Israel's reaction is out of control, and it is.

FFTT

Jul 15, 2006, 04:39 PM

We all know that most rational people do not support extremism or violence,
however Israel has now gone way overboard fanning the flames of never ending reprisals.

The only one's who gain anything from this chaos are those who profit from the business of war.

The neo-con hawks will attempt to hide behind a smoke screen of deliberate terrorism and anti-Semitism waiting to get their greedy hands of the spoils of war.

stubeeef

Jul 15, 2006, 05:26 PM

So, let me get this straight.

Retaliation against forces sworn to eliminate you from the planet is now overkill. OK.

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Rockets fired by Hizbollah guerillas in Lebanon struck deeper into Israel than ever before on Saturday, hitting the Sea of Galilee town of Tiberias, and wounding 15 people across northern Israel.

ADVERTISEMENT

It was the fourth straight day of rocket barrages since fighting erupted after two soldiers were captured on a raid into Israel by Hizbollah militants, who also killed eight Israeli troops in ensuing clashes.

Four Israelis, including a five-year-old child, have been killed and 300 hurt by about 700 rockets fired since Wednesday at an unprecedented number of more than 20 towns. Over 100 Lebanese, mostly civilians, have died in Israeli air raids.

The Hizbollah rocket barrages have sparked widespread panic that has sent thousands of Israelis fleeing the north and many others heading for bomb shelters.

Israeli officials said three barrages of Katyusha rockets slammed into Tiberias, a town about 35 km (22 miles) from the border with Lebanon, injuring eight people and damaging two residential buildings.

"We could not believe this would happen to us. It was very scary. We are frightened and intend to escape with our children," Ayala Aloni told Israel's Ynet news Web site after the first rocket hit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060715/ts_nm/mideast_israel_rockets_dc_1

Picking sides in this one is as stupid as the conflict. The reaction is understood by me, Israel is no saint in this ongoing mess, but picking Hamas/Hezb as your ruling party is about the only thing stupider.

Dale Sorel

Jul 15, 2006, 05:29 PM

Nuke 'em till they glow :)
Yep :cool:

zimv20

Jul 15, 2006, 05:58 PM

The reaction is understood by me, Israel is no saint in this ongoing mess
much of what i've read indicates that israel has received a number of surprises regarding hezbollah's capabilities. i read this in two ways:
1) israel went in with the force it did, expecting to be even more overwhelming
2) had they had better intelligence, they would have increased their initial response.

regardless, israel's demands are ridiculous, when they include the dissolution of hezbollah. they don't want to settle this peacefully -- they want a war. and i think they've gotten one.

iGary

Jul 15, 2006, 06:34 PM

Retaliation against forces sworn to eliminate you from the planet is now overkill. OK.

No, totally destroying another country's infrastructure over a couple of rockets and a couple of soldiers is over the top.

There are tons of countries that have said they would like to see us gone - does that mean we have the blank check to destroy them?

I have no love for Hesbollah at all, but Israel has just gone loopy.

Show me damage similar to this in Israel:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/meast/07/15/mideast/newt1.1718.explosion.ap.jpg

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0607/gallery.israel.lebanon/images/03.01.jpg

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0607/gallery.israel.lebanon/images/03.04.jpg

ham_man

Jul 15, 2006, 07:12 PM

Show me damage similar to this in Israel
OK

http://static.flickr.com/30/56464547_50629c6683_o.jpg

http://www.israel-wat.com/shuk.jpg

http://www.likud.nl/Jerusalem%20May%2018,%202003.jpg

iGary

Jul 15, 2006, 07:21 PM

[QUOTE=ham_man]OK

http://static.flickr.com/30/56464547_50629c6683_o.jpg

http://www.israel-wat.com/shuk.jpg

Since when did this incident become one in the same with suicide bombings from Palestine? I'm talking about Israel's response to the latest kidnapping and rocket firing (some of your images are three years old).

Are you saying that Israel has a right to lash out at whoever they like to avenge others acts on them?

You probably ought to remove #3 - it's prolly a bit graphic for some people.

MacSA

Jul 15, 2006, 07:30 PM

You probably ought to remove #3 - it's prolly a bit graphic for some people.

WHY? We never get to see Isreali/Jewsish murder victims of palestinian terrorists for some reason.

zimv20

Jul 15, 2006, 07:32 PM

last night, on world news tonight, they revealed that:
1. lebanese citizens were hoarding gasoline, so
2. israel started targetting gasoline stations

i do believe israel's goal is the total collapse of lebanese society. they're also cutting off the escape routes.

iGary

Jul 15, 2006, 07:32 PM

WHY? We never get to see Isreali/Jewsish murder victims of palestinian terrorists for some reason.

We don't normally show the Palestinian victims, either. It's called having some amount of taste...

So no, I am not going to participate in a tit for tat "my image is bloodier than yours" contest. ;)

pseudobrit

Jul 15, 2006, 07:41 PM

i do believe israel's goal is the total collapse of lebanese society. they're also cutting off the escape routes.

That's perhaps what bothers me most of all. Stop their ability to flee north and call them terrorists when they fight back in the south.

I fear we're in for a spot of genocide here. It's pure murder no matter what.

pseudobrit

Jul 15, 2006, 07:42 PM

pseudobrit

Jul 15, 2006, 07:44 PM

WHY? We never get to see Isreali/Jewsish murder victims of palestinian terrorists for some reason.

That's not true. I don't know where you're coming from, but there's not an Israeli side and an Arab side here to choose from.

