NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006340858,00.html

From GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON
Political Editor in Washington

TONY Blair last night vowed to bring about a ceasefire in Lebanon next week — as he clinched a peace plan with George Bush.

The PM insisted fighting between Israel and Hezbollah guerillas could stop as soon as an international peacekeeping force is raised next Monday.

It will go into action once a UN resolution is passed by the security council next Tuesday.

France and Muslim Turkey were last night tipped as favourites to spearhead the mission.

Mr Blair’s diplomatic triumph smashed critics’ claims that he has no clout in the White House.

It also demonstrated the continued closeness of the two leaders — after the US President greeted the PM at the G8 summit earlier this month with the words: “Yo, Blair.”

Last night, the PM said of the peace plan: “Hezbollah have to appreciate that if they stand out against this they will face the fact that action will have to be taken against them.”

Mr Blair promised to use the crisis as a way to step up the war on terror and declared he would turn the “tragedy” into an “opportunity”.

He said in Washington: “The question is how to get this stopped with the urgency it demands.

“We have been working hard on a plan to make sure this happens.

“If we can succeed we will turn a situation of tragedy into a situation of opportunity.”

The Royal Navy will play a key role as part of the military mission — but NO British troops will be placed on the ground.

Turkey is poised to be in charge of the mission, which would mean a Muslim state not a western country dealing with the crisis.

France was last night still dithering over whether to commit itself as the main commander. Italy, Germany and Muslim Indonesia and India are other nations which will get involved.





Military top brass from UN states will hold talks on Monday in New York. And US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was last night despatched back to the Middle East to seek agreement from all sides.

Only when Hezbollah have given their word they will stop firing rockets into Israel will the plan be put to the Security Council, chaired by France.

Mr Bush last night said: “The temptation is to say, ‘Let’s get it off the TV screens’. But that won’t solve the problem. These are not sympathetic people, Hezbollah. They are violent, cold-blooded killers. This is the call of the 21st century.”

Royal Navy warships and nuclear-armed submarines used in the evacuation of Beirut will be lined up to play a monitoring role.

Military planners from France, Britain and the US are already holding talks about the size and power of force required.

The usual twisted logic of Tony Blair and George Bush: "let Israel turn their country to rubble, no matter the civilian cost, and thus the Lebanese will support Israel in the fight against Hezbollah."

How much more Israeli/British/American bile do I have to put up with?

I read this thread, and the Lennon song, Give Peace A Chance is now stuck in my head.

I wish I was better informed to make a constructive comment on this, but I'm not. So I'll slink away.

My momma always told me not to stare into the sights of the Sun.

I'm not saying the article is factually wrong. But it might have a slight slant of .. er .. patriotic pride?

It also demonstrated the continued closeness of the two leaders — after the US President greeted the PM at the G8 summit earlier this month with the words: “Yo, Blair.”

This ^ was the meeting with the open mike? The one with the pictures a day later, synced to the open mike? The one in which Bush made a point of chewing what appeared to be jerky while telling Blair "don't worry about that, I'm sending Condy?"

That said, good luck to Blair. If it's Turkey and Indonesia we need to enforce a ceasefire, Blair has a far better chance of talking them 'round than Bush. Bush couldn't talk around a cattle dog.

OMFG is it me or is the Lebenesse is firing rockets because of Isreasl invading them? I don't find that wrong. Yea Isreasl loses not a lot people the Lebenesss loses over 100

OMFG is it me or is the Lebenesse is firing rockets because of Isreasl invading them? I don't find that wrong. Yea Isreasl loses not a lot people the Lebenesss loses over 100

As someone who lives a long way away, and doesn't know that much about it anyway, I'll just say ... you're wrong there. While you're chilling on it, search for the figures. They'll help your case. It's roughly ten to one.

