Who says military is a joke? Well trained and disciplined? Yes, if not caught. The abuses and rapes of these soldiers would have not been discovered had it not for a few comrades whose guilt conscience prevailed. That rape and murder of an Iraqi girl and the massacre of her entire family was only found out when a colleague broke down in a stress theraphy session. And these things did not and are not only happening in Iraq or Afghanistan. Out there in Asia like Japan and the Philippines, some Marines are being investigated for rape and murder cases.
Macy Only one person didnt get the point. However it was very clear and concise.
Definition of terrorism noun
1. The systematic and organized use of violence and intimidation to force a government or community, etc to act in a certain way or accept certain dema
What constitutes a terrorist?
The definition of a terrorist in our dictionary is "A person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a society". Since most of society uses the roads, we believe that someone who uses violence and intimidating methods to coerce the driving public into giving way etc can fairly come into the definition of "terrorist".
And if some **** who chases you up the motorway at 140kph or deliberately uses his vehicle to try to knock you off your bike doesn't qualify as a terrorist, no-one does.
The following article is typical of how many nations are feeling wary of the USA tactics:
African leaders wary of evolving US definition of 'terrorist'
Allied warships are patrolling the Horn of Africa to intercept terrorists seeking refuge.
By Andrew West | Special to The Christian Science Monitor March 20, 2002
As the US-led war on terrorism draws surveillance warships and aircraft to Somalia, African nations are growing nervous that the emerging US definition of "terrorist" could put them on the wrong team in the new world order. To many Africans, the US appears fickle in its notion of what constitutes terrorism. And as US warplanes conduct surveillance over Somalia, and German warships deploy off the Horn of Africa, African leaders point at what they call a US double standard.
African leaders at the summit are also rankled at attempts by the US and Britain to define terrorists. During their own liberation struggles, many Africans, including South Africa's Thabo Mbeki, appeared on State Department terrorist lists, but are now considered allies, even friends. "We are part of the international coalition," says Gurirab, "but at the same time we think the very narrow definition of terrorism is built around only enemies of the US and the West." The US supported rebel groups in Angola and Mozambique, as well as oppressive white-minority regimes in South Africa and Zimbabwe. With US help, Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi not only tried to topple the Angolan government during the 1980s, but throughout the 1990s he armed rebels
E:
E: Blah blah blah or yada yada are just ways of not finishing a sentence. U are 2 touch feely here. It Wasnt meant to be deragatory or Insensitive.
Foreign Policy & Nat Security?....That's what is scary.. As shown above in the article. One day you are fine and the next day you are not. No reason...just because. And these are the people who are deciding who and when a person or group becomes deemed a terrorist. and yes it is sometimes out of the blue. Just depends on what deal or who's back we are scratching at the time.
Foreign Policy and Nat. Security did not stop USA from acting like Terroist when it invaded IRAQ against UN? What good is it then if it cannot be enforced against a couple of renegades. USA & UK
Just becuase we see this so called respect to ancestry blah blah.. on paper... It does not mean it is so or is exeercised. American Law says that everyone here is equal by law, yet Prejudice and bigotry remain and is exercised on a daily basis. Government does nothing about it. Implement a few laws but again they are not exercised.
Spent much time in library but also spent much time in reality and real nitty gritty of things. Get you head out of those virtual books, stop watching CNN/Fox news and and start visiting the world and seeing and hearing the real deal .
And you are correct.. It is obvious to every ther Euro nation most other countries in this world just exactly what is going on. UK doesnt count, no I mean YO Blair doesnt count, Many of UK people are too intelligent and cultured to fall for that BS, and Blair only speaks for UK on paper per say like GWB idiot. just like many of US people are too smart to fall for GWB horsecrap, but unfortunately he speaks for USA whether we like it or not. & he is just making it worse for the US by being a unprofessional **** and arrogant bafoon who embarrases this great nation at every turn.
Macy.. USA were already taken down a notch with 911. Lets hope that there will not be more coming.
You copy-pasted the story of one Lt. Ehren K. Watada who was stupid enough to disobey orders and refuse to be deployed in Iraq AFTER voluntarily joining the Army and swearing to abite by the Code of Military Conduct. Obviously he will face Court Martial and found guilty. And justifiably so.[/quote] Actually AF, NO. he can refuse orders if he firmly believes that the orders are unconstitutional. Even if he is found to have misinterpreted the code, he can still be honorably discharged. His consequence now, even if he wins, is that his career is over.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Hudson,
This is for Iperson: To understand Hezbollah, it is important to begin with this point: Almost all Muslim Arabs opposed the creation of the state of Israel. Not all of them supported, or support today, the creation of an independent Palestinian state or recognize the Palestinian people as a distinct nation. This is a vital and usually overlooked distinction that is the starting point in our thinking.
When Israel was founded, three distinct views emerged among Arabs. The first was that Israel was a part of the British mandate created after World War I and therefore should have been understood as part of an entity stretching from the Mediterranean to the other side of Jordan, from the border of the Sinai, north to Mount Hermon. Therefore, after 1948, the West Bank became part of the other part of the mandate, Jordan.
There was a second view that argued that there was a single province of the Ottoman Empire called Syria and that all of this province -- what today is Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and the country of Syria -- is legitimately part of it. This obviously was the view of Syria, whose policy was and in some ways continues to be that Syria province, divided by Britain and France after World War I, should be reunited under the rule of Damascus.
A third view emerged after the establishment of Israel, pioneered by Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt. This view was that there is a single Arab nation that should be gathered together in a United Arab Republic. This republic would be socialist, more secular than religious and, above all, modernizing, joining the rest of the world in industrialization and development.
All of these three views rejected the existence of Israel, but each had very different ideas of what ought to succeed it. The many different Palestinian groups that existed after the founding of Israel and until 1980 were not simply random entities. They were, in various ways, groups that straddled these three opinions, with a fourth added after 1967 and pioneered by Yasser Arafat. This view was that there should be an independent Palestinian state, that it should be in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, extend to the original state of Israel and ultimately occupy Jordan as well. That is why, in September 1970, Arafat tried to overthrow King Hussein in Jordan. For Arafat, Amman, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv were all part of the Palestinian homeland.
After the Iranian revolution, a fifth strain emerged. This strain made a general argument that the real issue in the Islamic world was to restore religious-based government. This view opposed the pan-Arab vision of Nasser with the pan-Islamic vision of Khomeini. It regarded the particular nation-states as less important than the type of regime they had. This primarily Shiite view was later complemented by what was its Sunni counterpart. Rooted partly in Wahhabi Sunni religiosity and partly in the revolutionary spirit of Iran, its view was that the Islamic nation-states were the problem and that the only way to solve it was a transnational Islamic regime -- the caliphate -- that would restore the power of the Islamic world.
That pedantic lesson complete, we can now locate Hezbollah's ideology and intentions more carefully. Hezbollah is a Shiite radical group that grew out of the Iranian revolution. However, there is a tension in its views, because it also is close to Syria. As such, it is close to a much more secular partner, more in the Nasserite tradition domestically. But it also is close to a country that views Lebanon, Jordan and Israel as part of greater Syria, the Syria torn apart by the British and French.
There are deep contradictions ideologically between Iran and Syria, though they share a common interest. First, they both oppose the Sunnis. Remember that when Lebanon first underwent invasion in 1975, it was by Syria intervening on behalf of Christian friends and against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Syria hated Arafat because Arafat insisted on an independent Palestinian state and Syria opposed it. This was apart from the fact that Syria had business interests in Lebanon that the PLO was interfering with. Iran also opposed the PLO because of its religious/ethnic orientation; moreso because it was secular and socialist.
Hezbollah emerged as a group representing Syrian and Iranian interests. These were:
* Opposition to the state of Israel
* An ambiguous position on an independent Palestine
* Hostility to the United States for supporting Israel and later championing Yasser Arafat
Hezbollah had to straddle the deep division between Syrian secularity and Iranian religiosity. However the other three interests allowed them to postpone the issue.
This brings us to the current action. Three things happened to energize Hezbollah:
First, the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon under pressure from the United States undermined an understanding between Israel and Syria. Israel would cede Lebanon to Syria. Syria would control Hezbollah. When Syria lost out in Lebanon, its motive for controlling Hezbollah disappeared. Syria, in fact, wanted the world to see what would happen if Syria left Lebanon. Chaos was exactly what Syria wanted.