I think I can speak for many who oppose Israel's actions when I say I'm on the nonviolence side. Which begs the question, "which side are you on?"

mischief

Jul 15, 2006, 07:49 PM

We don't normally show the Palestinian victims, either. It's called having some amount of taste...

So no, I am not going to participate in a tit for tat "my image is bloodier than yours" contest. ;)

I'm afraid that in a section of the world where hatreds have exploded like this for some 4000 years among the same groups and over the same territory, there are few, if any innocents.

This conflict has been ongoing for ALL of recorded history. Whoever is the strongest will "put to the edge of the sword" (Genocide) anyone else living in the fertile crescent between Egypt, Syria and the Kurdish highlands. This kind of wholesale slaughter is the rule, not the exception if one looks back at the stele and the oral histories. All that changes is who has the powerful ally in any particular epoch.

In light of history the best possible outcome is the impact of a very large interplanetary rock just about dead center on Jerusalem. An "act of god" that denies all comers the rights to the most contested land ever recorded by humanity.

stubeeef

Jul 15, 2006, 07:53 PM

regardless, israel's demands are ridiculous, when they include the dissolution of hezbollah. they don't want to settle this peacefully -- they want a war. and i think they've gotten one.

To want the dissolution of ones mortal enemy is not ridiculous IMHO.

zimv20

Jul 15, 2006, 07:57 PM

To want the dissolution of ones mortal enemy is not ridiculous IMHO.
so that israel can just roll in and take the entire country? yeah, right. look at the NRA-fueled response against the UN when the NRA claimed the UN wanted to disarm the US.

under what circumstances would you support the US disarming?

stubeeef

Jul 15, 2006, 07:57 PM

No, totally destroying another country's infrastructure over a couple of rockets and a couple of soldiers is over the top.

I respect and like you. But over 700 rockets in the last 4 days is not a "couple". Dead and wounded, as well as fleeing in fear is their other reaction (Israel's that is).

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Rockets fired by Hizbollah guerillas in Lebanon struck deeper into Israel than ever before on Saturday, hitting the Sea of Galilee town of Tiberias, and wounding 15 people across northern Israel.

It was the fourth straight day of rocket barrages since fighting erupted after two soldiers were captured on a raid into Israel by Hizbollah militants, who also killed eight Israeli troops in ensuing clashes.

Four Israelis, including a five-year-old child, have been killed and 300 hurt by about 700 rockets fired since Wednesday at an unprecedented number of more than 20 towns. Over 100 Lebanese, mostly civilians, have died in Israeli air raids.

The Hizbollah rocket barrages have sparked widespread panic that has sent thousands of Israelis fleeing the north and many others heading for bomb shelters.

Israeli officials said three barrages of Katyusha rockets slammed into Tiberias, a town about 35 km (22 miles) from the border with Lebanon, injuring eight people and damaging two residential buildings.

"We could not believe this would happen to us. It was very scary. We are frightened and intend to escape with our children," Ayala Aloni told Israel's Ynet news Web site after the first rocket hit.

In Karmiel, another Israeli town struck by rockets, the mayor urged residents to stay with relatives in the south of the country until the violence subsides. Several people were injured in an Israeli Arab town across the road from Karmiel on Friday.

Defense Minister Amir Peretz issued an order giving authorities the power to shut schools, factories and public institutions in the north, in a bid to limit rocket casualties.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060715/ts_nm/mideast_israel_rockets_dc;_ylt=ApdF10RXzCHq_.vICTb8hY5Z.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--)

mischief

Jul 15, 2006, 07:58 PM

That's not true. I don't know where you're coming from, but there's not an Israeli side and an Arab side here to choose from.

I think I can speak for many who oppose Israel's actions when I say I'm on the nonviolence side. Which begs the question, "which side are you on?"

We are a violent species. Perhaps it is more accurate to say you are on the "Sense and Reason" side? I feel that this is a conflict that will never end so long as any of the original societies survive. The land is cursed. I'm by no means religious or even remotely Abrahimic but when you look at history, it's quite clearly the bloodiest soil anywhere. More genocides have gone on over that territory that over any other spot I can think of.

What side are any of us on the outside even remotely capable of being on?

This is not a war. This is not a conflict or a regional dispute about Oil or even religion. This is the most recent pogrom between tribes that have been trying to kill each other off UTTERLY since we first learned to fire-harden sticks into points.

Screw nuking one side or the other. If you've gotta get involved make the whole accursed place glow and be done with it. Better that nobody "win" I'm sick of seeing this pattern play out.

pseudobrit

Jul 15, 2006, 07:59 PM

I'm afraid that in a section of the world where hatreds have exploded like this for some 4000 years among the same groups and over the same territory, there are few, if any innocents.

This conflict has been ongoing for ALL of recorded history.

I'm not willing to accept this argument because I think it ignores both the power of humanity and the real issues and forces in play.

It's a cop out to explain away the violence by simply stating it's always been this way and always will. Because it's not always been this way and it doesn't have to be violent tomorrow.

There may be some residual and nostalgic resentment but it's been quite some time since France and England have had a go at it, no?

iGary

Jul 15, 2006, 08:12 PM

I respect and like you. But over 700 rockets in the last 4 days is not a "couple". Dead and wounded, as well as fleeing in fear is their other reaction (Israel's that is).

Back at you. :)

By a couple - I mean the original volley that started this whole thing.

They only started lobbing all those rockets back when the Israelis blew up most of the airport, which the Lebanese repaired, and then Israel blew it back up again.

Look, I don't like the whole situation - Hesbollah are nasty horrid people, but none of what they do gives Israel a blank check to level their country.