Isreal
Civilians:
18 killed[5]
418 injured, 875 treated for shock[6]
Tens of thousands displaced[7]
Soldiers:
33 killed[8]
95 wounded[8]
2 captured

Lebanon
Civilians:
398 killed[9]
1,661 injured
900,000 displaced[10]
Soldiers:
22 killed
63 wounded[citation needed]
(Lebanese government accounts)

SEARCH IT ON WIKI AND READ!!!!!

what now nobel hobos

sry for the double post


ALL CIVILIANS

Seven Canadian members of a family from Montreal, including four children, were killed and six severely injured by an Israeli attack on Aitaroun in South Lebanon on 16 July. An eighth member of the family died later from injuries sustained in the blast.[88]
A family of four Brazilians, including two children, was killed in the Israeli bombings in Srifa,[89] drawing condemnation from foreign relations minister Celso Amorim.[90] Another Brazilian child was killed in an Israeli strike in Tallousa.[91]
Four members of a German-Lebanese family, including two minors, from Mönchengladbach, Germany were killed in an Israeli airstrike in Chehour in southern Lebanon while on vacation.[92][93]
The Kuwaiti Foreign Ministry has reported that two Kuwaiti nationals have been killed by Israeli bombing.[94]
One Sri Lankan was killed in an Israeli bombing.[87]
A Nigerian couple was killed by Israeli bombing..[13]
One Iraqi was killed by Israeli bombing.[87]
One Jordanian was killed when Israeli missiles hit trucks near Zahleh in the mountains above the eastern Bekaa Valley.[87]
A Brazilian businessman was killed in an IAF missile attack on a factory he owned in Lebanon.[95]
A Palestinian was killed in an Israeli bombing that hit a Palestinian refugee camp at Rashidiyeh.
An Argentinean woman died 13 July in a Hezbollah rocket attack on Nahariya, Israel.[96]
A Nigerian domestic worker was killed during an airstrike as he rode his motorbike south of Tyre on 27 July.[97]
An Indian glass factory worker in Lebanon, Devendra Kumar Swain was killed on 21 July.[98]

Peacekeeping forces from the UN is not going to solve the problem unless they are given the authority to actually do something.

As to the casualties, you have to look at the technology involved. Hezbollah is using unguided munitions against civilian targets. Most of whom have fled to the south or spending their time in bomb shelters. The IDFis using precision guided munitions for the most part, against Hezbollah targets that are surrounded by civilian structures or using civilian structures to house their munitions. Because they are hiding their munitions in these civilian structures, it makes them legitament military targets to hit and thus we'll see an increase in civilian casualties due to Hezbollah's use of said facilities.

Hopefully there will be at least a cease-fire with the provision for disarming Hezbollah. This will go along way to establishing peace but I have a feeling there will not be a lasting peace until the due time.

The EU has warned Israel about disproportionate attacks against Lebanon. In addition spokespersons from the United Nations, the European Union, the Organization of Islamic Conference and an assortment of human rights organizations have condemned Israel for its ‘disproportionate’ response to Hezbollah’s attacks, although unprovoked by Israel.

The EU has warned Israel about disproportionate attacks against Lebanon. In addition spokespersons from the United Nations, the European Union, the Organization of Islamic Conference and an assortment of human rights organizations have condemned Israel for its ‘disproportionate’ response to Hezbollah’s attacks, although unprovoked by Israel.

And the EU has condemned Hezbollah for their unprovked attack against Israel. Israel is defending themselves though I think they went a tad over board in their attacks. On the flip side though, Israel can only take so much before they respond with half of what they got.

If Israel wanted to, there would be nothing left of South Lebanon right now if they truly wanted to wage a war against Hezbollah.

Isreal
Civilians:
18 killed[5]
418 injured, 875 treated for shock[6]
Tens of thousands displaced[7]
Soldiers:
33 killed[8]
95 wounded[8]
2 captured

Lebanon
Civilians:
398 killed[9]
1,661 injured
900,000 displaced[10]
Soldiers:
22 killed
63 wounded[citation needed]
(Lebanese government accounts)

SEARCH IT ON WIKI AND READ!!!!!

what now nobel hobos

Just goes to show what absolute morons Hezbollah is to have attacked Israel to begin with and their stupidity to continue the attacks. Yet the dipshits in Lebanon still support then. The dumbfucks deserve to get bombed. So fucking what if Israel suffered fewer casualties - if you intent to use strength as a deterrent you must inflict more damage than you receive - thats the whole fucking point. You'd have to be brain-damaged to believe that the best military exchanges are ones with even casualties.

And the EU has condemned Hezbollah for their unprovked attack against Israel. Israel is defending themselves though I think they went a tad over board in their attacks. On the flip side though, Israel can only take so much before they respond with half of what they got.

