Moderators From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 503 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4744 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Due to the number and length of posts in the Official Middle East Conflict Discussion Thread 3 (by Moderators Aug 5 2006 in Non Aviation), here is part 4. Thank you very much to the posters in that thread for keeping the discussion civil. The same guidelines will be applied to this thread as to the previous one:
Quote: This thread is for discussion and debate of the political issues revolving around the current Middle East conflict.
YOU ARE NOT TO POST INSULTS, ABUSE, INSINUATIONS ABOUT USERS, FLAMEBAIT, RACISM, INCITEMENTS TO VIOLENCE OR ANY OTHER THING WHICH WOULD BE IN BREACH OF THE DISCUSSION FORUM RULES.
Any posts which are removed from this thread for breaching the above condition will result in an AUTOMATIC 2 WEEK BAN, with the possibility of the ban being extended where the moderators feel the breach warrants it. You have been warned.
Braybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5480 posts, RR: 34 Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4720 times:
Five years into the "War on Terror" Israel are killing Lebanese civilians in their hundreds; Hizbollah are stronger than ever in Lebanon and are lauching missiles at Israel at a rate they can only have dreamt of; Iraq is ungovernable and there is a de facto civil war in place; the Taliban are resurgent in Afghanistan as the war there is about to enter its sixth year; Iran's president calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and is on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons. There have been a couple of hundred people murdered in Madrid, London and Turkey; and today there was a very real risk of airliners being blown-up over the Atlantic.
I thought the whole idea behind this war was to make the world a safer place?
I think the problem in this "war" is that it creates more and more enemies. For example in Lebanon, all this news and pictures of killed and wounded civilians, children etc. will only stir up hatred towards Israel and the West among Muslims. And of course I ask myself, is the abduction of two soldiers proportionate to the killing of hundreds of civilians?
In Iraq it is the same. All the killings and torture by the "liberators" has been so counter-productive. It brings more and more recruits to the insurgents. In the long run the foreign troops will be bombed out, because support at home for their mission will not be big enough. Then Iraq will be no better off than under Saddam and be a real threat to the world.
Afghanistan seems pretty lost as well. There is no political solution for it. The Taleban seem to have many human reserves and there are not enough Western troops there to stabilize the country.
Sorry for the pessimistic outlook, but that's the way I see it. I think the real answer to terrorism is not in bombs and bullets but rather in political fairness. Few people turn into terrorists as long as they have a fair political participation.
Aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8522 posts, RR: 46 Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4693 times:
I just noticed this magazine cover, pissed me off:
the pictures: an orthodox Jew praying, a tank firing, young female Israeli soldiers in uniforms (1960s maybe), the wall between Israel and the Westbank, the Dome of the Rock and the Israeli flag
The subtitles are "What makes the country this aggressive" and "The history of the State of the Jews".
As for the first one, "aggressive"? The entire country? If they hadn't been attacked time and again by their lovely neighbours, some of which (such as Egypt & Jordan) have now officially come to terms with Israel's very existance, there'd be no need for any "aggression" at all.
Second: It probably sounds alright in English, but in my book "Judenstaat" ("Jewish State") in German sounds highly derogatory... I've long held "Stern" magazine in low regard, but this pretty much settles it - borderline anti-semitism at the very least.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6488 posts, RR: 8 Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4693 times:
My view is that war is big business. Big for those who sell the weapons, big business for those who get contracts to monitor the peace, big business for those who get contracts to rebuild, big for everything / one involved in war.
In this conflict, lets debate the reason why the Lebanese, Hezbollah, Arab League and the French would support a plan to put 15,000 Lebanese soldiers on the southern border with the existing UNIFIL force?
Every supporter of Lebanon, every neutral observer, every expert I have seen on BBC, every reporter, every Lebanese Govt. official, every Israeli supporter, every Israeli Govt. official, French Govt., US, UN all of them have been universal on the following two points:
1. The Lebanese Army does not have the military power to disarm Hezbollah
2. The Lebanese do not want a civil war by attempting to disarm Hezbollah.
Is the giving of the Sheba Farms to Lebanon the magic pill that will suddenly transform Hezbollah into a group that will accept a Jewish State on its border? The number of prisoners Lebanon and Israel claim are in Israeli jails are not high, at least not Lebanese prisoners, so that can't be it either. What exactly is Lebanon attempting to do, certainely, they have convinced the Arab League and the French of the viability of their plan, I would be interested in knowing what it is.
Based on what has taken place so far, when Hezbollah launches a resistance attack in support of its Palestinian brothers, do they believe that Israel will not respond because the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL are on the border? UNIFIL already had Hezbollah fighters in close proximity to its post and they were bombed, ditto the Lebanese Army, they have been hit as well.
To my knowledge, the US has not supported placing US troops in the proposed international force, so do the Lebanese Govt. fear foreign peace keepers on their soil more than a potential civil war? That seems like a stretch, so the end result will probably be that instead of just Israeli and Hezbollah fighters being killed, the Lebanese Army will join them?
This first amendment to the initial draft has me totally confused, as well as the French acceptance of the initial draft which they knew had no hope of being accepted. I cannot say what would have happened, but if a more reasonable initial draft had been proposed, a ceasefire might be closer now rather than further away. As to a post in the last thread where the issue was raised about the suffering taking place, now we need to include the French, US and UN negotiators, as their bone-head initial draft has resulted in another couple weeks of fighting. War is big business, is this what they all wanted?
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9743 posts, RR: 37 Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4677 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 4): now we need to include the French, US and UN negotiators, as their bone-head initial draft has resulted in another couple weeks of fighting.
I suspect that the first draft was agreed with the Israelis only, Par13del, and then presented to the Lebanese as a sort of fait accompli. Full marks to the Lebanese for insisting on changes; can't have been an easy thing to do, to delay things when your country is being ground to powder around you, day by day.
Oddly enough, I think the pressure is on the Israelis now. They either agree to reasonable terms (especially a timetable for their own withdrawal) or they have to stay in Lebanon themselves, for months or even years, losing military people every day and with rockets still coming over.
The French are in a very strong position, because they are the only 'politically-correct' people around with a big un-committed conscript army on tap. The United States, Britain, and Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada only have small peacetime armies, and those are already fully-committed in other places, particularly Afghanistan and Iraq.
So the choice for Israel looks like being either to accept a largely-French UN Force on French terms which give the Lebanese a fair shake, or face a situation where 'there ain't gonna be no UN Force', and the Israeli Army has to stay in Lebanon longterm. Getting shot at 24 hours a day.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Frequentflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 736 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4668 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5): So the choice for Israel looks like being either to accept a largely-French UN Force on French terms which give the Lebanese a fair shake, or face a situation where 'there ain't gonna be no UN Force', and the Israeli Army has to stay in Lebanon longterm. Getting shot at 24 hours a day.
Well a largely-French contingent on French terms would also give Israel a fair shake I think. There is opportunity to be seen as a regional pacifier, something the French are never allergic to.
But if the whole thing is skewed towards benefitting more one side or the other, it will be, one more time a failure.
The need is pacification, removing the terrorist threat, arming and organizing a professional Lebanese army in charge of protecting Lebanon.
I also think that the border should get a DMZ for a while, as in Korea, as long as those guys, Israelis and Lebanese, do not make progress towards being able to live side by side.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6488 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4648 times:
So fare I have not seen any French commitment to put a force in Lebanon, I would be really surprized if they did, their last foray in Bosnia under quasi UN control was a disaster, re the safe zones incidents.
I really dont believe the French want to loose their polictical capital by having some of their soldiers killed in Lebanon by Hezbollah or Israel.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4628 times:
Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 1): I thought the whole idea behind this war was to make the world a safer place?
Pretty good summary of the "progress", state of play, wonder what W calls it. Only things you missed were that Libya has changed some ways, ETA was won over by Spanish Govt negotiations and the Sinhalese extremists managed to set the Tamil extremists off again.
In Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon no attempt was made to negotiate. (No I am not going to answer 73 posts saying the Arabs never want to negotiate). It is clear that the major changes in terrorist threats have been achieved by negotiation. It may also be the case that there would be fewer like the UK suspects, if countries such as the UK had been less focussed on war and had paid more attention to the concerns of the communities from which they came.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5): The French are in a very strong position, because they are the only 'politically-correct' people around with a big un-committed conscript army on tap. The United States, Britain, and Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada only have small peacetime armies, and those are already fully-committed in other places, particularly Afghanistan and Iraq.
The US, the UK and Aus would simply be regarded as handy targets by at least one side. The Israeli disposal of UN posts would not be much of an encouragement either.
It is worth noting that an Irish captain (that is Irish Rep so not linking to the UK) interviewed the other night on Aus TV commented (memory here but the percentage is clear) that of about 100 casualties the UN force had suffered, 50% had been caused by non-Israelis and the other 50% had been caused by the Israelis. That does not augur well for the chances of any UN force put in to keep the peace.
I cannot quite decide whether the Israelis did not care about the UN or specifically were sending a message to armies that might volunteer to serve in Lebanon. Either way, it seems extremely short sighted.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 7): So fare I have not seen any French commitment to put a force in Lebanon, I would be really surprised if they did, their last foray in Bosnia under quasi UN control was a disaster, re the safe zones incidents.
I really dont believe the French want to loose their political capital by having some of their soldiers killed in Lebanon by Hezbollah or Israel.
The French forces were attacked the last time and it would be surprising if they have forgotten it. Certainly the US has not forgotten it was attacked.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6488 posts, RR: 8 Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4607 times:
Baroque I think one thing that the UN has not been firm enough about as an "impartial" broker is to stand on it's principle's.
The Canadian UN observer who was killed at the UN post, sent e-mail's - which have been made public - describing their situation, I would love to see the official e-mails to his boss, would he have specifically mentioned that Hezbollah was inflitrating their post?
The majority of the UNIFIL Force are deployed in Lebanon, so naturally, their "conditions" can be influenced by Hezbollah, how much are these forces mandated to "accept or allow" in order to carry on their duties, and are these duties then compromised in any way by "undue" influence?
In addition to the bombing, there is also more "bad blood" between Israel and the UN, a past kidnapping of Israeli soldiers was performed either using UN vehicles or UN identification, see the Har Dov kidnappings of 2000. That in no way means that the UN aided the event, but it would give the Israeli's pause when considering how much protection they will receive from UN forces.
QR332 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4581 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 9): In addition to the bombing, there is also more "bad blood" between Israel and the UN, a past kidnapping of Israeli soldiers was performed either using UN vehicles or UN identification, see the Har Dov kidnappings of 2000. That in no way means that the UN aided the event, but it would give the Israeli's pause when considering how much protection they will receive from UN forces.
Speaking of bad blood between Israel and the UN, see the Qana shelling on 1996, which hit a UN refugee camp and killed over a hundred civilians. The problem is, 10 years ago Israel used the exact same excuse - "Hezbollah fired at us from there", and people still buy it.
This is my post from the other thread, it is the last post and I have to share the link, which links to an article that I found to be superb:
I was just looking at pictures which were seriously painful in Lebanon, and I still can't come to terms to how easily people are willing to dismiss such a large civilian death toll while at the same time people went insane about 9/11 and the London bombings. Why is it that Arabs, whether in Palestine, Lebanon or Iraq can be dismissed as collatoral damage while Westerners can't? Why is it that you peopel have so much sympathy for Israel while at the same time Israel is killing civilians in the hundreds? I don't understand why Americans and supporters of this war can't at least look at it from a human or moral point of view instead of a political one - what if it was your child, your mother, your sister, your friend, or whatever kiled? Americans had a huge amount of sympathy for their own during 9/11, why can't they have the same kind of sympathy for Lebanese civilians who have done nothing to deserve to be killed in this way.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6488 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4548 times:
QR332 I don't think that as far as rulers are concerned, there are any innocents on either side.
The UN is seen as a un-baised broker, unfortunately, it has had incidents which are not favourably to its cause. The current draft seems to only want Lebanese and UNIFIL troops deployed in the south, the Israeli issues with the UN pale in significance to the Lebanese. Based on the numbers of Lebanese civilians who have been hurt in and around UN camps without the UN doing anything to protect them, I would think that they more than the Israelis would not want the UN.
The UN is not going away, no one wants that, the world has to work harder to make it work. Lebanon has the option to have an international peace keeping force with "teeth" to protect them from Israeli aggression, rather than a UN force who will be essentially a watchman. The issue with this I think is that if a international force is deployed, Hezbollah will essentially be removed from the armed conflict on the southern border. If they are not disarmed, is there some fear in Lebanon that they will use their arms to take over the current govt?
MartinairYYZ From Canada, joined Nov 2003, 1209 posts, RR: 7 Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4536 times:
For this recent plane plot, and many wars, I blame Israel fully. They attacked Lebanon and now it is ruined (I thought they were against such destruction like WW2??) which incited the Arabs and they wanted revenge because USA doesn't stop Isreael becuase they have many ties (especially GWB).
How in hell can people have the slightest light to support a country that does this to another, and claims it aiming precisely? Total disgust at such a cannibalistic destruction. I'm not one to hope for bads but it would be fair if the same destruction happened on both sides for sure.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9743 posts, RR: 37 Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4508 times:
Quoting Pulkovokiwi (Reply 14): These nutters want to destroy western civilisation and commerce
I think it's time to look very carefully at the question of how far things done for one reason can have an effect in a totally-different direction. The London Tube bombings, and now this airliner thing, show that somehow or other young people entirely brought up in Britain can be persuaded willingly to embark on suicide missions aimed at killing large numbers of civilians.
In effect, someone 'taught them to hate.' Taught them to believe that 'the West' was determined to make war on all Muslims everywhere, and therefore that all Westerners deserved to die. And, despite the fact that the (highly-efficient) British police have caught a few of them, the process of indoctrinating the young will be continuing.
In any teaching role, 'visual aids' are essential nowadays. I'm quite certain that photographs and newsreel shots of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are used to indoctrinate these kids, and that material from the Lebanon (like the dreadful pictures linked to by MartinXYZ) will already be in use as well.
[Edited 2006-08-11 04:43:34]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
True and we can only be thankful that someone has talked . Sad that Britain has (in most cases) given them a far greater standard of living than their homeland but they are intent on reeking havoc. I am sure these creeps when not being indoctrinated go to western films,buy western clothing and music and milk the British social security system. One of them apparently is a 20 yr old mother with a 6 month old baby. Good old MI5!!!
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9743 posts, RR: 37 Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4486 times:
You'd expect an Anglo-Australian to bring cricket into any discussion at some stage, Pulkovkiwi.
Sajid Mahmoud was born in Lancashire and is an England fast bowler. A couple of days ago he played the major part in defeating Pakistan in a Test Match at Headingley in Yorkshire - taking 4 wickets for 22 runs, a world-class performance by any standards. Every time he went down to the boundary to field he was abused as a 'traitor' by the 'Pakistani' supporters (most of whom were probably as English as he was):-
"England paceman Sajid Mahmood said he refused to let abuse from sections of the Headingley crowd get him down.
"During England's Test victory over Pakistan on Tuesday he was targeted by some fans who accused him of betraying his Pakistani heritage.
"I heard them calling me a traitor during my second spell, but I didn't let it affect me," said Lancashire's Bolton-born fast bowler.
"After taking one of his wickets Mahmood, whose cousin is boxing sensation Amir Khan, cupped his hand to his ear in response to the abuse he was receiving.
"They gave me a lot of chat down on the boundary and then I got that wicket and did that to see what they had to say then," he said.
"Every time I went down to that corner there were a couple clapping and there were a few hurling abuse, so I didn't know what to do.
"They didn't really shut up even after I got a couple of wickets, they just kept going."
Back in the 1950s the British commander in Malaya, General Templer, coined the phrase 'hearts and minds':-
"General Sir Gerald Templer was appointed High Commissioner and Director of Operations Malaya in 1952 at the height of the insurgency against the British authorities. The "Hearts and Minds" policies were based on those set in motion by military predecessors, but enhanced and strengthened by Templer. When asked if he had sufficient troops General Templer responded by saying emphatically that he had, adding that "The answer lies not in pouring more soldiers into the jungle but rests in the hearts and minds of the Malayan people."
Invading people and bombing shit out of them isn't going to help. We are up against the task of winning back 'hearts and minds.'
If I were 'in charge' of the situation in Lebanon, I would pull the Israeli Army out tomorrow and put in an international force consisting mainly of medics to set up field hospitals, engineers to build temporary bridges, and helicopters to distribute relief supplies.
And I'd ALSO send lots of photographers and TV crews to record their efforts.......
[Edited 2006-08-11 05:26:59]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Cedars747 From Norway, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 2718 posts, RR: 20 Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 4461 times:
Guys please believe me all,Israel want the Litani river,destroy the Lebanese economy and plant terror in the Middle East.Israel cannot survive in a world full of peace and prosperity and their history is a good example.They feel superior to others and hallucinate with the promised land.By the way ,many Jews are against the existence of the state of Israel.In 1968 Israel bombarded the airport of Beirut and destroyed MEA airplanes I wonder where was Hezbollah than
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4454 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 12): The UN is not going away, no one wants that, the world has to work harder to make it work.
Well Israel is doing its best to make sure it is of as little help as possible. I can see the weaknesses in the UN, but it is a heck of a lot better than nothing, and nothing seems to be what Israel and the destructive side of US politics want. And that is really strange because was there ever an organization controlled as much by a rump as the UN, and I mean the US rump, not the ones that the US usually points its finger at.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 19): "General Sir Gerald Templer was appointed High Commissioner and Director of Operations Malaya in 1952 at the height of the insurgency against the British authorities. The "Hearts and Minds" policies were based on those set in motion by military predecessors, but enhanced and strengthened by Templer.
He should be #43s patron saint, but I wonder if 43 has heard of him or Malaya.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 19): If I were 'in charge' of the situation in Lebanon, I would pull the Israeli Army out tomorrow and put in an international force consisting mainly of medics to set up field hospitals, engineers to build temporary bridges, and helicopters to distribute relief supplies.
I think you just got yourself elected Nav20! Careful, you could get elevated to Nav25 if not careful.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6488 posts, RR: 8 Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4408 times:
Baroque Reply 22
"And that is really strange because was there ever an organization controlled as much by a rump as the UN, and I mean the US rump, not the ones that the US usually points its finger at."
In the early years of the UN that was probably true, but as mentioned in the previous version of this thread, the US has used its veto power more than any other of the permanent members, question is why?
My view of the UN in the last few years has been that it is becoming a entity unto itself, where it now attempts to steer its members rather than the other way around.
25 Dtwclipper: Because they have been attacked since 1948? I think it is the other way around. Come on Ceders, you can do better then that! That must be a typo, it
26 QR332: That is a naive statement... while it is not the direct cause, events like this are exactly why terrorism exists today - Lebanon, Palestine, Chechney
27 NAV20: We'll probably both get flamed for it, Cedars747, but I think the Litani, at least, was indeed one of the objectives. There's no doubt that Israel is
28 Baroque: I watched Bush rabbit on about "terrrrists" opposing freedom and wondered if he actually believes this or thinks freedom, like cheap gas, is somethin
29 Cedars747: I prefer to be flamed but say the truth in the memory of the kids died in this terrorist attack on Lebanese civilians You are not surprising me ! man
30 DLPMMM: While all good and noble, what would you do when the aid workers, photographers, and TV crews you sent in are kidnapped and killed? Your policy sound
31 QR332: I dare you to find me ONE that has been kidnapped/killed by Israel. The only aid or UN workers killed were by Israel, Hezbollah has never harmed anyo
32 NAV20: First of all, DLPMMM, I was talking about sending in soldiers, not civilians. Although my strategy would involve a high proportion of specialists, th
33 DL021: Dude, I did not even read much else. You are so offbase here it's unreal. The US forces occupy the most violence prone Sunni sections of the country
34 NAV20: Straight 'chicken and egg' question there, DL021. The other way of looking at it is to ask yourself WHY the sections of Iraq occupied by US forces ar
35 Pulkovokiwi: How is he offbase when he presents factual information?????