I think both sides would be wise to call a cease fire and try to work something out, but neither side is at all interested in that...

Anyway, the whole thing is effed up.

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 15, 2006, 08:25 PM

Back at you. :)

By a couple - I mean the original volley that started this whole thing.

They only started lobbing all those rockets back when the Israelis blew up most of the airport, which the Lebanese repaired, and then Israel blew it back up again.

Look, I don't like the whole situation - Hesbollah are nasty horrid people, but none of what they do gives Israel a blank check to level their country.

I think both sides would be wise to call a cease fire and try to work something out, but neither side is at all interested in that...

Anyway, the whole thing is effed up.Problem is it isnt Hezbolla's country, its Lebanon. They are operating within, doing whatever they want with Syria and Iranian help.

mischief

Jul 15, 2006, 10:46 PM

I'm not willing to accept this argument because I think it ignores both the power of humanity and the real issues and forces in play.

It's a cop out to explain away the violence by simply stating it's always been this way and always will. Because it's not always been this way and it doesn't have to be violent tomorrow.

There may be some residual and nostalgic resentment but it's been quite some time since France and England have had a go at it, no?

France and England only went at it for about a fifth the amount of time we're talking about. If you want a comparisson let's talk about China and Japan. Even that is not a real comparisson. There's something uniquely nasty about that strip of land.

It's not a cop out. I want to see it end. I simply have no illusions about how very deep the violence is in the culture the closer you get to Jerusalem.

My point was not: "so what? It's always been like this."

It was: "This will not end well... if it ever ends at all."

pseudobrit

Jul 15, 2006, 11:00 PM

It's not a cop out. I want to see it end. I simply have no illusions about how very deep the violence is in the culture the closer you get to Jerusalem.

And I have no doubt that if the important parties involved wanted an end to the violence there would be an end to the violence. It's unfortunate that internal politics have conspired against the forces of peace.

FFTT

Jul 16, 2006, 12:03 AM

It's quite obvious that any attempt to control terrorism in the Middle East or any where else is now even more unlikely.

Israel's extreme right has now insured years and years of reprisals against
themselves and anyone viewed as their allies.

If The United States does not stand up and denounce Israel's actions, I'm afraid we are certain to see more blood spilled on American soil in the very near future.

xsedrinam

Jul 16, 2006, 12:20 AM

If The United States does not stand up and denounce Israel's actions, I'm afraid we are certain to see more blood spilled on American soil in the very near future.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Hezbollah support the destruction of the state of Israel and cooperate with other militant Islamic organizations to promote this goal. Its funding by Iran and Syria pretty much guarantees it remains on the opposite side of pro U.S. policy and rhetoric.

FFTT

Jul 16, 2006, 01:24 AM

I agree it is highly unlikely that this administration will make any attempt to sever it's umbilical cord to Israel.

That's what has me concerned.

DZ/015

Jul 16, 2006, 01:44 AM

Cut ties with and denounce the most pro-US government in the region? Highly unlikely.

Remember, Hezbollah is an Iranian creation. And the official view of the Iranian government is that the US is "the Great Satan". Other than denouncing our current form of government and becoming a fundamentalist Muslim society, there is no way to avoid reprisals. Well, other than their destruction, that is.

zimv20

Jul 16, 2006, 01:50 AM

Cut ties with and denounce the most pro-US government in the region?
everything is black and white these days, eh? the subtleties of diplomacy exist for a reason. or existed, i should say, in the case of the bush administration.

Kingsly

Jul 16, 2006, 02:14 AM

To put it lightly, "the excrement just hit the fan".

MACDRIVE

Jul 16, 2006, 03:30 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen, what you are witnessing here is the beginning of WWIII. The fact of the matter is, when you have two people living in close proximity of each other, armed to the teeth and hate each other so much, mutual destruction between the two is inevitable. What the United States should have done years ago is RELOCATE the Jewish population of Israel and let the Arabs have the damn place. If this would have happened, we wouldn't be talking about this issue right now.

DZ/015

Jul 16, 2006, 03:38 AM

You forget that Jews and Muslims view this as the Holy Land. Neither side will leave. Ever. And currently, they cannot coexist there either.

MACDRIVE

Jul 16, 2006, 04:05 AM

You forget that Jews and Muslims view this as the Holy Land. Neither side will leave. Ever. And currently, they cannot coexist there either.

Can't the Jewish people establish a new Holy Land some place else? I admit I may be over simplifying things here, but if we could just uproot them, and move them somewhere a long ways from the Middle East, all problems would be over.

FFTT

Jul 16, 2006, 04:13 AM

I think I have a more realistic solution.

What happens to the worth of the holy land if our government reveals
the truth about Extraterrestrials and UFO's

Suddenly Christians, Muslims and Jews realize that all of this crap they've been fighting over for thousands of years is nothing more than the product
of organized religion's fantasy.

solvs

Jul 16, 2006, 04:19 AM

Nuke 'em till they glow :)
Yep :cool:
Yeah, cuz that'll fix things. :rolleyes: Um, fellas, kinda why we have this problem in the first place. Considering they feel this way about each other, and probably us. Eye for and an eye leaves the whole world blind folks. And there is a lot of eye poking going on here.

I blame everybody.

FFTT

Jul 16, 2006, 05:08 AM

What do you think will come sooner?

Lasting peace in the Middle East or indesputable proof and full disclosure of Extraterrestrial life on our planet?