If Israel wanted to, there would be nothing left of South Lebanon right now if they truly wanted to wage a war against Hezbollah.


No, Israel has not overreacted. If they want to discourage anyone from doing this again they must make the concenquences worse than the preceived benefit. That is the whole point of strength as a deterrent. If they do not respond overwealmingly then they hezbullies will just keep doing it over and over and the Lebanese will continue ot look the other way.

Concenquences are a bitch - time they figured that out.

No, Israel has not overreacted. If they want to discourage anyone from doing this again they must make the concenquences worse than the preceived benefit. That is the whole point of strength as a deterrent. If they do not respond overwealmingly then they hezbullies will just keep doing it over and over and the Lebanese will continue ot look the other way.

Concenquences are a bitch - time they figured that out.

What makes you think that when this is over, Hezbollah won't attack again? I will go on record now and state that they will not stop even with a cease-fire.

Isreal has been fighting them (Egypt, Lebanon, etc) for more than 2,000 years. yea they might have peace. for not long

Isreal has been fighting them (Egypt, Lebanon, etc) for more than 2,000 years. yea they might have peace. for not long

Actually, Israel and Egypt have been at peace for awhile now. They signed the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty in March 1979. Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula and evacuated the settlements there. In fact, Egypt has had a couple of terror attacks on resort hotels that are visited by jews.

OMFG is it me or is the Lebenesse is firing rockets because of Isreasl invading them? I don't find that wrong. Yea Isreasl loses not a lot people the Lebenesss loses over 100

Beg pardon, but I tried to keep it short in addressing the factual shortcomings of this post.

I should have just said it was off-topic. Which it is.

If we must take the London Sun seriously, what is Blair's role in a solutions to this conflict?

Personally, I think the Sun article is complete rubbish, but I can't prove it. Sometimes the Sun scoops big stories, because they pay good money.

What makes you think that when this is over, Hezbollah won't attack again? I will go on record now and state that they will not stop even with a cease-fire.

You're catching on.

You're catching on.

And you're catching IT.

Isreal has been fighting them (Egypt, Lebanon, etc) for more than 2,000 years. yea they might have peace. for not long
Isreal hasn't existed for 2,000 years, more like 50.
I do believe that this may be grounds to dismiss you on anti-semitism.

You say that Israel has been fighting Egypt and Lebanon for more then 2000 years. Obviously, this refers to ancient Isreal, not modern Israel. Ancient Israel, by the only source we have(which is obviously biased, but still) never fought either Egypt or Lebanon. Thus, total crap.
Incidentally, Israel was apparently at peace during some of that, according to said biased source.

are you a moron?

Ancient Isreal (No Sh*t not modern) has been fighting Ancient (NOT MODERN). Yes they had some peace during times but mostly not

It's an article from the Sun.

Refute it,
admit that it's patriotic bullshit trying to make Blair seem important,
show how this is actually happening,
or ....

go back to a thread about the right of Israel to exist or defend itself, WHICH THIS IS NOT.

It really isn't. If you can't keep your head above water in the other Israel vs Hezbollah threads, what makes you think your fine points will survive long here.

Copycats!

are you a moron?

Ancient Isreal (No Sh*t not modern) has been fighting Ancient (NOT MODERN). Yes they had some peace during times but mostly not

In reality, Egypt fought Israel in the Israeli War of Independence,1956 Suez Canal War, Six Days War, and the Yom Kippur War. Lebanon fought Israel during the Israeli War for independece.

Here's the article:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006340858,00.html

It was posted without comment by BogMarsh.
THAT IS THE SUBJECT!

I am interested in discussing that article.
I am interested in discussing the factuality, and the subjectivity, and any facts that may be contained in that article.

[QUOTE=BogMarsh]*snip*[QUOTE]

Quoting or reading The Sun is akin to masturbating in a public park.

It's not the done thing, and it's not proper.

May you be beaten, beaten with a thousand old ladies handbags until you have learnt the error and horror of your ways, young man.

The horror of it! The horror!

Repent!

Quoting or reading The Sun is akin to masturbating in a public park.

It's not the done thing, and it's not proper.

May you be beaten, beaten with a thousand old ladies handbags until you have learnt the error and horror of your ways, young man.