Second, the election of a Hamas-controlled government in the Palestinian territories created massive fluidity in Palestinian politics. The Nasserite Fatah was in decline and a religious Sunni movement was on the rise. Both accepted the principle of Palestinian independence. None made room for either Syrian or Iranian interests. It was essential that Hezbollah, representing itself and the two nations, have a seat at the table that would define Palestinian politics for a generation. But Hezbollah was more a group of businessmen making money in Beirut than a revolutionary organization. It had to demonstrate its commitment to the destruction of Israel even if it was ambiguous on the nature of the follow-on regime. It had to do something.
Third, the Sunni-Shiite fault line had become venomous. Tensions not only in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan and Pakistan were creating a transnational civil war between these two movements. Iran was positioning itself to replace al Qaeda as the revolutionary force in the Islamic world and was again challenging Saudi Arabia as the center of gravity of Islamic religiosity. Israel was a burning issue. It had to be there. Moreover, in its dealings with the United States over Iraq, Iran needed as many levers as possible, and a front in Lebanon confronting Israel, particularly if it bogged down the Israelis, would do just that.
Hezbollah is enabled by both Syria and Iran. But precisely because of both national and ideological differences between those two countries, Hezbollah is not simply a tool for them. They each have influence over Hezbollah but this influence is sometimes contradictory. Syria's interests and Iran's are never quite the same. Nor are Hezbollah's interests quite the same as those of its patrons. Hezbollah has business interests in legal and illegal businesses around the world. It has interests within Lebanese politics and it has interests in Palestinian politics. As a Syrian client, it looks at the region as one entity. As an Iranian client, it looks to create a theocratic state in the region. As an entity in its own right, it must keep itself going.
Given all these forces, Hezbollah was in a position in which it had to take some significant action in Lebanon, Israel and the Islamic world or be bypassed by other, more effective, groups. Hezbollah chose to act. The decision it made was to go to war with Israel. It did not think it could win the war but it did think it could survive it. And if it fought and survived, it would have a seat at the Palestinian and Lebanese tables, and maintain and reconcile the patronage of Syria and Iran. The reasons were complex, the action was clear.
Hezbollah had prepared for war with Israel for years. It had received weapons and training from Iran and Syria. It had prepared systematic fortifications using these weapons in southern Lebanon after Israel's withdrawal, but also in the Bekaa Valley, where its main base of operations was and in the area south of Beirut, where its political center was. It had prepared for this war carefully, particularly studying the U.S. experience in Iraq.
In our view, Hezbollah has three military goals in this battle:
1. Fight the most effective defensive battle ever fought against Israel by an Arab army, surpassing the performance of Egypt and Syria in 1973.
2. Inflict direct and substantial damage on Israel proper using conventional weapons in order to demonstrate the limits of Israeli power.
3. Draw Israel into an invasion of Lebanon and, following resistance, move to an insurgency that does to the Israelis what the Sunnis in Iraq have done to the Americans.
In doing this, the U.S.-Israeli bloc would be fighting simultaneously on two fronts. This would place Jordan in a difficult position. It would radicalize Syria (Syria is too secular to be considered radical in this context). It would establish Hezbollah as the claimant to Arab and Islamic primacy along the Levant. It also would establish Shiite radicalism as equal to Sunni radicalism.
The capture of two Israeli soldiers was the first provocation, triggering Israeli attacks. But neither the capture nor the retaliation represented a break point. That happened when Hezbollah rockets hit Haifa, several times, presenting Israel with a problem that forced it to take military steps -- steps for which Hezbollah thought it was ready and which it thought it could survive, and exploit. Hezbollah had to have known that attacking the third largest city in Israel would force a response. That is exactly what it wanted.
Hezbollah's strategy will be to tie down the Israelis as long as possible first in the area south of the Litani River and then north in the Bekaa. It can, and will, continue to rocket Haifa from further north. It will inflict casualties and draw the Israelis further north. At a certain point Hezbollah will do what the Taliban and Saddam Hussein did: It will suddenly abandon the conventional fight, going to ground, and then re-emerge as a guerrilla group, inflicting casualties on the Israelis as the Sunnis do on the Americans, wearing them down.
Israel's strategy, as we have seen, will be to destroy Hezbollah's infrastructure but not occupy any territory. In other words, invade, smash and leave, carrying out follow-on attacks as needed. Hezbollah's goal will be to create military problems that force Israel to maintain a presence for an extended period of time, so that its follow-on strategy can be made to work. This will be what determines the outcome of the war. Hezbollah will try to keep Israel from disengaging. Israel will try to disengage.
Hezbollah sees the war in these stages:
1. Rocket attacks to force and Israeli response.
2. An extended period of conventional combat to impose substantial losses on the Israelis, and establish Hezbollah capabilities to both Israel and the Arab and Islamic worlds. This will involve using fairly sophisticated weaponry and will go on as long as Hezbollah can extend it.
3. Hezbollah's abandonment of conventional warfare for a prepared insurgency program.
What Hezbollah wants is political power in Lebanon and among the Palestinians, and freedom for action within the context of Syrian-Iranian relations. This war will cost it dearly, but it has been preparing for this for a generation. Some of the old guard may not have the stomach for this, but it was either this or be pushed aside by the younger bloods. Syria wanted to see this happen. Iran wanted to see this happen. Iran risks nothing. Syria risks little since Israel is terrified of the successor regime to the Assads. So long as Syria limits resupply and does not intervene, Israel must leave Damascus out.
Looked at from Hezbollah's point of view, taking the fight to the Israelis is something that has not happened in quite a while. Hezbollah's hitting of Haifa gives it the position it has sought for a generation. If it can avoid utter calamity, it will have won -- if not by defeating Israel, then by putting itself first among the anti-Israeli forces. What Hezbollah wants in Israel is much less clear and important than what it opposes. It opposes Israel and is the most effective force fighting it.
Fatah and Hamas are now bystanders in the battle for Israel. They have no love for or trust in Hezbollah, but Hezbollah is doing what they have only talked about. Israel's mission is to crush Hezbollah quickly. Hezbollah's job is to survive and hurt Israel and the IDF as long as possible. That is what this war is about for Hezbollah.
[quote]In fact I am not mad with you or anything.. When I call you a d.umbass I simply state it as a matter of fact, not namecalling [quote]
I missed this post.. Ok E. You want to call me profanity and then try to hide behind the auspice that it is a fact.... FAct according to E. What else is new. I gave you a chance to apologize for your inappropriate behaviour/ namecalling outbursts, but you choose to again stand on ceremony. How disappointing. And you WERE mad.. maybe not directly at me, but nevertheless mad, or you would not have resorted to that tone of language .
One Poster said it best about you E :
[Quote] You should have said "Everyone is entitled to my opinion" or "I may be wrong but I doubt it".[quote]
[quote]What constitutes a terrorist? The definition of a terrorist in our dictionary is "A person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a society"....[/quote]
According to your definition and interpretation of terrorism you sound pretty much like a terrorist yourself, 4now, because you hereby terrorise and coerce readers into accepting your notion that practically anyone without exceptions can be deemed a terrorist.
[quote]..African leaders wary of evolving US definition of 'terrorist'..[/quote]
Why didn't you read this, d.umbass?
"I. Henry Kissinger reasonably argued that the affairs between States are not governed by the same set of rules that govern the interrelation between Individuals within the boundaries of States. Those are two profoundly different , incompatible settings. When and if two individuals quarrel (for whatever reason) there is a higher authority - the State itself - that they both can appeal to and ask for judgement. And when they do so (appeal to higher authority) their claims are adjudicated impartially, based on merits of claim and accepted custom/ law that applies universally to each individual within the boundaries of such State (at least there is a common agreement and desire of it being so in the most developed States of the world). But when there is a conflict of States (which arises from conflict of interests) it is the raw military power coupled with diplomacy that will settle disagreements - with the use of diplomacy in direct correlation to the degree of power that State possess".
In an International War setting Interests of Nation Define who is an ALLY and who is the ENEMY, whom to HELP and whom to DESTROY. Simple as that ! There is no 'Code of World Regulations'. UN has no power to enforce it's own decrees so it's more like a decoration, an ornament on the facade of the World Politics than an effective tool to settle and control World Affairs.
Thus Foreign Affairs is none of the ice-cream-candy-puff that Civil Affairs in comparison are.
Everything in Foreign Affairs is FLUID - there is no undisputable high authority, no single World Government - but scores of the competing forces who don't play the neat sports-game.
When will you GET that?
[quote] It Wasnt meant to be deragatory or Insensitive.[/quote]
And who said that saying you are a d.umbass or poopsterhead meant to be deragatory or insensitive? So, who is "2 touch feely" here ?
[quote]Foreign Policy & Nat Security?....That's what is scary.. As shown above in the article. One day you are fine and the next day you are not. No reason...just because. [/quote]
Yeah, you are right, that is if I was stupid enough to showe my head into US Foreign Policy affairs and vehemently criticise it. Obviously I am not such an imbecile as to dig my own grave.
[quote]..American Law says that everyone here is equal by law, yet Prejudice and bigotry remain and is exercised on a daily basis.. [/quote]
Yeah, and that's where I come into discussion !
DOMESTIC CIVIL AFFAIRS - Particularly relating to MIS-treatment of immigrants other than of 'Scandinavian' descent. I will put all my heart and strength - ALL MY WILLPOWER into THIS - to PROVE that it is FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG to MIStreat someone SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF ONES RACE, COLOR, S E X , APPEARANCE and etc.
[quote]Government does nothing about it. Implement a few laws but again they are not exercised.[/quote]
Why you lie? Government tries to do what it can to improve things but is incapable of micro-managing every single aspect of people's life. So it is incumbent on US, ORDINARY PEOPLE, TO STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHTS AND DEFEND OURSELVES WHENEVER WE ARE ATTACKED OR MISTREATED SOLELY ON THE ACCOUNT OF OUR RACE, COLOR, S E X, APPEARANCE and etc.
And Government, the Existing Laws and Constitution shall ALL inspire us to the great degree to stand up for what is right, and in fact all three are the rock-bed upon which we stand to defend ourselves whenever we are being MIStreated on the account of OUR RACE, COLOR, S E X, APPEARANCE and etc. !
[quote]Get you head out of those virtual books, stop watching CNN/Fox news and and start visiting the world and seeing and hearing the real deal .[/quote]
I think the 'E' you talk to exists only in your head and is nothing but a product of your own imagination.
What a POOPSTER !!!
Posts: 2501 | Location: NJ, USA | Registered: 03-11-2006
[quote]Ditto Now go back to your seat and take 5.... And no Soup for you![/quote]
Hm.. One old man told me this about 12 years ago (seeing that my too straightforward manner of communication can be creating obstacles on my path in future), he suggested that I should never be as straightforward as I am but instead I should say what I mean (criticise) abstractly and then immediately add some sort of a complement or good-gesture - as to offset the impact of what was said and prevent opponent from holding a justifiable grudge. As you can see I have never followed his advise. Precisely because it is unfair to others and myself. I love and respect people (just as myself) in a true, sincere sense of the word and HENCE my straightforwardness.
Now, take a 5 and go back to you seat.
Drink some epple juice !
Posts: 2501 | Location: NJ, USA | Registered: 03-11-2006
[quote]According to your definition and interpretation of terrorism you sound pretty much like a terrorist yourself, 4now, because you hereby terrorise and coerce readers into accepting your notion that practically anyone without exceptions can be deemed a terrorist.[/quote]
Exactly my point AF. Im glad you get it now.
I have read kissinger and am very familiar with that paragraph and Henry Kissinger. Why would you think this would change my opinion.. just because you read it and accept it??????
US Foreign Policy has been "riding dirty" for many years going way back into history. This is nothing new for US. The Junior Bush regime is just doing it sooo New York gang style or Mafia style that there is no longer a pretense that can be maintained that it is anything other than what it appears to be. THUGS!
Daddy Bush regime was trigger happy. Big Butt_hole Liar and Bully. Apple doesnt fall far from the rotten tree.
Assasinations, assasination attempts, payoffs for support, forgiveness of debt for support yada yada trying to coerce nations to stand with them when they want to name a group terrorist or put on watch list etc. If all this money that they spend could be put into america's evergrowing financial problems, it would be a better place.
How many debts did US forgive just to get support for Desert Storm. The amounts make me sick! The almighty dollar will win almost everytime.
Of course USA would not look bad upon Israels killing of 600 lebonaese for 2 soldiers. Look what US did for Pearl Harbor... Overreact and drop the bomb on innocent civilians. Thats Sick! Who in their right mind would support a country as being the most responsible to continue to have nuclear power after behaving so irresponsibly and reckless What hypocrytes.
[quote]Why you lie? Government tries to do what it can to improve things but is incapable of micro-managing every single aspect of people's life[quote]
It' no lie . All on paper.. not the real world. Government is guilty of propaganda and trying to cast aspersions on certain ethnic groups. Media is their biggest tool, and some government programs.
All on paper my friend. whats the first thing government did to Japanese living in this country during the war. Locked up. no reason. Just because is the reality.
Iran conflict.... Iranians in this country put on black list.
Arab conflict... No outward motions like in the past, but it is unspoken, and the anti arab sentiment is very active in the news through the power of suggestion.
Look at the anti mexican sentiment.. the anti black sentiment in this country. the whole anti immigrant sentiment.. all acheived thru media. and its not just fairus.org as u would say. The government allows it. and doesnt do anything to try to combat it.
[quote]I think the 'E' you talk to exists only in your head and is nothing but a product of your own imagination.[quote]
E.. look at what you just said above... You have just described yourself and MEPP groupies.
I leave you with What would TRIUMPH say
Ps. You should show respect and listen to your elders.. There is a lot to learn from Elders.
[quote]Exactly my point AF. Im glad you get it now.[/quote]
But your point is wrong.
NO ONE, not even the members of the highest National Security Council nor heads of FBI/JD won't designate just anyone whithout an exception to be a terrorist - UNLESS there are at least SOME grounds to beleive that the person is in one or another way the threat to Public Safety and Government (domestic terrorism) or a threat to Foreign Policy and National Security (international terrorism).
[quote]US Foreign Policy has been "riding dirty" for many years going way back into history...What hypocrytes[/quote]
No, you d.umbass, Foreign Policy is the whole different b.all game and I won't get deep into it in a WARTIME, other than fighting for US if asked to - and I then would do my best to fight and destroy all enemies of US as quickly and effectively as possible.
[quote]It' no lie . All on paper.. not the real world. Government is guilty of ...[/quote]
I don't know what Government is guilty of as related to control of media, but I have had several encounters with Government.
1. First notable about 4 years ago. I was screwed by crooked, corrupted and well connected Private Attorney (that he was all above I learned, alas, too late). I had almost no recourse to claim my fees back, let alone the damage done by lost case. Attorney wouldn't even speak to me - just hung up anytime I called to ask what was going on.
Once I got screwed no one backed me - I contacted dozens of private law offices , talked to people, even my sister - everyone said that I will get nothing, that I am screwed and I should just move on.
I didn't. I contacted the Attorney Grievance Committee, contacted NY State Court, even contacted Federal and District Law Enforcement Agents.
None has mistreated me in the course of interactions. Moreover, I got moral support to pursue the cause. The Grievance Committee sent letters of reprimand to attorney - two actually. The NY State Court appointed an arbiter , set the hearing date and the arbiter ordered attorney to pay back fees owed.
So much for 'guilty Government'.
2. I drive well, never been at fault in any accident, rarely speed more than 5-8 miles an hour. But on few occasions I did unintentional mistakes and was pulled over. I would say 3 or 4 times total in past 6 years. I never got a ticket in past 5 or 6 years ! I don't know WHY, but I was told to be more focused, wished safe trip and let go.
So much for 'guilty COPs'
3. Recently I applied for Military Service. I didn't qualify, alas, so wasn't taken. However, I was treated with MORE respect by Army Officers than I have ever been in Civilian life. They DID TRY to accept me, but it was beyond their control since I simply didn't qualify.
So much for 'bad, abusive US Army'.
So I will tell you this: the worst things and prejudices that exist in our society do NOT come from Government , they come from regular prejudiced poopsterheads who neither know nor seen anyhing beyond their streetcorner/neighborhood. That's how it is, like it or not.
[quote]whats the first thing government did to Japanese living in this country during the war. Locked up. no reason. Just because is the reality.[/quote]
No. I believe authority comes from Title 50 (Executive Warpowers). I might be wrong about exact statute, but it's a LAW, it is LAWFUL to detain, imprison, excile and etc. any Alien during the Wartime if it is determined to be in National Security interests and/or if there is potential danger to Security/Safety of the Public posed by presence of the certain designated class/group of Aliens. In certain extreme cases (like with Japaneese during the war with Japan) , even US Citizenship wouldn't protect from internment.
Posts: 2501 | Location: NJ, USA | Registered: 03-11-2006
Anyone with a basic knowledge of Middle East history knows that peace has been elusive in this region since Israel was founded as an independent state in 1948. Since 1967 alone, Israel has been attacked by its Arab neighbors a number of times, each time repelling these unprovoked conflicts successfully.
Israel, a tiny slice in the vast Mideast area, is the only democratic regime there and has been the staunchest ally of the United States for years. Both countries share the same ideals of freedom, both face a common enemy, and it's not surprising that the U.S. would support Israel's actions to fight the fascist tactics of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization financed by Iran which has repeatedly announced its plan to put Israel off the map.
The above facts are not necessarily my position. I just want to bring up the other side of the coin. Of course whatever the history says, it doesn't erase the fact that Israel supported by the US is the aggressor and culprit. Imagine, attacking an entire nation just to recover one young soldier. It's like burning the whole house and building just to find a lost dog.
If you sit at your home and every day you hear rockets pounding and exploding nearby, with your kids and family walking around, what action ,in your opinion , should your Government take to prevent it?
Hezbollah kept firing those rockets on Israel for long while, it was on radio almost every day, with reports of destructions inflicted, sometimes injuries and deaths of Israelis. So how long do you think it would take for Israel before it finaly responded? And since it's better armed and equipped, what is surprising about the firepower it returned?
What is incomprehensible is the logic of Hezbollah, or of their leader. It is reported that Iran and Syria is behind them. Ok, suppose neither Iran nor Syria doesn't give rat's behind about how many Lebanese will die as a result of provocation caused by indiscriminate firings of rockets by Hezbollah, so they ordered Hezbollah to carry out those operations precisely to force Israel to inflict as much casualties on Lebanon as possible.
But I still don't comprehend, what is it that either Iran or Syria gain from it?
Suppose one day Israel says :"Enough is enough !" and drops dozens of nuclear bombs both on Syria and Iran and literally obliterates both countries from the surface of earth. Then what?
As I stated on OP:
"By resorting to brute force rather than diplomacy Arabs violate one of the most imperative dictates of warfare strategy as defined by the greatest soldier of all times, Napoleon Bonaparte: namely, he said, you do NOT start or wage war unless you know to possess superior to your adversary resources and skills, both military and economic".
So, no matter how you turn the coin, Arabs (and Iranians, for that matter) are insane.
Posts: 2501 | Location: NJ, USA | Registered: 03-11-2006
You call Arabs insane but they call you a pig. If you're white, they call you a white pig.
How can rockets match huge bombs? It's like a small gun against a huge canyon. It's like a firecracker against missile.
No matter how you argue, the fact is the Hezbollah and the Lebanese are the underdogs. Hear what a small injured Lebanese girl said in an interview: "Why are they (Israel) doing this to us, it's not our fault?" Then she cries. How many innocent Lebanese civilians are in such condition?
[quote] You call Arabs insane but they call you a pig.[/quote]
Regardless of what Arabs would call me I state the fact that the actions they take are insane.
[quote]How can rockets match huge bombs? It's like a small gun against a huge canyon. It's like a firecracker against missile.[/quote]
Good questions you ask there. What I don't comprehend is WHY Sheik Nasrallah doesn't ask himself the same.
[quote]No matter how you argue, the fact is the Hezbollah and the Lebanese are the underdogs*. [/quote]
I see you finally agree with me.
[quote]Hear what a small injured Lebanese girl said in an interview: "Why are they (Israel) doing this to us, it's not our fault?" Then she cries.[/quote]
Yes, Arabs always do that. First they provoke - attack, blow and kill Israelis. Then they lose many lives. Next they wail and cry and ask "How long this will continue? We are innocent!" After a little while the cycle repeats. For 60 years now..
____________________________________
Underdog* -One that is expected to lose a contest or struggle, as in sports or politics
Posts: 2501 | Location: NJ, USA | Registered: 03-11-2006
Have you heard that Israel just pulled out from one area they entered? The reality is Israel might have all the air power and tanks; but they cannot fight on the ground. They are just like our US soldiers who make use of all the machineries, jets, tanks, ships, but man to man on the ground, we're like the Israelites losing on the ground. How can people forgive a country that even bombed a UN position killing four UN peacekeeping soldiers? How can we forgive a country that refuses to halt to allow humanitarian aids to enter Lebanon? I used to hate the Nazis for killing millions of Jews. Now I understand the history better...I now don't blame the Nazis. After all, aren't Israel and US acting like Nazis today?
[quote]Have you heard that Israel just pulled out from one area they entered?[/quote]
Too bad for Israel if they did ! Half measures are worse than nothing !
That's why the war there never ends - half measures on one side, insanity on the other.
What Israelis need is very decisive , total victory - and that can't be achieved by bombing one day and pulling out under pressure the next.
Why did they leave southern Lebanon (in 2000) in the first place?
What they need is the Commander on the ground who can personally lead the fight, destroy Hezbollah fighters in person and then command the terms of unconditional surrender - and do so without ANY hesitation.
The war campaign in Mid East against Arabs must be led by very decisive, daring, shrewd, brutal but not merciless Commander.
Someone who won't hesitate to shoot and kill with one hand and help with the other, carefully chosing whom to kill and whom to spare.
Israelis lack the understanding of Arab mentality , or they would submit the latter to their will in the matter of the months.
Arabs, on the other hand, are insane enough to continue the doomed resistance as long as not defeated decisevly and unconditionally.
Posts: 2501 | Location: NJ, USA | Registered: 03-11-2006
Your last comments were a bit better...more factual. You asked why Israel attack and withdraw? It's a military move. It's like playing chess. But I still believe they cannot fight the Hezbollah on the ground. First, Hezbollah has the support of the Lebanese. They're well loved. In any war, the support of the civilians is very important. Second, the US is now feeling a tremendous pressure from all other countries in the world. Take note Bush has softened his verbal attacks and stupid remarks. That's why Sec. Rice went back to Israel for the second time; and this coincided the Israel's withdrawal of one territory today. You may not agree but at this point of the conflict, Israel is losing. Out of the more than 600 Lebanese killed, only about 100 or less Hezbollah fighters were killed including one commander. On the Israel's side, only about 60 were killed and most were also civilians. Ninety percent of those killed were civilians. How can Israel or the other side claim she's winning when the dead are mostly civilians? No one wins in a war. The victims are always the civilians. For this reason, we must understand the anti-war advocates more. If you like wars, why don't you go and fight for Israel???
[quote]Your last comments were a bit better...more factual.[/quote]
Which one of my comments was less factual?
Withdrawal in absence of decisive victory is not a good military move - one withdraws only to save troops when heavily outnumbered and outgunned by opponent. Neither applies to Israeli Army.
[quote]No one wins in a war.[/quote]
As a matter of fact this is not true.
[quote] The victims are always the civilians. [/quote]
Everything must be done to bring civilian lossess to minimum.
[quote]..we must understand the anti-war advocates more..[/quote]
I tried to, but in final analysis they are Don Quichotish.
[quote]..If you like wars, why don't you go and fight for Israel???..[/quote]
I am not Israeli, but I applied for US Army and would fight for American Army, however I wasn't quilified to serve.
Posts: 2501 | Location: NJ, USA | Registered: 03-11-2006
Why weren't you qualified to serve? Because you're ***? You can't run a mile? You can't do push up? You can't salute? You're bowlegged and can't march? You're a big mouth like how you behave here? You're a coward? You're an illegal alien? Your're anti-constitution? Which of the above reasons?
Bring civilians to a minimum? Ha, ha. Israel kept bombing from day one as if they're doing it in the toilet. They didn't care. They didn't even know where their enemies are? They even bombed the UN force that upset the UN Secretary General forcing him to comment they did it deliberately. Let's see...same thing happening in Iraq. The US also kept bombing from day one. When their crimes were discovered, all they could say was those were accidental.
What makes you think withdrawal is good? No wonder your girl friend or wife hates you!
Add to del.icio.us
Lets hope that there will not be more coming.
What else is new. I gave you a chance to apologize for your inappropriate behaviour/ namecalling outbursts, but you choose to again stand on ceremony. How disappointing. And you WERE mad.. maybe not directly at me, but nevertheless mad, or you would not have resorted to that tone of language .