Queso

Jul 16, 2006, 05:17 AM

Can't the Jewish people establish a new Holy Land some place else? I admit I may be over simplifying things here, but if we could just uproot them, and move them somewhere a long ways from the Middle East, all problems would be over.
Yeah, that's totally oversimplifying it. Although Israel itself wasn't there for most of the time, there have always been large numbers of Jews living in the Levant. After all, it's where they originally come from (Babylon and Egypt excepted if you believe the Torah/Bible).

I'm actually with Israel on this one though. There's only so many times you can poke a dog with a stick before it turns and bites you. Hezbollah and Hamas have been constantly digging at the Israelis for months trying to cause a reaction, and now they have one. The blood of the Lebanese dead is on Hezbollah's hands. Their leadership knew exactly what they were doing all along, and they're loving this. Gives them back their reason to hate.

MACDRIVE

Jul 16, 2006, 05:49 AM

I guess I just don't understand the concept of Holy Land, but I do understand the concept of not wanting to leave your home.

iGary

Jul 16, 2006, 07:21 AM

Can't the Jewish people establish a new Holy Land some place else?

Why does anyone need one to begin with? :rolleyes:

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 16, 2006, 09:34 AM

Why does anyone need one to begin with? :rolleyes:Ancient religions for Primitive animal like man. The only reason these nuts hold onto this primitive hate speech is because they are taught it as kids and its tradition,do it or die. Stop the teaching of hate, yet that is a large part of Islam isnt it. KIll the christian,kill the infidel,kill the Jew, Jihad. yadda yadda yadda. Islam thinks its the only religion thats right all others are false:rolleyes: Extreme Islam is a virus on the human race.

sushi

Jul 16, 2006, 09:57 AM

could you push the button?
If it had to do with the US's survival along her allies such as including Israel?

In a NY minute.

stubeeef

Jul 16, 2006, 10:02 AM

If it had to do with the US's survival along her allies such as including Israel?

In a NY minute.

Ditto

sushi

Jul 16, 2006, 10:06 AM

I agree it is highly unlikely that this administration will make any attempt to sever it's umbilical cord to Israel.

That's what has me concerned.
Understand.

However, we can't stop a treaty agreement overnight. It would jeopardize our other relationships around the world.

Kingsly

Jul 16, 2006, 11:50 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen, what you are witnessing here is the beginning of WWIII. The fact of the matter is, when you have two people living in close proximity of each other, armed to the teeth and hate each other so much, mutual destruction between the two is inevitable.
I would have to agree here. And you know what? It scares me to death. *diggs bomb shelter*

xsedrinam

Jul 16, 2006, 11:55 AM

I guess I just don't understand the concept of Holy Land, but I do understand the concept of not wanting to leave your home.
Well, asking the right kinds of questions and reading up are a positive step from "I don't know what I don't know" to "I know what I don't know". This "land" is theirs both by historical occupation and covenant promises they claim God made with them. It is so entwined and enmeshed with their identity that to suggest some other geographical relocation as a solution for either group is out of the question.

zimv20

Jul 16, 2006, 12:41 PM

what you are witnessing here is the beginning of WWIII.
newt gingrich agrees with you (http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/archives/2006/07/gingrich_says_its_world_war_iii.html).

Gingrich said in the coming days he plans to speak out publicly, and to the Administration, about the need to recognize that America is in World War III.

He lists wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, this week's bomb attacks in India, North Korean nuclear threats, terrorist arrests and investigations in Florida, Canada and Britain, and violence in Israel and Lebanon as evidence of World War III. He said Bush needs to deliver a speech to Congress and "connect all the dots" for Americans.

He said the reluctance to put those pieces together and see one global conflict is hurting America's interests. He said people, including some in the Bush Administration, who urge a restrained response from Israel are wrong "because they haven't crossed the bridge of realizing this is a war."

"This is World War III," Gingrich said. And once that's accepted, he said calls for restraint would fall away:

"Israel wouldn't leave southern Lebanon as long as there was a single missile there. I would go in and clean them all out and I would announce that any Iranian airplane trying to bring missiles to re-supply them would be shot down. This idea that we have this one-sided war where the other team gets to plan how to kill us and we get to talk, is nuts."

There is a public relations value, too. Gingrich said that public opinion can change "the minute you use the language" of World War III. The message then, he said, is "'OK, if we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?"

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 16, 2006, 04:10 PM

Gingrich is another draft dodger who likes war as long as he doesnt have to do the shooting. Republicans are loaded with these guys. When vietnam was going they were going the otherway.

iGary

Jul 16, 2006, 04:14 PM

Gingrich is another draft dodger who likes war as long as he doesnt have to do the shooting. Republicans are loaded with these guys. When vietnam was going they were going the otherway.

I'm pretty sure everyone is a draft-dodger in your mind. You sure like to call everyone that name, regardless.

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 16, 2006, 04:17 PM

I'm pretty sure everyone is a draft-dodger in your mind. You sure like to call everyone that name, regardless.
Go look it up its like a who's who in the Republican party starting with our missing president to Dick Cheney ,Karl Rove,Libbey,Frist,Hastert,Delay,etc etc..Limbaugh etc..amazing the biggest cowards are the biggest talkers of war now that they are old farts.

iGary

Jul 16, 2006, 04:28 PM

Go look it up its like a who's who in the Republican party starting with our missing president to Dick Cheney ,Karl Rove,Libbey,Frist,Hastert,Delay,etc etc..Limbaugh etc..amazing the biggest cowards are the biggest talkers of war now that they are old farts.

I know, but what does it add to the conversation? I'm saying that debating the issues would be a lot more enjoyable (because I think you do have some valid viewpoints), if you would stop speaking in regurgitated talk show radio speak and actually make a statement that says something. You tend to respond to interesting posts by saying "Yeah they are a bunch of idiots," instead of adding something besides name calling.

Just my .02, I'm a grouchy bitch, but I think you'd be fun to discuss this stuff with if you didn't just name call all the time. :)

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 16, 2006, 04:37 PM

I just like to make sure many know about all these tough talkers,war becomes pretty pallatable if your not in the crosshairs. Our current Govt took us into Iraq and the Republicans run everything so I enjoy hammering these twofaced hypocrites since I use to support their lies & spin. I ll try to refrain from the name calling but I think its a very valid point about these corporate puppets who stirred up the Mideast by going into Iraq.

zimv20

Jul 16, 2006, 06:11 PM

looks like SoS rice would disagree with the thread's premise (link (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/16/rice-grotesque/)):

STEPHANOPOULOS: But before the war in Iraq many argued that going into Iraq would stir up a hornet’s nest. The administration strongly disagreed and here’s what Vice President Cheney had to say in August 2002.

CHENEY (VIDEO): I believe the opposite is true. Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region, extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad, moderates throughout the region would take heart, and our ability to advance the Israeli/Palestinian peace process would be enhanced.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Extremists now appear to have been emboldened. The moderates appear to be in retreat. There is no peace process. There is war. How do you answer administration critics who say that the administration’s actions have unleashed, have helped unleash the very hostilities you hoped to contain?

RICE: Well, first of all, those hostilities were not very well contained as we found out on September 11th, so the notion that policies that finally confront extremism are actually causing extremism, I find grotesque.

there's a video available through that link. note her reference to 9/11.

mischief

Jul 16, 2006, 06:21 PM

So the SecState's official position is:

"The powderkeg was already there we just decided the no smoking sign was a joke."

!!??!!:confused: :mad: :eek:

sushi

Jul 16, 2006, 07:07 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen, what you are witnessing here is the beginning of WWIII.
The global war on terrorism (WWIII) has already been going on.

Some would say 9/11 was the start.

Some would say the bombing of the WTC was the start.

Some would say some other incident was the start.

Regardless, the war on terror is a world wide issue and must be addressed realizing that terrorists do not negotiate.

Sayhey

Jul 16, 2006, 08:07 PM

The global war on terrorism (WWIII) has already been going on.

Some would say 9/11 was the start.

Some would say the bombing of the WTC was the start.

Some would say some other incident was the start.

Regardless, the war on terror is a world wide issue and must be addressed realizing that terrorists do not negotiate.

Who the hell are the "terrorists"? Hamas? Hezbollah? al Qaeda? Tamil Tigers? Right-Wing US bombers of the Oklahoma City Federal Building and abortion clinics? Or any state or organization that bombs innocent people? In the last case, both the US and Israel qualify. The use of violent, indiscriminate acts that inspire fear in the general population is a tactic - not an organization, or a people, or a state.

If we are at a state of war (still undeclared) then it was and is against the nation of Afghanistan (because they sheltered, trained, and refused to turn over people who attacked the US,) Iraq (because the Bush administration elected to start a war of aggression,) and with the organization al Qaeda (assuming a state of war can exist between a nation and an organization.) Anything beyond that ("the Global War on TERROR") is just propaganda looking for excuses to use force.

solvs

Jul 16, 2006, 08:46 PM

If it had to do with the US's survival along her allies such as including Israel?

In a NY minute.
Ditto
And again, this is exactly what they are thinking and why we're having this problem. You blow us up, we blow you up, everybody blows everybody else up and a lot of innocent people die while others gain power and money. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure everything everyone is doing at this point is wrong. And it's only getting worse.

I realize that sometimes peace has to be fought for, but it seems like all anyone is fighting for here is war.

stubeeef

Jul 16, 2006, 09:27 PM

And again, this is exactly what they are thinking and why we're having this problem. You blow us up, we blow you up, everybody blows everybody else up and a lot of innocent people die while others gain power and money. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure everything everyone is doing at this point is wrong. And it's only getting worse.

I realize that sometimes peace has to be fought for, but it seems like all anyone is fighting for here is war.

If you think they are blowing people up as retaliation, than you are wrong. They want Israel and US and all infadels OUT. They want their women and families pre-911 Afgan style, and lots of really really really bad stuff. I don't want to nuke anyone. I don't trivalize it. But the fact is that someone will retaliate with nukes is necessary cause otherwise they will start launching if they think there won't be a retaliation. Remember MAD, didn't work if one side said they really wouldn't retaliate.

and just to top off the hot head quotes..

Hizbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said the attack on Haifa, Israel's third-biggest city, was retaliation for its killing of civilians and promised more "surprises."

"We are just at the beginning," he said.
link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060717/ts_nm/mideast_dc_379)

solvs

Jul 16, 2006, 10:45 PM

I don't want to nuke anyone. I don't trivalize it. But the fact is that someone will retaliate with nukes is necessary cause otherwise they will start launching if they think there won't be a retaliation.
I was actually talking about preemptive strikes. I don't expect Israel to roll over, but I fully expect the opposition to fight back when Israel does and further escalate things. This whole thing is like a game of who started it, and it's just getting worse. Hearing a lot of people, including some world leaders, more than willing to put the nuclear option on the table has me a little nervous for some reason. Everyone's so worried about who did what to who and how much and how to retaliate that no one is coming up with a real solution.

And no, "they hate us and want us dead so let's kill them all" is not a good solution from either side.

MACDRIVE

Jul 17, 2006, 01:40 AM

Well, asking the right kinds of questions and reading up are a positive step from "I don't know what I don't know" to "I know what I don't know". This "land" is theirs both by historical occupation and covenant promises they claim God made with them. It is so entwined and enmeshed with their identity that to suggest some other geographical relocation as a solution for either group is out of the question.

I don't have a formal education like you do. I'm always trying to supplement my lack of social and historical knowlage by visiting the political forum at MacRumors. :)

solvs

Jul 17, 2006, 04:43 AM

I don't have a formal education like you do. I'm always trying to supplement my lack of social and historical knowlage by visiting the political forum at MacRumors. :)
I studied art and literature in college. I'm a computer technician. My Dad's a history teacher, but I never liked that subject in school. You don't need a political science degree to argue here, but it helps your opinion if you can back it up with outside facts. I skim the news before I come here. Usually AP via places like MSNBC or Yahoo. But mostly I just like to ramble on about how everybody sucks. No one seems to mind, but occasionally I jump into others arguments if I have something to add. Or even if I don't.

Be able and willing to back up what you say and you'll be fine.

mischief

Jul 17, 2006, 12:29 PM

I don't have a formal education like you do. I'm always trying to supplement my lack of social and historical knowlage by visiting the political forum at MacRumors. :)

Velikovski's "Ages in Chaos" is a marvelous reconstruction of histories and oral traditions of the middle east as reconstructed from the stele, monuments and clay trade records. It's a bit thick if you're not used to ten or twelve footnotes per page for six hundred pages or so but it's well worth it for getting it all in one place.

His assumptions about the nature of the Deluge and the Exodus are a bit extreme but his reconstruction of history is quite good. There are some points he makes without even being aware of their ramifications that make a lot of current quirks in the conflict make more sense. For example: He lists a hill country trade partner and strategic ally of ancient Israel from the north as a nation called "khud" which I can only translate as "kurd".... which explains a LOT about that people's lack of popularity.

That's a region with a very long memory for coup and vendetta and a very long history of killing off entire city/states. Ancient practice in the area was to encircle a rival city, break it's walls, kill it's men on the field of battle, murder any surviving civilians still within the city, loot anything of value including herds, grain, trees, shrubs, etc, then finally raze the city, burn the crops, till the rubble into the fields and salt the earth.

That's an area where the idea of genocide has been sinonymous with warfare for hundreds of centuries.

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 17, 2006, 12:52 PM

Like I said whats changed in two thousand years? If the Muslims didnt have Israel they would be fighting among themself.

blackfox

Jul 17, 2006, 01:11 PM

Like I said whats changed in two thousand years? If the Muslims didnt have Israel they would fighting among themself.
what an asinine statement.

The rest of humanity doesn't have a much better track record.

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 17, 2006, 02:10 PM

what an asinine statement.

The rest of humanity doesn't have a much better track record.
Your ignorance reveals itself, only 20 yrs ago Iran & Iraq lost over a million people in there little stupid war.

Sayhey

Jul 17, 2006, 02:14 PM

Your ignorance reveals itself, only 20 yrs ago Iran & Iraq lost over a million people in there little stupid war.

And this was because they were Muslims? If I were you, DHM, I wouldn't want to try to defend your previous statement. Just back off and pretend you never said it. Or better yet learn something about the history of Islam and the peoples of the Middle East and don't make such statements again.

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 17, 2006, 02:17 PM

And this was because they were Muslims? If I were you, DHM, I wouldn't want to try to defend your previous statement. Just back off and pretend you never said it. Or better yet learn something about the history of Islam and the peoples of the Middle East and don't make such statements again.Ignoring a little history? Iran a Muslim country fought Iraq another Muslim country. Lets here your spin on that one.

eva01

Jul 17, 2006, 02:29 PM

Ignoring a little history Mactastic? Iran a Muslim country fought Iraq another Muslim country. Lets here your spin on that one.

Your point being? Catholics fight catholics all the time. The pope executing all of the templar knights comes to mind

Religious sects always fight amongst themselves

Queso

Jul 17, 2006, 02:32 PM

Ignoring a little history Mactastic? Iran a Muslim country fought Iraq another Muslim country. Lets here your spin on that one.
DHM, what are you trying to achieve there?

1) Iraq under Saddam Hussein wasn't a muslim country, it was a secular dictatorship.
2) Saddam was basically promised victory by the West before the invasion.
3) Were Croatia and Serbia typical of Christian countries in the way they behaved?

zimv20

Jul 17, 2006, 02:37 PM

Ignoring a little history Mactastic? Iran a Muslim country fought Iraq another Muslim country.
that was sayhey.

mactastic

Jul 17, 2006, 02:42 PM

Ignoring a little history Mactastic? Iran a Muslim country fought Iraq another Muslim country. Lets here your spin on that one.
Ok, even though I didn't make the comment you've attributed to me...

The US (a self-proclaimed "Christian Nation") fought with Germany (another Christian nation) in WWII. Was that war fought over Christianity?

We also fought Italy (about as Christian a nation as you can get) during that time period. Were we fighting about religion?

So obviously WWII wasn't about Hitler's power grab... it was about savage Christians who have fought since time began doing it again... right?

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 17, 2006, 02:49 PM

that was sayhey.Thanks for the correction , how did I do that ? Sorry Mactastic.:p

Sayhey

Jul 17, 2006, 03:23 PM

Ignoring a little history? Iran a Muslim country fought Iraq another Muslim country. Lets here your spin on that one.

Quite the contrary. I'm not the one reducing 2,000 years of history to an inherent need of Islamic nations to fight (Islam doesn't go back that far, but why quibble with facts.) It is a ridiculous stereotype that you should know is totally outrageous.

Yes, Muslim countries have fought each other at various times in history. So have so-called Christian ones. I would hazard a guess that the same is true of nations of many different faiths as well. In the case of the Iran/Iraq war the needs of Islam had very little to do with the reasons the war started. That had more to do with political and economic reasons, both local and geopolitical, than anything else. If you really want to know, we can go over the history of the Saddam regime, the role of the Iranian revolution, the Reagan administration's foreign policy, etc. but that is hardly the point is it?

So, please, DHM, explain to me how the Iran/Iraq war shows the need of Muslim peoples to fight, including amongst each other. I'm dying to know what it is that compels this behavior. Is it that they have the "wrong" god and this makes them irritable?

Graeme A

Jul 17, 2006, 04:08 PM

I'm dying to know what it is that compels this behavior. Is it that they have the "wrong" God and this makes them irritable?

Are you have English heritage by any chance? The dryness of the remark has made my day.

zimv20

Jul 17, 2006, 05:54 PM

Is it that they have the "wrong" god and this makes them irritable?
what a fun t-shirt that would be:
I worship the
"wrong" god
and it makes me
irritable

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 17, 2006, 06:20 PM

Quite the contrary. I'm not the one reducing 2,000 years of history to an inherent need of Islamic nations to fight (Islam doesn't go back that far, but why quibble with facts.) It is a ridiculous stereotype that you should know is totally outrageous.

Yes, Muslim countries have fought each other at various times in history. So have so-called Christian ones. I would hazard a guess that the same is true of nations of many different faiths as well. In the case of the Iran/Iraq war the needs of Islam had very little to do with the reasons the war started. That had more to do with political and economic reasons, both local and geopolitical, than anything else. If you really want to know, we can go over the history of the Saddam regime, the role of the Iranian revolution, the Reagan administration's foreign policy, etc. but that is hardly the point is it?

So, please, DHM, explain to me how the Iran/Iraq war shows the need of Muslim peoples to fight, including amongst each other. I'm dying to know what it is that compels this behavior. Is it that they have the "wrong" god and this makes them irritable?Its a little easier for their religion to look the otherway, while these guys do....anything Their extreme form of Islam is the root of their problems. Its hard to prosper when you are warring all the time. Im not saying anyone is innocent, I do think Man has a screw loose its why we have been killing each other since the get go and man loves his religions............how many are there and they all are the only one right.

Sayhey

Jul 17, 2006, 09:33 PM

Its a little easier for their religion to look the otherway, while these guys do....anything Their extreme form of Islam is the root of their problems. Its hard to prosper when you are warring all the time. Im not saying anyone is innocent, I do think Man has a screw loose its why we have been killing each other since the get go and man loves his religions............how many are there and they all are the only one right.

OK, first in my father's generation many, many christian politicians and nations, "looked the other way" as the worst genocide in history took place at the hands of an ostensibly "christian" nation. It might be prudent for christians to think twice before they accuse other religions of making war and war crimes "easier." It shows a too convenient grasp of history and tendency to simplify very complex issues into excuses not to try to understand people who are different in culture, history, and religion.

Second, I'm not sure what "extreme form of Islam" you think is at the root of the problem. While I don't pretend to be an expert on Islamic teachings, most often the "extreme form" pointed as the culprit in all of this is "Wahhabism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism)," but this cannot be the blame for the Iran/Iraq war as neither country were particularly influenced by its teachings. I don't want to be misunderstood - I make no claim that the followers of Wahhabi Islam are in any way more likely to be violent than anyone else. I certainly wouldn't want to make blanket, categorical statements about anyone's religion - right, DHM?

Now, if you mean to implicate all of Shi'a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi'ite) followers (much like implicating all Protestants) you make a huge mistake. While Shi'a fundamentalism certainly plays a huge role in Iranian politics, it is a political landscape that is formed largely through the backdrop of Western (US, first and foremost) interference and outright control of the regions resources and political power. Khomieni's power came from his rejection of outsiders control over all aspects of Iranian life. Does this make Shi'a believers any more prone to violence than anyone else who would stand up for their own nation's right to be free of foreign control? I don't think so.

If you mean some other form of Islam, you will have to explain. I remain highly skeptical of your claim.

As to your last lament of man's nature and the love of religions, all I can say is I believe there is no such thing as "Man's Nature." We change, if slowly, depending on the demands of our times. To blame our mistakes on an unchangeable "nature" of human beings is to excuse ourselves for the inexcusable and condemn future generations to the same madness. Pardon me, if I reject this view.

P.S. - Graeme, my Irish ancestors are rolling over in their graves. But, thank you.

nbs2

Jul 17, 2006, 10:10 PM

And in other news, Israel is winning friends (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1150886027605&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) by detaining the Al Jazeera bureau chief....

Oh, and make sure to note the spin on the report as you read it...

I am dying to know...does Israel really want to make this a war between the US/Israel and the rest of the world? Also, maybe this is a local issue here in the DC area, but when are people going to distinguish Jews (who I have no issue with) and Israel (which is acting nuttier every day)?

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 17, 2006, 10:16 PM

Don't panic

Jul 17, 2006, 10:18 PM

And in other news, Israel is winning friends (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1150886027605&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) by detaining the Al Jazeera bureau chief....

Oh, and make sure to note the spin on the report as you read it...

I am dying to know...does Israel really want to make this a war between the US/Israel and the rest of the world?

i think it may well be in israel's plan and interest (but i don't think it would be the US's) to escalate a confrontation with Iran now rather than in 5-10 years, when Iran will likely be a nuclear nation with Iraq as their staunchest ally.

zimv20

Jul 17, 2006, 10:20 PM

does Israel really want to make this a war between the US/Israel and the rest of the world?
i wonder sometimes...

on the local news they covered a pro-israel rally, where the state attorney general (D) and the (R) candidate for governor both spoke (and both supported israel). support for israel is part of our politics.

so now there's something else i wonder -- how far could israel go before losing US support? i fear that israel nuking beirut, damascus and tehran wouldn't be enough to do that.

MACDRIVE

Jul 17, 2006, 10:24 PM

Not to veer to far off topic, but I was wondering where Israel gets their oil to make fuel for their equipment and whether or not they might be worried about someone trying to disrupt their supply of oil?

mischief

Jul 18, 2006, 12:40 AM

It has everything to do with feuds as old as spoken language.

We're discussing an area with the single longest-running multi-clan feud ever recorded. It also happens to be one in which some of the most heinous acts of agression ever recorded have taken place.

It's a very, very nasty place to live. Doubly so if you're from the outside.

FFTT

Jul 18, 2006, 01:16 AM

These feuds go back a lot further that 2000 years.

I'm thinking in terms of 4000-9000 years.

Sayhey

Jul 18, 2006, 03:48 AM

Has Man ever been without hate and war? seems religions have played as big as role as economics. Extreme Islam is what it is. A virus on mankind. Sayhey concentrate on a group called Hezbolla. They are the Terrorists, operating out of another country called Lebanon which hasnt any abilty to control them due to Syria & Iran. Lets get it over with if thats what you want. Thats what iam hearing.

You've yet to tell me what this "Extreme Islam" is, or how this applies to all muslims or the start of the Iraq/Iran war. DHM, if you are going to make these sweeping statements about a religion, you have to back them up.

Don't get me wrong. I believe there is a crisis in Arab countries with the explosion of Islamic fundamentalism. I'm also equally concerned about the explosion of Christian and Jewish fundamentalism I see in this country and Israel. However, I'm not the one assuming muslims are prone to violence to the point they will fight anyone, including other muslims, because that is their "nature."

With Hezbollah and Lebanon, I'm both aware of some of the history of the state and recent political events, and have at times been privileged to discuss these matters with people involved in them. Again, I don't pretend to be an expert on the Party of God or on all things Lebanese, but what I do know is that the principle reason Hezbollah has the support it does is that they formed the heart of the resistance to Israeli occupation. I have little or no sympathy to their political views, but I would not agree with your dismissal of them as "terrorists." That is unless we include people who shoot rockets and drop bombs from jets and helicopters as "terrorists" as well. If that is your definition then I think the missile attacks against Haifa and the bombing of Lebanon both qualify. The taking of military personnel hostage, while incredibly stupid, is also not a terrorist act.

More than that, I believe that unless we try to understand the motives of all the players in the region and are not so quick to dismiss one side with propaganda terms, we will never have peace. And unlike some, who like to dismiss this as ancient tribal warfare that is doomed to repeat itself (a misreading of history,) I believe peace is possible, if very hard to achieve.

Queso

Jul 18, 2006, 04:25 AM

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 18, 2006, 08:28 AM

Just for clarification, do you think Northern Ireland was about Catholics vs. Protestants, or something more tribal?I knew that was coming, another example for sure. Man's DNA has a war gene in it that we cants seem to purge, Man loves his tradition and religions more so then each other and god help the opposing viewpoint.

As Far as Israel goes there isnt anything they can do, they are surrounded with extremist who wont accept anything thats Israel. Tolerance isnt there how can you make peace with someone who calls for your destruction over & over & over decade after decade. Israel has concluded since there isnt any dealing with these guys and there isnt so therefor that leaves 2 options. 1 Israel gets up and moves its country, or 2 Israel kills those not settling for anything but #1. Thats the problem. So they are now set on destroying Hezbolla and here we go again.

FFTT

Jul 18, 2006, 09:01 AM

Religious extremism is rampant everywhere., but who's to blame?

The devious leaders of the clergy or the gulibility of those who fall
for their trickery?

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 18, 2006, 12:05 PM

Religious extremism is rampant everywhere., but who's to blame?

The devious leaders of the clergy or the gulibility of those who fall
for their trickery?Both are to blame, The ones pushing their religion thinking its a way to get into gods door and the people for believing this Sh... All religions are man made from hundreds even thousands of years ago and yet these people even today want to grab their old books and use it as fact even to deny todays proven science.. I have a sister who is a diehard Bible thumper, god forgive you ever bring up science with her, she will spin everything from Creation,Dinosaurs, moon & stars to evolution even proven science and thats someone exposed to todays knowledge. Now take someone in the middleEast not exposed who thinks everything in the Koran is pure fact not up for even debate? Thats the problem brainwashing with religion and tradition to the point that their isnt any other viewpoint allowed because the Koran or Bible says so.
Not to pick on my sister but there is a lot of stuff flying around the skys in the Bible and the plane wasnt even invented for 2 thousand years. Now when I bring this up she flips out,unable to grasp that just perhaps these things flying around might have been something or someone else. She didnt even want to discus this in front of her two teenagers because of the fear that her religion might loose its ironhand grasp on her kids minds. This is what the world faces. Man loves his manmade gods and idols and manmade religion to the point of loosing any rational thought. Now look at Islam,a military religion if ever there was one even to the point you better pray what 5 times a day and better be facing Meca when you pray or else! Woman are mere property if even that. The brainwashing runs deep on both sides. Religion is nothing more then Brainwashing,Control & Power over others.