The horror of it! The horror!

Repent!

So are you going to comment on the article or just say that because it is from a paper you do not like that it is not worth your time in responding to with a legitament comment?

So are you going to comment on the article or just say that because it is from a paper you do not like that it is not worth your time in responding to with a legitament comment?

I'm going to say that the article is BS.
I base that on the fact that it's from the London Sun.
Prove me wrong!

I'm going to say that the article is BS.
I base that on the fact that it's from the London Sun.
Prove me wrong!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/28/us.britain/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Friday announced that they would support a U.N. cease-fire resolution to end the Mideast crisis and the use of a multinational force to stabilize southern Lebanon.

OK, while I check that out, cop a load of the Sun:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/

OK, while I check that out, cop a load of the Sun:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/

You told me to prove it to you so I did. Nothing else needs to be said.

The only quote (direct quote) from Blair in the CNN article:

EDIT: "[[I, we] feel]deeply for people in Lebanon and people in Israel who are the innocent casualties of this conflict." /EDIT

"And what we're putting forward today is actually a practical plan that would lead to a U.N. resolution -- could be early next week -- that will allow it, put in place the conditions for it to stop," Blair said.

I call BS on both the Sun and CNN.

The CNN article quoted Blair, more bush, then a great boring wodge of Kofi Annan. Who didn't say much.

Read the quotes. The rest is BS.

The only quote (direct quote) from Blair in the CNN article:

"And what we're putting forward today is actually a practical plan that would lead to a U.N. resolution -- could be early next week -- that will allow it, put in place the conditions for it to stop," Blair said.

I call BS on both the Sun and CNN.

The CNN article quoted Blair, more bush, then a great boring wodge of Kofi Annan. Who didn't say much.

Read the quotes. The rest is BS.

So since I proved you wrong, you are going to call CNN (one of the best news networks in the business) wrong? Prove that they and the Sun are wrong. You cannot prove that they are wrong.

Which one of the parties said this, then?

""The people in Lebanon need our help," he said. "I think that many battles are being fought on the soil of Lebanon, and some have absolutely nothing to do with Lebanon."

Did the Sun quote this person?
No, CNN did.

Did the Sun quote Bush, whose Secretary of State is /was? in the region at the time?
No, but CNN quoted him at length.
And Condoleeza Rice, present there at the time of the article, negotiating? No.
But CNN:
"Rice argued that taking such an approach would leave Hezbollah in place and armed with rockets."

I detect bias in CNN, but acknowledge that it is one of the better sources of news.

To defend a chosen article (perhaps maliciously chosen) from the London Sun, because it addresses the same subject, and uses a half-dozen words in common with the Sun's coverage, malignes CNN.

I'm sure the Sun has broken stories at some time, (photos of the princess Diana spring to mind, but perhaps something about spies, back in the Cold War?)

But this story is entirely British Patriotism. It's about the shameful slight of Blair by Bush, at the G8 conference. It's about showing how Britain still matters on the world stage. It is, in short, a wank. It does not represent Britain, nor journalism, nor any interest but the proprietor of the paper. "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Can't we agree, please, that an article from the London Sun is no basis for a debate about the rights and wrongs of Israel and Palestine?

1) CNN is just as bias as Fox News as MSNBC.

2) All papers are bias in one form or another.

3) Despite biasness though, it should still be out in the news and should be debated upon.

4) No I do not agree that The Sun has no basis in a debate for I believe that all press reports should be used in debate.

OK. :)

We roughly agree, I think.

If anyone wants to extend apon any 'news' in the Sun article, I'll be back in twelve hours or so.

OMFG is it me or is the Lebenesse is firing rockets because of Isreasl invading them? I don't find that wrong. Yea Isreasl loses not a lot people the Lebenesss loses over 100

I say it's you. The rockets were fired into and have been fired into Isreal first, terrorists have been using Lebonon as a staging groyund for years. they have been attacking Isreal from accross the boader for years. Isreal is responding to these attacks. Any other nation in the world would do the same if they were attacked by someone accross there boarder.

There is a simpel solution here. If Iran and Syeria stoped giving these terrorists support in the form of weapons and money, and the terrorists stoped attacking then Isreal would stop fighting back.:eek: