NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: WTF is going on here? Hizballah has attacked France and French interests in the recent past [ see below ]. Is France now running scared, or is there money involved somehow? Maybe oil? Any thoughts on this??


France Praises Iran's 'Stabilizing Role' (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200608/INT20060801a.html)


By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
August 01, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - The French foreign minister, whose government is positioning itself to play a leading part in Mideast peace efforts, has described Iran as a respected country that plays a stabilizing role in the region.

Philippe Douste-Blazy told a news conference in Beirut Monday that Iran was "a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region."

Hours later, the Frenchmen met with his Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki, at the Iranian Embassy. Tehran's mission in the Lebanese capital has been a key channel for Iran's support for Hizballah, and last week Iran denied reports that Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah had taken refuge inside the building.

The U.S., Israel and several other countries accuse Iran of being the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and the primary backer of Hizballah in Lebanon. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called repeatedly for Israel's annihilation.

Iran also is at odds with the international community over its nuclear programs, with France one of three European countries involved in the standoff.

The French minister's praise for the Islamic regime came on the day Hizballah's representative in Iran told a gathering in Tehran that his organization would put into effect the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's call for the "cancerous tumor" (Israel) to be eliminated.

Abol-Hassan Zo'aiter was quoted by the semi-official Fars news agency as saying Hizballah's resistance against Israel in recent weeks was the greatest victory ever of the "Islamic ummah."

Zo'aiter's threats are not the only ones to be heard in Iran this week. On Sunday, Fars quoted the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, as urging his troops "to keep this sacred hatred of the enemies of Islam alive in our hearts until the time of revenge comes."

"Hizballah and Lebanese people are invincible and this cancerous tumor [Israel] should die," said Safavi, calling on leading Islamic clerics to "clarify the duty of Muslims against Israel."

The 130,000-strong Revolutionary Guards, or Pasdaran, was designated guardian of the Islamic revolution after 1979, and is accused by the State Department of involvement in planning and supporting terrorism. It has particularly close ties to Hizballah, which it helped to establish in 1982.

According to exiled Iranian opposition groups, 13 out of 21 Iranian cabinet ministers, including Mottaki, have backgrounds in the IGRC. Ahmadinejad, the president, is a former senior Pasdaran officer.

Several hundred Revolutionary Guards officers are reported to be advising and fighting alongside Hizballah in the current conflict, although Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told a briefing Sunday Iran had not and would not dispatch forces to Lebanon, and again denying the Tehran arms Hizballah.

Israeli security officials say many of the 2,500 missiles Hizballah has fired into northern Israel since July 12 came from Iran, and that Iran also supplied a C-802 missile that damaged an Israeli Navy vessel two weeks ago, and longer-range Zelzal missiles which have yet to be used, but could possibly bring Tel Aviv within range.

The Jerusalem Post reported that Israeli officials were bewildered by Douste-Blazy's remarks about Iran, and quoted one diplomatic source in Jerusalem as asking "what planet is he on?"

Before his departure to Lebanon, the French minister told Le Figaro that there was no need to forbid contacts with the Iranian authorities, although he said President Jacques Chirac had ruled out contacts with the Syrians, Hizballah's other major sponsor.

Mottaki's trip to Beirut was the first public visit to Lebanon by a senior Iranian leader since the Israel-Hizballah conflict began.

Apart from his French counterpart, he also met with Lebanese government leaders, including President Emile Lahoud and Foreign Minister Fauzi Salloukh, whom the Iranian Irna news agency reported had voiced appreciation for "the selfless contributions of the Islamic Republic of Iran" to Lebanon.

Salloukh, a Shi'ite, is close to Hizballah and has argued against the need for the terrorist group to disband, saying it is a "national resistance movement" and not a militia, and thus not covered by U.N. Security Council resolution 1559's requirement for militias to be dismantled.

France, Lebanon and Hizballah

At the U.N. Security Council, France is playing a leading role in diplomatic efforts to end the conflict. It has drafted a resolution calling for the creation of a multinational force and a buffer zone, but only after the fighting stops.

France has strong historical links with Lebanon, a country it administered between 1920 and 1943.

After the Iranian revolution, however, its ties with the small Mediterranean nation were severely strained when Hizballah killed 58 French troops in a series of deadly 1983 bombings that also targeted U.S. Marines and the American Embassy.

Hizballah - and by extension Iran - subsequently carried out terrorist attacks against French targets including the French Embassy in Kuwait and the Marseilles railway station. Late that year, France expelled half a dozen Iranians attached to the embassy in Paris, accusing them of links to terror.

Almost two decades later, Chirac endorsed the presence of Nasrallah at a Francophone summit in Beirut in Oct. 2002.

Nasrallah sat in the front row, among religious leaders, and his participation was hailed in Lebanese media as evidence that for France and the fifty-plus other full and observer members of the bloc, Hizballah was not a terrorist organization.

(The Hizballah leader was invited by the Lebanese president Lahoud, but the country's Al-Safir newspaper pointed out that invitations went through the organizing committee of the French-speaking grouping. There was no record of Chirac - who spoke during the opening session about the need to fight terrorism - protesting his presence. Canada's then prime minister, Jean Chretien, was later criticized at home for giving a speech while Nasrallah sit a few feet away, but pleaded ignorance. Under pressure, Chretien's government outlawed Hizballah two months later.)

France has led opposition within the European Union to moves for the 25-nation bloc to outlaw Hizballah and cut off its European sources of funding, as requested by Israel and the U.S.

Incredible! Eutrusca finds a reason to bash France!

europe has never been a fanboy for israel- quite the contrary in fact. Less than shocking.

Europe's hardly the kind of place to bend over to every upstart country. Quite a lot, but not all.

Well, France is officially our enemy now.

Incredible! Eutrusca finds a reason to bash France!
LMAO! Well, if the shoe fits ... ! :D

Well, France is officially our enemy now.

ZOMG UR WITH US OR AGAINST US! Fear our mighty conflict resolution penis! RAAAAAWR! I R NUKLAR HEAR ME ROAR!

French foreign policy interests are not the same as US foreign policy interests. So meh.

And you can't honestly claim that the US has been a particularly reliable ally of France in the past fifty years, so its not really surprising.

Well, France is officially our enemy now.
:eek:

I surely hope not! :(

ZOMG UR WITH US OR AGAINST US! Fear our mighty conflict resolution penis! RAAAAAWR! I R NUKLAR HEAR ME ROAR!
Thank you so much for that totally irrelevant and largely incomprehensible post. One of our ushers will now escort you to the door. :)

I read through that contentless diatribe, and I would like to know where, in this piece, it indicates that France supports Hizballah(sic). It reports that the French politician said a few vaguely complimentary things about the historical role of Iran a day before meeting with Iranian representatives. Wow, that commits France to supporting Hizballah(sic) according to our ever enlightened OP.

Explain your conclusion please Eutrusca.

Thank you so much for that totally irrelevant and largely incomprehensible post. One of our ushers will now escort you to the door. :)

Eutrusca, two rhesus macacques aren't ushers.

French foreign policy interests are not the same as US foreign policy interests.

Yeah, the United States doesn't support terrorists.

:eek:

I surely hope not! :(

Do we have a choice?

Yeah, the United States doesn't support terrorists.

I demand you see the irony.

Yeah, the United States doesn't support terrorists.

Contra contra contra contra contra.

Let's look at what this article is saying:

The French say Iran is a great country and civilisation. Check. No reason to argue.

The French say Iran plays a role as a stabilising factor. They obviously don't, but that's not the point. The French are obviously trying to get at the conscience and arrogance of the Iranians - presenting them with a picture of what could be. That's diplomacy for you...offer the Iranians a chance to present themselves in excellent light by keeping a hold of Hezbollah.

Will it work? I don't think so. Should the French therefore not even try? No, obviously not.

That's current diplomacy, running at the same time as Germany is trying to get Syria to be nice as well. German diplomats are in Syria at this very moment, probably acting much the same way.

Then the article talks about Hezbollah's weird agenda, about "late Ayatollahs", somehow starts talking about the Revolutionary Guards for no reason (cleverly trying to link the two together in the eyes of a witless reader?), and then just gets completely lost.

Symptomatic: "Hizballah - and by extension Iran - subsequently carried out terrorist attacks against French targets..."
It's bullshit of course. Hezbollah isn't an Iranian instrument, it's an independent movement with alligned goals that gets economic and military support at times.

I demand you see the irony.

Ok, there's a difference between supplying a militia to fight the Soviets, and just supporting terrorists like Hezbollah because you're anti-Semetic.

Ok, there's a difference between supplying a militia to fight the Soviets, and just supporting terrorists like Hezbollah because you're anti-Semetic.

Yeah, supplying weapons to fight a country on principle is so different to supplying weapons to fight a country on princip... Oh...

Ok, there's a difference between supplying a militia to fight the Soviets, and just supporting terrorists like Hezbollah because you're anti-Semetic.

The UK government was Soviet? :confused: :confused: :confused:

The UK government was Soviet? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Da. In Soviet Britain, tea drinks YOU!

Da. In Soviet Britain, tea drinks YOU!

LOLLERCIRCLES

The UK government was Soviet? :confused: :confused: :confused:

What? I was talking about Afghanistan.

Yeah, supplying weapons to fight a country on principle is so different to supplying weapons to fight a country on princip... Oh...

Israel = defending themselves
Soviets = trying to conquer the world

I see a difference.

Israel = defending themselves
Soviets = trying to conquer the world

I see a difference.

Israel= defending themselves by invading another country?
Soviets= trying to prop up a puppet, something like, ohh, Vietnam?

Soviets = trying to conquer the world
Dude, don't you go to a private school? Are you sure your parents are investing their money wisely at the moment?

What? I was talking about Afghanistan.

And I, clearly, wasn't.

You should pay more attention to history.

Incredible! Eutrusca finds a reason to bash France!

In this case ?


WTF ..Hezbollah IS a terrorist organization and Iran is doing more to destabilize the region than be a help ...and you wonder why things are so fucked up...you cant present a uniyed front against aterrorist group...then you ARE fucked .

Dude, don't you go to a private school? Are you sure your parents are investing their money wisely at the moment?

Oh, so the Soviets WEREN'T trying to conquer the world? What happened to Lenin's world revolution? The tearing down of national barriers?

And I, clearly, wasn't.

You should pay more attention to history.

The IRA? OK, first off, they warned people before they blew places up. And second, they had a very good reason. What's Hezbollah's reason? We hate Jews!

I wonder how Normandy took this news. They are the Pro-American province in France after all. Now do not get me wrong, I do love France. In fact, my girlfriend visited France over Spring Break.

I do have to question France here though. What are they thinking or are they thinking?

Oh, so the Soviets WEREN'T trying to conquer the world? What happened to Lenin's world revolution? The tearing down of national barriers?

That was pretty much repudiated in the 1930s. (Lenin's world revolution that is). And actually, you are sorely mistaken if you think that the tearing down of national barriers had much currency after the soviet invasion of poland in the 1920s.

Not to say that the USSR did not have territorial ambitions after WWII, but the ideological foundation for them was different. I'm fairly sure that they weren't trying to conquer the world at that point. Well no more than the US has been since the 1940s anyway.

I believe that the summer of 2006 will be remembered as the season that the world went insane...

I believe that the summer of 2006 will be remembered as the season that the world went insane...

The world has already gone insane.

Awesome, if this turns into a world war we get to kick some french ass :p

The IRA? OK, first off, they warned people before they blew places up. And second, they had a very good reason. What's Hezbollah's reason? We hate Jews!

What good reason! That they wanted a Catholic state, not a Protestant one, regardless of the majority that lived there.

Secondly, even if they did have a good reason (which they did not) they did not always give warnings, they killed hundreds of innocent people. They were terrorists (supported by money, arms, and explosives shipped from the USA).

No one here is supporting Hezbollah, nor are the French. Read the article and say where the French are supporting Hezbollah now.

Awesome, if this turns into a world war we get to kick some french ass :p

No, you'll get your asses handed back to you, simply as a humiliating punishment from god. Put it this way, do you think god supports cheeseburgers and mcdonald's or the producer of the best wine, cheese and philosophy in the world?

I am not suprised.

another reason to say "FU france!"

I am having Freedom Toast for breakfast tommorow

Awesome, if this turns into a world war we get to kick some french ass :p

Is there ever a BAD time?

Anyone who uses 'freedom' to replace 'french' qualifies as a hick instantly.

I dunno, Eut, it sounds just like the normal inane and meaningless diplomatic speak that everyone normally engages in when meeting with another country, even the US.

Is there ever a BAD time?

How about it would have been a bad time in 1781 when their fleet bottled up Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown?

You mean you didn't see this coming? I mean, come on, as soon as france volunteered you should have realized that this would happen. Ah well, at least this means israel should win.

Let's look at what this article is saying:

The French say Iran is a great country and civilisation. Check. No reason to argue.

The French say Iran plays a role as a stabilising factor. They obviously don't, but that's not the point. The French are obviously trying to get at the conscience and arrogance of the Iranians - presenting them with a picture of what could be. That's diplomacy for you...offer the Iranians a chance to present themselves in excellent light by keeping a hold of Hezbollah.

Will it work? I don't think so. Should the French therefore not even try? No, obviously not.

That's current diplomacy, running at the same time as Germany is trying to get Syria to be nice as well. German diplomats are in Syria at this very moment, probably acting much the same way.

Then the article talks about Hezbollah's weird agenda, about "late Ayatollahs", somehow starts talking about the Revolutionary Guards for no reason (cleverly trying to link the two together in the eyes of a witless reader?), and then just gets completely lost.

Symptomatic: "Hizballah - and by extension Iran - subsequently carried out terrorist attacks against French targets..."
It's bullshit of course. Hezbollah isn't an Iranian instrument, it's an independent movement with alligned goals that gets economic and military support at times.

I think this needs to be repeated. It seems like no one is actually reading the article.

You "I hates teh France!!" people are just as silly as the "I hates teh USA!!" people. Both groups grasp at straws to hate whichever country, and they'll be damned if they'll let facts or reason get in the way of things.

No, you'll get your asses handed back to you, simply as a humiliating punishment from god.

Please, France couldn't defeat the Isle on Man.

Put it this way, do you think god supports cheeseburgers and mcdonald's or the producer of the best wine, cheese and philosophy in the world?

Put it this way, do you think I believe in god?

The IRA? OK, first off, they warned people before they blew places up. And second, they had a very good reason. What's Hezbollah's reason? We hate Jews!

They had no reason whatsoever other than "we hate protestants". And they didn't particularly warn people before blowing places up. Esp. during the mainland campaign.

It's also telling that the US government is still protecting them to this very day: despite all this 'tough on terrorism' talk. Why it even refuses to ratify its treaty obligations simply because it is scared that IRA activists and fund raises in North America will be subject to extradition and punishment in the UK for their terrorist activities.

Hezb'allah, IRA, same shit different degree.

Please, France couldn't defeat the Isle on Man.

Ah, but they somehow defeated the majority of the European superpowers...

Meh! He may have said that, but without the context it's not possible to know the meaning. Plus I can't get confirmation of this in English, Spanish, or French sources. So I'm going to file this under "anti-France people will believe whatever they read."

Please, France couldn't defeat the Isle on Man.

Oh please. Even I am not going to buy into that one.

Put it this way, do you think I believe in god?

Lets leave religion out of this one and focus it on France shall we?

Ah, but they somehow defeated the majority of the European superpowers...

yea.. and Britain has never done that huh?

yea.. and Britain has never done that huh?

Yea they have. They defeated France on several occassions.

Do we have a choice?
Uh ... not if they don't want to be allies with us anymore, I suppose. Sigh.

I never thoght I'd say this, but here goes, "Go France!"

French foreign policy interests are not the same as US foreign policy interests. So meh.

And you can't honestly claim that the US has been a particularly reliable ally of France in the past fifty years, so its not really surprising.

I actually had to read this one over a couple of times to be sure I read it right...

Quick Quiz, for people who take that last line seriously:

For each question, answer either USA or France.

1)Which country left NATO?
2)Which country begged for help in trying to exploit Vietnam, got in over their heads, begged for help, then left leaving the other holding the bag?
3)Which country refused the other permission to fly over on the way to conduct airstrikes against Libya?
4)Which country sold a nuclear reactor to Saddam Hussein?

Answers: 1)France 2)France 3)France 4)France

Note, at no time did I mention WWII, since that was more than 50 years ago.

No, sir. The French do not get to criticize the USA as an ally.

Meh! He may have said that, but without the context it's not possible to know the meaning. Plus I can't get confirmation of this in English, Spanish, or French sources. So I'm going to file this under "anti-France people will believe whatever they read."

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0,36-799959,0.html

I dunno, Eut, it sounds just like the normal inane and meaningless diplomatic speak that everyone normally engages in when meeting with another country, even the US.
Possibly, although it seems a bit extreme to me.

Please, France couldn't defeat the Isle on Man.



Put it this way, do you think I believe in god?

William the Conqueror. Enough said.

I actually had to read this one over a couple of times to be sure I read it right...

Quick Quiz, for people who take that last line seriously:

For each question, answer either USA or France.

1)Which country left NATO?
2)Which country begged for help in trying to exploit Vietnam, got in over their heads, begged for help, then left leaving the other holding the bag?
3)Which country refused the other permission to fly over on the way to conduct airstrikes against Libya?
4)Which country sold a nuclear reactor to Saddam Hussein?

Answers: 1)France 2)France 3)France 4)France

Note, at no time did I mention WWII, since that was more than 50 years ago.

No, sir. The French do not get to criticize the USA as an ally.

And, why, you may ask yourself, did the french leave NATO?

Vietnam is a different box of rocks. The US government had a firm policy of dismantling European empires in the 40s and fifties. Well job done. You can't really bitch that the french left when it was what was intended all along. Don't complain that you didn't like the outcome.

Put it this way, do you think god supports cheeseburgers and mcdonald's or the producer of the best wine, cheese and philosophy in the world?
Actually, there have been several contests of consisting of random wines performed in France where California wines have beaten out the French, not to mention that given the major expansion of the wine industry judging what is best is rather a foolish goal. To a lesser extent the same can be applied to cheese. As for philosiphy, America is more concerned with doing than debating something which in the end cannot be resolved.

William the Conqueror. Enough said.
Technically a viking. At least if you trace the lineage.

And, why, you may ask yourself, did the french leave NATO?

Vietnam is a different box of rocks. The US government had a firm policy of dismantling European empires in the 40s and fifties. Well job done. You can't really bitch that the french left when it was what was intended all along. Don't complain that you didn't like the outcome.
Not to mention the way the US stabbed France (Along with Britain) in the back during the Suez Crisis. You can hardly blame France for getting pissed off over that. The only difference is that France had the guts to seek an independent foreign policy after that. Britain has just been crawling to US interests ever since.

And, why, you may ask yourself, did the french leave NATO?

Vietnam is a different box of rocks. The US government had a firm policy of dismantling European empires in the 40s and fifties. Well job done. You can't really bitch that the french left when it was what was intended all along. Don't complain that you didn't like the outcome.
Had Truman backed the vietnamese against the French in all probability they wouldn't be communist today.

What good reason! That they wanted a Catholic state, not a Protestant one, regardless of the majority that lived there.

Time to break down the acronym. Irish Republican Army. They wanted a united Irish republic. It was less about religion and more about fighting the Brits.

Secondly, even if they did have a good reason (which they did not) they did not always give warnings, they killed hundreds of innocent people. They were terrorists (supported by money, arms, and explosives shipped from the USA).

I don't consider them terrorists.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0,36-799959,0.html
Yes I saw that. As I said, the words were said, but the context is what gives meaning. And the context is far from being supportive of Hizbollah.

The following bit reads very differently from the article Eut posted:

Le ministre des affaires étrangères a réitéré l'appel de la France à un cessez-le-feu immédiat, soulignant que l'option militaire menait à une impasse et qu'une solution à la crise ne pouvait être que politique.

One could almost say that by keeping the door to Iran open France is contributing to the diplomatic solution of this crisis. But how? We all know that the only solution to any crisis is to bomb the hell out of whoever happens to be part of the Axis of Evil.

It wouldn't be the first time that the US relies on France to negotiate by proxy either.

Not to mention the way the US stabbed France (Along with Britain) in the back during the Suez Crisis. You can hardly blame France for getting pissed off over that. The only difference is that France had the guts to seek an independent foreign policy after that. Britain has just been crawling to US interests ever since.

What, and fight the Soviet Union? Yes, let's blow up the world!

And, why, you may ask yourself, did the french leave NATO?

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to enlighten us.


Vietnam is a different box of rocks. The US government had a firm policy of dismantling European empires in the 40s and fifties. Well job done. You can't really bitch that the french left when it was what was intended all along. Don't complain that you didn't like the outcome.

Not intended. Brief history for those who don't know:

In the early 20th century Indochina was a French colony. France lost Indochina to the Japanese during WWII. After the war, France was badly damaged by war and moved back on in to Vietnam to essentially take what they needed back to France. (Food, for example.) Mind you, this left the locals destitute since they too were recovering from Japanese occupation. Understandably, the Vietnamese objected to being exploited all over again, and took their grievances to the Allied governments. (Ho Chi Minh) They were blown off by the Western powers but were listened to by the Soviets. They were thusly given support in trying to force the French out. France, always there for their Allies when it needs them, asked for assistance from the USA. The USA got involved, and as the situation got worse, France got gone. That left the USA suddenly fighting a war to support their French allies when the French had taken all their marbles and gone home. It was then, of course, that the point of the war was respun from assistance to an ally to stopping international Communism.

How can you say I complained about the outcome? I dind't address the outcome. The USA got PWNED. Not the point. The point is that USA got left holding the bag.

Not to mention the way the US stabbed France (Along with Britain) in the back during the Suez Crisis. You can hardly blame France for getting pissed off over that. The only difference is that France had the guts to seek an independent foreign policy. Britain has just been crawling to US interests ever since.

And yet, the US did not get involved in that crisis. It was a fight between Egypt, Britain, France and Israel. So how did the US backstab France and Britain?

Not to mention the way the US stabbed France (Along with Britain) in the back during the Suez Crisis. You can hardly blame France for getting pissed off over that. The only difference is that France had the guts to seek an independent foreign policy after that. Britain has just been crawling to US interests ever since.
The US did good that day. Maybe Nasser's policy of nationalization was wrong, but British and French imperialism were even worse.

Not to mention the way the US stabbed France (Along with Britain) in the back during the Suez Crisis. You can hardly blame France for getting pissed off over that. The only difference is that France had the guts to seek an independent foreign policy. Britain has just been crawling to US interests ever since.

Yeah, it was suez that convinced the french that they had to look after their own interests first and everyone else second.

Of course, you can't be surprised about the UKs different reaction as it was far more tied to washington because of war debt and needed the US to support its currency.

it was everyone against Egypt i believe

And yet, the US did not get involved in that crisis. It was a fight between Egypt, Britain, France and Israel. So how did the US backstab France and Britain?
They cut funding to Britain and France, still needed so soon after WWII.

They cut funding to Britain and France, still needed so soon after WWII.

No funding was actually cut and the threat was made against Britain and not France.

Time to break down the acronym. Irish Republican Army. They wanted a united Irish republic. It was less about religion and more about fighting the Brits.
You are proving to be as ignorant of international politics as you are of football.

The IRA wanted a united Catholic Eire. The important part was the Catholic bit, nothing else.



I don't consider them terrorists.
Then you are wrong. Simple.

Not to mention the way the US stabbed France (Along with Britain) in the back during the Suez Crisis. You can hardly blame France for getting pissed off over that. The only difference is that France had the guts to seek an independent foreign policy after that. Britain has just been crawling to US interests ever since.

Sorry, I'm not very familiar with the Suez Crisis, but I thought that America warded off Russia from attacking France and Britain?

Sorry, I'm not very familiar with the Suez Crisis, but I thought that America warded off Russia from attacking France and Britain?

They had to stop it somehow as they were dealing with the Hungarian-Soviet crisis at the sametime. They actually had to end it somehow and so, threatened Britain using the mighty dollar. On top of that, Canada and Australia both did not go along with Britain during the Suez Crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis <--Best I can do.

I don't consider them terrorists.

Lets see, what did the IRA do?

Bomb civilian and military targets: Check
Give false warnings as to maximize civilian casualties: Check
Set two bombs so as to get the rescue workers after the first went off: Check
Strike at civilian and military targets to force an action by the then ruling body: Check

And you don't consider them terrorist. Nice double standards you've got there.

No funding was actually cut and the threat was made against Britain and not France.
True. The threat was enough for Britain and France wouldn't have been able to keep it up by itself and had to withdraw as well.

no it was Britain, France, Isreal, vs egypt

I don't consider them terrorists.
Fair enough. But if you're not willing to support a country's counter-terrorist policy then you can hardly expect that country to do the same for you.

What, and fight the Soviet Union? Yes, let's blow up the world!
The US stood up to the Soviets when they threatened to intervene on the Arab side in the Yom Kippur War. World War III never happened. If they managed it in Yom Kippur they could have managed it in the Suez.

The US did good that day. Maybe Nasser's policy of nationalization was wrong, but British and French imperialism were even worse.
The US has a fine tradition of supporting totalitarian regimes that commit gross human rights abuses against their own people. What does a little imperialism matter to you, you've supported worse things before? Besides, if you don't have our backs why should we have yours?

Yeah, it was suez that convinced the french that they had to look after their own interests first and everyone else second.

Of course, you can't be surprised about the UKs different reaction as it was far more tied to washington because of war debt and needed the US to support its currency.
Then as soon as we were financially independent again we should have made ourselves completely politically independent, particularly in areas like foreign policy. I see no merits in acting as a de facto satellite state.

Le ministre des affaires étrangères a réitéré l'appel de la France à un cessez-le-feu immédiat, soulignant que l'option militaire menait à une impasse et qu'une solution à la crise ne pouvait être que politique.

Translation for those non French speakers.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs reiterated France's call for an immediate cease-fire, emphasizing that the military option has been brought to an impasse and any solution to the crisis must be political.

True. The threat was enough for Britain and France wouldn't have been able to keep it up by itself and had to withdraw as well.

I'll just quote wikipedia as to why we critized both nations The operation to take the canal was highly successful from a military point of view, but a political disaster due to external forces. Along with Suez, the United States was also dealing with the near-simultaneous Soviet Hungary crisis, and faced the public relations embarrassment (especially in the eyes of the Third World) of criticizing the Soviet Union's military intervention there while not also criticizing its two principal European allies' actions.

Sorry, I'm not very familiar with the Suez Crisis, but I thought that America warded off Russia from attacking France and Britain?
No. Britain and the US had promised Egypt some loans to finance infrastructure projects, but then they retired the promise. Britain because they couldn't and the US because they'd rather the Soviets pay for the thing (amazing! but such was politics then!)

Nasser, instead of going to the Soviets to borrow money, decided to nationalize the Suez canal, back then the only remaining British bit, to use its revenues. Britain got all mad, and France too, because they had some shares in the canal.

Israel came up with this plan of invading the Sinai peninsula and then Britain and France would come in to "separate" both factions. That seemed to work for everybody and that's what they did.

The US intervened to put an end to the shenanigans.

Not intended. Brief history for those who don't know:

In the early 20th century Indochina was a French colony. France lost Indochina to the Japanese during WWII. After the war, France was badly damaged by war and moved back on in to Vietnam to essentially take what they needed back to France. (Food, for example.) Mind you, this left the locals destitute since they too were recovering from Japanese occupation. Understandably, the Vietnamese objected to being exploited all over again, and took their grievances to the Allied governments. (Ho Chi Minh) They were blown off by the Western powers but were listened to by the Soviets. They were thusly given support in trying to force the French out. France, always there for their Allies when it needs them, asked for assistance from the USA. The USA got involved, and as the situation got worse, France got gone. That left the USA suddenly fighting a war to support their French allies when the French had taken all their marbles and gone home. It was then, of course, that the point of the war was respun from assistance to an ally to stopping international Communism.

How can you say I complained about the outcome? I dind't address the outcome. The USA got PWNED. Not the point. The point is that USA got left holding the bag.

The US provided financial assitance to france as part of its Korean war strategy. After the cease fire in Korea the US lost interest and reverted to its initial post war strategy of pressuring european nations to divest themselves of their colonial territories. The french, no longer able to support the cost of the war, left in 1954 after defeat at dien bein phu, resulting in the division of vietnam into north and south.

No US troops even set foot in vietnam until five years later (1959). The fact that the US, half a decade later, wanted to throw its weight behind the south has nothing to do with the french. It was most certainly not left holding the bag. Regardless, it probably could have withdrawn earlier anyway had Kennedy not ordered the removal (and judicial murder) of Ngo Dinh Diem.

The IRA wanted a united Catholic Eire. The important part was the Catholic bit, nothing else.

Are we talking about the OIRA or PIRA? PIRA wanted united Ireland.

Then you are wrong. Simple.

An opinion can't be wrong. But just keep telling yourself that. You'll feel better.

The US has a fine tradition of supporting totalitarian regimes that commit gross human rights abuses against their own people. What does a little imperialism matter to you, you've supported worse things before? Besides, if you don't have our backs why should we have yours?
Me? *shrugs*

The US is capable of terrible things, but also of good things.

Are we talking about the OIRA or PIRA? PIRA wanted united Ireland.
The Provos, they wanted, listen carefully now, a united CATHOLIC eire. The "troubles" in NI were completely to do with Catholics vs Protestants. The unification with Catholic Eire on one side and ther Union with Protestant UK on the other.

An opinion can't be wrong. But just keep telling yourself that. You'll feel better.

In that case my opinion that you are a five year old italian schoolgirl cannot be wrong. :p

The IRA are terrorists, regardless of your opinion. You think otherwise, you think incorrectly.

The US intervened to put an end to the shenanigans.

Though the US had no problem with shenanigans a few years earlier in Iran.

ARGHHHHH! Mixed messages. (Again).

The Provos, they wanted, listen carefully now, a united CATHOLIC eire. The "troubles" in NI were completely to do with Catholics vs Protestants. The unification with Catholic Eire on one side and ther Union with Protestant UK on the other.

Yeah, so? That's like saying that Bismarck wanted a united German Germany. If they're going to united, they'll be Catholic anyway. It just happens in the course of action.

The IRA are terrorists, regardless of your opinion. You think otherwise, you think incorrectly.

No. An opinion cannot be wrong.

Though the US had no problem with shenanigans a few years earlier in Iran.

ARGHHHHH! Mixed messages. (Again).
Who said they're constant or that they will always do the right thing? Most of the times they do the right thing it's by accident, coincidence, or because it's the only thing they haven't tried, that doesn't mean it's not the right thing.

Yeah, so? That's like saying that Bismarck wanted a united German Germany. If they're going to united, they'll be Catholic anyway. It just happens in the course of action.
They wanted to be united so that they would be subject to catholic law. Go and learn something about them, before running your mouth off. The end result is that they were a religiously motivated terrorist group. Now does that sound anything like Hezbollah? It does to me.

No. An opinion cannot be wrong.

So who chose that nice pink dress you're wearing little girl.

Who said they're constant or that they will always do the right thing? Most of the times they do the right thing it's by accident, coincidence, or because it's the only thing they haven't tried, that doesn't mean it's not the right thing.

Actually, I don't disagree.

Which is why it's silly to get all steamed because france currently decides not to criticize Iran.

Lets see, what did the IRA do?

Bomb civilian and military targets: Check
Give false warnings as to maximize civilian casualties: Check
Set two bombs so as to get the rescue workers after the first went off: Check
Strike at civilian and military targets to force an action by the then ruling body: Check

And you don't consider them terrorist. Nice double standards you've got there.

It's the "Only Brown People Are Terrorists" standard, commonly accepted by Busheviks and Islamaphobes.

They wanted to be united so that they would be subject to catholic law. Go and learn something about them, before running your mouth off. The end result is that they were a religiously motivated terrorist group. Now does that sound anything like Hezbollah? It does to me.

Sure they were.

So who chose that nice pink dress you're wearing little girl.

Opinion =/= fact

Possibly, although it seems a bit extreme to me.
Well, I mean look at all the nice things President Bush said about China?

No, if I see actual AID going their way... that's different, but anytime I diplomat speaks I automatically assume they don't mean anything they say.

It saves times. ;)

Technically a viking. At least if you trace the lineage.
Er, France WAS the major military power up to the mid-1700s when its kings got stupid.

As much fun as it is to bash them, they were very, very strong. Why do you think we begged them for help in the 1770's?

A french diplomat compliments Iran very vaguely.

Eutrusca turns it into France supporting Hezbollah.

I am not surprised one bit. Meh, post more than anybody else on a forum, and you start to get people to believe you know what the hell you're talking about, I suppose.

Er, France WAS the major military power up to the mid-1700s when its kings got stupid.

What was that thing called again .... Oh yes the 'British Empire'

What was that thing called again .... Oh yes the 'British Empire'
Yes, something about France and England tied quite a bit in taking up chunks of the world for the longest time...

I also seem to recall something about the language of the English court bring French for the longest time and the lingua Franka being French for a lot longer than English for some odd reason.

But I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with French military power, ne? ;)

I also seem to recall something about the language of the English court bring French for the longest time and the lingua Franka being French for a lot longer than English for some odd reason.

But I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with French military power, ne? ;)

Do the Plains of Abraham mean anything to you?
What about the Royal Navy, being the first munitions navy?
Recall anything happening in 1815?
Also, I don't seem to recall France owning 25% of the world.

+100000 france

Stability requires deterrence, Iran is the middle east's best hope.

Do the Plains of Abraham mean anything to you?
What about the Royal Navy, being the first munitions navy?
Recall anything happening in 1815?
Also, I don't seem to recall France owning 25% of the world.

Whats the largest war you can think of that britain has been in? By that, I mean it having the most to overcome? Like WW2 for Germany, the Napoleonic wars for France, etc?

France managed to take over most of mainland europe, until the remaining strong nations of europe took it on.

Britain owned 25% of the world... Oh wow, it pwnd some local africans, indians, and native americans... Huge military accomplishment.

Whats the most Britain ever had of europe? Parts of france? an occupation zone of germany? Gibraltar?

A french diplomat compliments Iran very vaguely.

Eutrusca turns it into France supporting Hezbollah.

I am not surprised one bit. Meh, post more than anybody else on a forum, and you start to get people to believe you know what the hell you're talking about, I suppose.

More of his "Centrism" on display. On the other hand, it's good to see Forrest focus his "Centrist" viewpoints on something besides "Cindy Sheehan, Waaaaah!" Even if it's more of his usual "T3h 13ft R 100Z3rz 101!" diatribe.

the Napoleonic wars for France, etc?

Yea um.. Britain defeated Napoleonic France...

Europe's hardly the kind of place to bend over to every upstart country. Quite a lot, but not all.
Like the Ashes? :p

Yea um.. Britain defeated Napoleonic France...

After how many years? And I don't recall the British Empire ever expanding much into Continental Europe either.

I don't know if "support" is the right word.. But it doesn't matter. Good on them.

After how many years? And I don't recall the British Empire ever expanding much into Continental Europe either.

The point isnt how long it took, its that Britian defeated France.

So France had some European countries?? So what? Britain had colonies in 6 continents of the world? Isn't that more of a feat that just claiming some neighbouring land?

I bet its a ploy to try and trick french muslims into actually liking the french government.

The point isnt how long it took, its that Britian defeated France.

So France had some European countries?? So what? Britain had colonies in 6 continents of the world? Isn't that more of a feat that just claiming some neighbouring land?


UK is definitely more of a man than the "Eurinal" of europe, france :)

I don't consider them terrorists.

So, the Irish Catholics who detonates bombs in England in order to get a catholic Ireland are not terrorists. But the Muslim Palestinians who detonates bombs in Israel in order to get a Muslim Palestine are.

Huh…?

Oh yes, I forgot. The IRA is supported by the US, and so, per definition, cannot possibly be terrorists…


Bah, humbug…

So, the Irish Catholics who detonates bombs in England in order to get a catholic Ireland are not terrorists. But the Muslim Palestinians who detonates bombs in Israel in order to get a Muslim Palestine are.

The difference is that Ireland already exists; it's only natural for it to reunify eventually. The UK is just trying to hold onto it's last bastion on Ireland. Whereas Palestine has repeatedly been given chances to create their own state, but have rejected them because they involved Israel not being destroyed.

The difference is that Ireland already exists; it's only natural for it to reunify eventually. The UK is just trying to hold onto it's last bastion on Ireland. Whereas Palestine has repeatedly been given chances to create their own state, but have rejected them because they involved Israel not being destroyed.Well, good to know that you support terrorism, as long as its Irish. :p

The difference is that Ireland already exists; it's only natural for it to reunify eventually. The UK is just trying to hold onto it's last bastion on Ireland. Whereas Palestine has repeatedly been given chances to create their own state, but have rejected them because they involved Israel not being destroyed.

In other words, you're excusing the Irish through a grandfather clause. How convenient.

So, the Irish Catholics who detonates bombs in England in order to get a catholic Ireland are not terrorists. But the Muslim Palestinians who detonates bombs in Israel in order to get a Muslim Palestine are.

I think that point already debated for too long but nevermind.
if the muslim palastinian wanted muslim palastine they can get the area provided for them by the UN or by israeli proposals in the period of the peace agreement.
as long as they want to destruct israel and the jews, it isn't territorial argument but religious war. that make them terrorists (although Ira are terrorists too, but the difference between the base reasoning make their situation un-comparable to the middle east).

Yea um.. Britain defeated Napoleonic France...

Completely missed the point. It took britain, and a number of other nations, to stop france.

Again, whats the most european land britain has conquered?

In other words, you're excusing the Irish through a grandfather clause. How convenient.

I'm what what?

Yeah, the United States doesn't support terrorists.

Pakistan. Their support to and indulgence of far more dangerous terrorist groups (taliban, Let, JeM, etc etc etc) is a significantly greater problem than Syria and Iran's support of Hezbollah.

A french diplomat compliments Iran very vaguely.

Eutrusca turns it into France supporting Hezbollah.

I am not surprised one bit. Meh, post more than anybody else on a forum, and you start to get people to believe you know what the hell you're talking about, I suppose.

Indeed. I find it interesting that Americans are very quick to point out that the US Government != the US when they say or do something stupid. But apparently one person in the France Government = France.

Double standards, anyone?

Pakistan. Their support to and indulgence of far more dangerous terrorist groups (taliban, Let, JeM, etc etc etc) is a significantly greater problem than Syria and Iran's support of Hezbollah.

The US supports the general. You, as an Indian, (I think) should be thankful for that.

I bet its a ploy to try and trick french muslims into actually liking the french government.

Considering the riots in Paris that happened recently and the fact there will be an election to the National Assembly and President next year, that could hold some sway. However, considering that fact that Europe (except us Brits, still clinging to the stars and stripes) generally has a more dimplomacy-based foreign policy, and that Lebanon was once a French mandate and still has some French interests, the reason is mor likely to be foreign than domestic.

However, like everything else, there won't be a single reason why the French are doing this, like everythign else.

Yeah, the United States doesn't support terrorists.


Right on!

Everyone seems to ignore the Mujahideen and the IRA when saying the US doesn;t support terrorism, oh, and that whole contra thing.

Pakistan. Their support to and indulgence of far more dangerous terrorist groups (taliban, Let, JeM, etc etc etc) is a significantly greater problem than Syria and Iran's support of Hezbollah.

The Pakistani government has been a very useful ally to the west in helping remove extremeism. It's in their interests to do that because a sudden flouish of terrorism would destroy their growing, but fragile, economy and no governmetn likes the idea of being overthrown in an Islamic revolution.

Here's an example (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4772134.stm)

While there are terrorist groups that do nip between the Afghan/Pakistani border, it's next to impossible to catch them. Trust me, I've been there. Northern Pakistan can be miles and miles of mountains and plains. Someone could hide there for years and noone would know about it.

Everyone seems to ignore the Mujahideen and the IRA when saying the US doesn;t support terrorism, oh, and that whole contra thing.

Of course, the USA strayed from the path when it failed to utterly condemn the IRA.

But as for the Contras? The Contras were not terrorists - they were working and fighting hard to rid the world of all Libbyism, Marxism, and other undesirable idead.

As for the Mujahedeen? A similar story: ridding the world from Marxism.

Sure, the Mujahedeen could have been better folks. It wasn't as though they were Born Again Christians...

I sometimes wonder if you're serious.

YOU SOLD ARMS TO IRAN AND GAVE THE MONEY TO RIGHT-WING LUNATICS!

I sometimes wonder if you're serious.

YOU SOLD ARMS TO IRAN AND GAVE THE MONEY TO RIGHT-WING LUNATICS!


Oh, I am being quite serious.

Much as I detest Iran, I am forced to admit that a world in which theocratic muslims exists, is ceteris paribus, preferable to a world in which libbies and marxists exist.

Oh my sweet Jesus.

Oh, I am being quite serious.

Much as I detest Iran, I am forced to admit that a world in which theocratic muslims exists, is ceteris paribus, preferable to a world in which libbies and marxists exist.

what in bumclouds is a libby? (I assume you don't have it in for the crappy orange juice)

Of course, the USA strayed from the path when it failed to utterly condemn the IRA.

But as for the Contras? The Contras were not terrorists - they were working and fighting hard to rid the world of all Libbyism, Marxism, and other undesirable idead.

As for the Mujahedeen? A similar story: ridding the world from Marxism.

Sure, the Mujahedeen could have been better folks. It wasn't as though they were Born Again Christians...

So, terrorism is OK if it's in line with your narrow right-wing ideological spectrum. It is blatant hypocracy to have your stance to Islamic terrorists and then turn around and OK terrorists, or "feedom fighters" as you might see them, who share your ideolgical goal.

The other terrorists, who don't fit into that right-wing spectrum, think exactly the same way as you do. Let's see, what if we replace "Contras" with "Al-Quieda", "Libbyism" with "Christianity" and "Marxism" with "Israel:

But as for the Al-Quieda? The Al-Quida were not terrorists - they were working and fighting hard to rid the world of all Christianity, Israel, and other undesirable idead.

As for the Hezbollah? A similar story: ridding the world from Israel.

Typical double-standards. Get my drift?

So, terrorism is OK if it's in line with your narrow right-wing ideological spectrum. It is blatant hypocracy to have your stance to Islamic terrorists and then turn around and OK terrorists, or "feedom fighters" as you might see them, who share your ideolgical goal.

The other terrorists, who don't fit into that right-wing spectrum, think exactly the same way as you do. Let's see, what if we replace "Contras" with "Al-Quieda", "Libbyism" with "Christianity" and "Marxism" with "Israel:

But as for the Al-Quieda? The Al-Quida were not terrorists - they were working and fighting hard to rid the world of all Christianity, Israel, and other undesirable idead.

As for the Hezbollah? A similar story: ridding the world from Israel.

Typical double-standards. Get my drift?
what is israel fault if usa did support terrorists? american "double-standarts" won't make al-qaida, syria, iran, hizbulla or hamas better in any way.

That doesn't make Israeli war crimes (not a lunatic statement, a matter of international law) any better!

europe has never been a fanboy for israel- quite the contrary in fact. Less than shocking.


This is true for the most part. While Israel and the EU do have certain trade links the EU, especially France has never been entirely pro the United States and hence Israel.

OMG! I'VE BEEN SIGGED! Holy crap!

what is israel fault if usa did support terrorists? american "double-standarts" won't make al-qaida, syria, iran, hizbulla or hamas better in any way.

Where on Earth in my post did I accuse Israel of doing anything? Where did I blame Israel for the USA supporting terrorists?

However, in answer to the second part of your post (the first being entire make-believe) is that is no, having two standards, one for terrorists you like and one for terrorists you don't doesn't make any of the above better at all. It is the person with double standards - whether they be BM or the terrorists he deplores - that loses his right to condemn terrorists he dislikes, and accuse others of terrorism.

Or put it this way, is it right to support one group of terrorists while comdemning another. Answer carefully.

So, terrorism is OK if it's in line with your narrow right-wing ideological spectrum. It is blatant hypocracy to have your stance to Islamic terrorists and then turn around and OK terrorists, or "feedom fighters" as you might see them, who share your ideolgical goal.

The other terrorists, who don't fit into that right-wing spectrum, think exactly the same way as you do. Let's see, what if we replace "Contras" with "Al-Quieda", "Libbyism" with "Christianity" and "Marxism" with "Israel:

But as for the Al-Quieda? The Al-Quida were not terrorists - they were working and fighting hard to rid the world of all Christianity, Israel, and other undesirable idead.

As for the Hezbollah? A similar story: ridding the world from Israel.

Typical double-standards. Get my drift?

Excuse me for a second: there is no double standard.

One is either proWest, proIsrael, and proClerical, the whole kit and kaboodle -
or one is simply beyond the Pale. End of story.

One very clear and simple standard.

BogMarsh: 'this troll ain't for hire, he has a cause!'

That doesn't make Israeli war crimes (not a lunatic statement, a matter of international law) any better!
the international law see as war crime the "human shield" tactic of the terrorists. israel isn't the war criminal here, even by the international law.

Yea um.. Britain defeated Napoleonic France...
The russian winter defeated Napoleonic France.
The other powers, including UK, sweeped the rest.

Again, whats the most european land britain has conquered?

So France had some European countries?? So what? Britain had colonies in 6 continents of the world? Isn't that more of a feat that just claiming some neighbouring land?

Whats the most intercontinental land france has conquered?

Colonial empires in 1898:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/World_1898_empires_colonies_territory.png

Interesting, eh?

EDIT: And in 1945:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Colonization_1945.png

BogMarsh: 'this troll ain't for hire, he has a cause!'


Eon8: a supporter of Fidel Castro.

Where on Earth in my post did I accuse Israel of doing anything? Where did I blame Israel for the USA supporting terrorists?mostly israel seen coneccted to USA, thus blame one and you blame the other, but I take my words back.

However, in answer to the second part of your post (the first being entire make-believe) is that is no, having two standards, one for terrorists you like and one for terrorists you don't doesn't make any of the above better at all. It is the person with double standards - whether they be BM or the terrorists he deplores - that loses his right to condemn terrorists he dislikes, and accuse others of terrorism.

Or put it this way, is it right to support one group of terrorists while comdemning another. Answer carefully.
terrorists is too wide definition, so I think that you can seperate them from eachother and not tied them in one bag.
I believ that purposely harming civilians is bad terror no matter what motives he had.
also I had no sympathy for terrorists who currently aim mostly soldiers while they go toward their final goals which are un-humanic, racist, oppressive or other sort of accepted "evil" (which his definition is complicated issue).

:rolleyes: Time for the yanks to give the greasy crap they eat new names again.

OMG! I'VE BEEN SIGGED! Holy crap!

Yeah baby!

Colonial empires in 1898:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/World_1898_empires_colonies_territory.png

Interesting, eh?

EDIT: And in 1945:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Colonization_1945.png

Yea, interesting but we were discussing the mid 1700s.

mostly israel seen coneccted to USA, thus blame one and you blame the other, but I take my words back.

Israel still had nothing to do with the Contra:rolleyes:

terrorists is too wide definition, so I think that you can seperate them from eachother and not tied them in one bag.
I believ that purposely harming civilians is bad terror no matter what motives he had.
also I had no sympathy for terrorists who currently aim mostly soldiers while they go toward their final goals which are un-humanic, racist, oppressive or other sort of accepted "evil" (which his definition is complicated issue).

So, you therefore agree that terrorism is wrong, regardless of the aim, whether it be the killing of innocent Israeli citizens on one hand (for example) or the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government? The point I was replying to by BM said explicitly that terrorism to overthrow leftist governments is justified.

Israel still had nothing to do with the Contra:rolleyes:



So, you therefore agree that terrorism is wrong, regardless of the aim, whether it be the killing of innocent Israeli citizens on one hand (for example) or the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government? The point I was replying to by BM said explicitly that terrorism to overthrow leftist governments is justified.


Did I imply that terrorism is right?
Where?
I did say and will gladly say it again: fighting leftist governments is right.

Did I imply that terrorism is right?
Where?
I did say and will gladly say it again: fighting leftist governments is right.

Here you go:

Of course, the USA strayed from the path when it failed to utterly condemn the IRA.

But as for the Contras? The Contras were not terrorists - they were working and fighting hard to rid the world of all Libbyism, Marxism, and other undesirable idead.

As for the Mujahedeen? A similar story: ridding the world from Marxism.

Sure, the Mujahedeen could have been better folks. It wasn't as though they were Born Again Christians...

Of course, when it's fighting a leftist government, terrorists become freedom fighters, don't they?

Here you go:



Of course, when it's fighting a leftist government, terrorists become freedom fighters, don't they?


Excuse me: where did I say that terrorism is ok?

Prove it.

Israel still had nothing to do with the Contra:rolleyes:fine.



So, you therefore agree that terrorism is wrong, regardless of the aim, whether it be the killing of innocent Israeli citizens on one hand (for example) or the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government? The point I was replying to by BM said explicitly that terrorism to overthrow leftist governments is justified.
if they killed civilians in order to fight the opposite ideology it is wrong.
if they harm civilians trying to achieve disorder in the countrey and revolution (as USA did in iran), they are wrong too.
if they fought the nicaraguan military in order to threw his opressive regime, it much different story.

anyway I didn't heard much about this case, so I won't give specific comment.

Ten pages of shit after a single post of shit. :rolleyes:

NS General in a nutshell.

Ten pages of shit after a single post of shit. :rolleyes:

NS General in a nutshell.

Ah, don't you LOVE this place?

Excuse me: where did I say that terrorism is ok?

Prove it.

But as for the Contras? The Contras were not terrorists - they were working and fighting hard to rid the world of all Libbyism, Marxism, and other undesirable idead.

Here you go, I'll make it a little plainer. You justified the actions of the Contras - a Nicaraguan terrorist organisation - by suggesting that they are 'right' to rid the world of 'Libbyism' and Marxism. Quite simply, you said that the actions of a terrorist group were right.

If I'm missing the point of the above quote, by all means, tell me what you meant.

Ten pages of shit after a single post of shit. :rolleyes:

NS General in a nutshell.


Ah, don't you LOVE this place?

So, let's start a shit free thread. Any ideas what about?

Here you go, I'll make it a little plainer. You justified the actions of the Contras - a Nicaraguan terrorist organisation - by suggesting that they are 'right' to rid the world of 'Libbyism' and Marxism. Quite simply, you said that the actions of a terrorist group were right.

If I'm missing the point of the above quote, by all means, tell me what you meant.

Your assertion is that the contras were terrorists. Your assertion, not mine.

Now, state where I said that terrorism is ok.

No, you'll get your asses handed back to you, simply as a humiliating punishment from god. Put it this way, do you think god supports cheeseburgers and mcdonald's or the producer of the best wine, cheese and philosophy in the world?

Italy produces the best wine, the UK the best cheese and being the birth place of geniuses like Voltaire is hardly going to get god on your side.

Anyway, what would you rather eat right now, a lump of mouldy cheese or a Big Mac? ;)

Is there ever a BAD time?
You are the single most pro-murder Christian I've ever found.

Whats the most intercontinental land france has conquered?

Well, Vietnam, though that didn't go too well... The Louisiana Purchase... some part of Indonesia I think... a couple Carribean islands...

Your assertion is that the contras were terrorists. Your assertion, not mine.
The Contras were terrorists. Undisputed, if inconvenient, fact that is. They weren't fighting Libya though.

Terrorists are terrorists no matter what their ideoogy is or what the ideology that they oppose is. They are defined by deliberate killing of civilians.

Colonial empires in 1898:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/World_1898_empires_colonies_territory.png

Interesting, eh?

EDIT: And in 1945:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Colonization_1945.png

Your maps show only that Britain had a far larger empire than the French in 1898 (not Imperial Britain's height) and that by 1945 Britain had realised Imperialism was not a good ideology and were in the process of giving indepence to colonies able to support themselves.

I would also like to point out that many of Britian's former colonies are now prosperous nations (The US, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Canada and to a certain degree India) while ALL of France's are still developing countries.

The Contras were terrorists. Undisputed, if inconvenient, fact that is. They weren't fighting Libya though.

Terrorists are terrorists no matter what their ideoogy is or what the ideology that they oppose is. They are defined by deliberate killing of civilians.


I dispute it. Now.

They were fighting sandinism, right?
They were fighting chaps and gals with Kalashnikov's, right?


And returning to topic: where did I say that I supported terrorism or terrorists?

They are doing this out of spite, or to show off how left wing they are. (which they arn't)

I’ve always suspected Americans of being very, umm – “selective”, in their view of the world. But the double standard in this thread is just mind-boggling…

And, why, you may ask yourself, did the french leave NATO?

Vietnam is a different box of rocks. The US government had a firm policy of dismantling European empires in the 40s and fifties. Well job done. You can't really bitch that the french left when it was what was intended all along. Don't complain that you didn't like the outcome.

Except France didn't want to play that tune and demanded its Indo China colonies back , claiming it needed them to recover from WW II . They also played the communism card ..both at home and in asia .
Its the US fault for not telling France to go fuck off , back then instead of getting screwed over countless times since . We did promise old Ho independence for helping us fight Japan...so we screwed him for France..see how well that workred out ?
Read a little history .

No, you'll get your asses handed back to you, simply as a humiliating punishment from god. Put it this way, do you think god supports cheeseburgers and mcdonald's or the producer of the best wine, cheese and philosophy in the world?

Does this include the philosophy of entitlement and how to riot and burn cars all on 2 bottles of wine a day?

+100000 france

Stability requires deterrence, Iran is the middle east's best hope.

No it is not the Middle East's best hope for stability as Iran is not even in the Middle East.

I sometimes wonder if you're serious.

YOU SOLD ARMS TO IRAN AND GAVE THE MONEY TO RIGHT-WING LUNATICS!

And those weapons kept Iran from losing the Iran-Iraq War.

Excuse me for a second: there is no double standard.

One is either proWest, proIsrael, and proClerical, the whole kit and kaboodle -
or one is simply beyond the Pale. End of story.

One very clear and simple standard.

And what about those who are neutral?

I dispute it. Now.

They were fighting sandinism, right?
They were fighting chaps and gals with Kalashnikov's, right?

No, they attacked civilians and civilian infrastructure. What the US calls "soft targets". Their actions fall squarely under the US definition of terrorism.

And returning to topic: where did I say that I supported terrorism or terrorists?
When you said you support the contra.

No it is not the Middle East's best hope for stability as Iran is not even in the Middle East.

That completely underestimates Iranian influence. Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas look to Iran for inspiration (Especially Hezbollah, being a shia group) religiously, politically and in terms of their 'military'.

That completely underestimates Iranian influence. Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas look to Iran for inspiration (Especially Hezbollah, being a shia group) religiously, politically and in terms of their 'military'.

And yet, half the Middle East nations see Iran as a threat so I do not believe that a nation seen as a threat will bring stability to the region.

Lets see, what did the IRA do?

Bomb civilian and military targets: Check
Give false warnings as to maximize civilian casualties: Check
Set two bombs so as to get the rescue workers after the first went off: Check
Strike at civilian and military targets to force an action by the then ruling body: Check

And you don't consider them terrorist. Nice double standards you've got there.

your making an obvious mistake with his logic. they were not muslim, thus they are not terrorists, but freedom fighters:rolleyes:

No, they attacked civilians and civilian infrastructure. What the US calls "soft targets". Their actions fall squarely under the US definition of terrorism.


When you said you support the contra.

Once again: where did I say that I supported terrorism.

Quote, chapter and verse.

Once again: where did I say that I supported terrorism.

Quote, chapter and verse.
Stop playing the fool. Do you or do you not support the contras?

Stop playing the fool. Do you or do you not support the contras?

No, stop evading.
Did I state 'I support terrorism' -
OR are you just another libbie who ought to be stuck into Gitmo?

No, stop evading.
Did I state 'I support terrorism' -
OR are you just another libbie who ought to be stuck into Gitmo?

Are you always this head strong who think that Liberals deserve to be thrown in prison?

Are you always this head strong who think that Liberals deserve to be thrown in prison?


Whenever they get too close to giving aid and comfort to enemies - such as Hezbollah, al Qaeda-in-Mesopotamia - no doubt about it!

No, stop evading.
Did I state 'I support terrorism' -
OR are you just another libbie who ought to be stuck into Gitmo?
Supporting groups that engage in terrorism IS supporting terrorism.

Are you really this thick?

Supporting groups that engage in terrorism IS supporting terrorism.

Are you really this thick?

BS. You're trying to twist out.

Quote, verse and chapter.

Whenever they get too close to giving aid and comfort to enemies - such as Hezbollah, al Qaeda-in-Mesopotamia - no doubt about it!

I think you need to re-examine your life just a tad. I do not want to see any politician to be tossed in prison unless he has done something truly criminal. What is aide and comfort? Who decides that? What is your definition of aide and comfort?

No, stop evading.
Did I state 'I support terrorism' -
OR are you just another libbie who ought to be stuck into Gitmo?

I wondered what happened to Kievan Prussia now I think I know - changed theie name to BogMarsh

I think you need to re-examine your life just a tad. I do not want to see any politician to be tossed in prison unless he has done something truly criminal. What is aide and comfort? Who decides that? What is your definition of aide and comfort?


I won't do a definition, but I'll gladly give an example.

Civil War: whoever argues for anything but the submission of the CSA by force of arms ( post Ft Sumter ) = traitor.

With 10% of the population and a quarter of young people already muslim and this ammount increasing fast, they are probably preparing for the day when they'll be the islamic republic of France by improving their relations with the islamic republic of iran.

Come on...Is anyone suprized that France supports terrorist??????:D

I won't do a definition, but I'll gladly give an example.

Civil War: whoever argues for anything but the submission of the CSA by force of arms ( post Ft Sumter ) = traitor.

Well I do not think of them as traitors but the opposition. There is always opposition to war regardless of what type of war it is.

Well I do not think of them as traitors but the opposition. There is always opposition to war regardless of what type of war it is.

Then, good Sir, we disagree.

Meanwhile, I don't believe that a thing is justified because it was an act of opposition.

BS. You're trying to twist out.

Quote, verse and chapter.
And you really are thick.

By your definition Iran does not support terrorism, neither did Saddam, or Bin-Laden for that matter. As far as I know, none of them has ever stated their support for terrorism.

Then, good Sir, we disagree.

Yes. Apparently we do disagree.

Meanwhile, I don't believe that a thing is justified because it was an act of opposition.

Even if they do honestly disagree with a war?

I won't do a definition, but I'll gladly give an example.

You won't give a definition because you can't. And you can't because you are too thick to conduct proper analysis and synthesis a definition.

Yes. Apparently we do disagree.



Even if they do honestly disagree with a war?


They may disagree. In the case of the Iraq War, I know >I< disagree.
We should never have gone in at all.
The decision was bad.
The Pope was spot-on.

But once the fighting starts.... let every man do his UTMOST to sustain his country.
Let the decision be cared out to the best of our abilities.

They may disagree. In the case of the Iraq War, I know >I< disagree.
We should never have gone in at all.
The decision was bad.
The Pope was spot-on.

But once the fighting starts.... let every man do his UTMOST to sustain his country.
Let the decision be cared out to the best of our abilities.

I agree we should do all that we can to assist in winning. However, that still does not mean that those who are opposed to the war are aiding and abetting the enemy.

I agree we should do all that we can to assist in winning. However, that still does not mean that those who are opposed to the war are aiding and abetting the enemy.


I think you're missing the word 'comfort' here.
If it makes the enemy feels less bad about the state of things - it's giving comfort to the enemy.

I think you're missing the word 'comfort' here.
If it makes the enemy feels less bad about the state of things - it's giving comfort to the enemy.

That still does not mean that they are giving aide and comfort to the enemy. What if I told you that I adamently opposed the Iraq war and I called on the troops to come home now? Would I be giving aide and comfort to the enemy for doing so?

That still does not mean that they are giving aide and comfort to the enemy. What if I told you that I adamently opposed the Iraq war and I called on the troops to come home now? Would I be giving aide and comfort to the enemy for doing so?

Depends.

I have called for the troops to be returned home without delay ( and tough luck for whichever Sunni Iraqis are thus left behind ) - but that has never moved me to state such things as 'F*** the troops'.


But I say a body WILL be commiting treason if he states that he has more sympathy with the insurgents than with, say, the Marines.

But I say a body WILL be commiting treason if he states that he has more sympathy with the insurgents than with, say, the Marines.

Well they do deserve our sympathy for having to be subject to what they are receiving at the hands of the Marines. I always feel sorry for those on the receiving end of such punishment.

They may disagree. In the case of the Iraq War, I know >I< disagree.
We should never have gone in at all.
The decision was bad.
The Pope was spot-on.

But once the fighting starts.... let every man do his UTMOST to sustain his country.
Let the decision be cared out to the best of our abilities.

Wow, something BogMarsh and I vaguely agree on. Here, have a throughly earned :fluffle:

Who is saying that the troubles was a Catholic vs. Protestant religious war?
The current incarnations of the IRA are a band of thugs, but they are not in any way shape or form a religious group!
If they were im sure all the protestants down south might have been an issue for them.
The IRAs goal was always the reunification of Ireland (something im against, but for entirely different reasons), there has been many, many protestant republicans, the same is true of the other side.
Yes the sides do have religious majorities but the religious aspects predate the Republic, the IRA and the troubles.


Stirring the shit with your ill informed tabloid opinions is not going to help anyone and only justifies more bored kids to cause trouble for the sake of trouble.

Blabbing opinions left right and centre without understanding the issue is irresponsible, think before you talk in future

Incredible! Eutrusca finds a reason to bash France!
Air is breathable, more at 11!

Well, Vietnam, though that didn't go too well... The Louisiana Purchase... some part of Indonesia I think... a couple Carribean islands...
Large chunks of Canada, swaths of Africa (where they still speak French), interests in China and the rest of East Asia... They were everywhere Britian was.

Oh, and my passport. For some reason my US passport uses French.

No it is not the Middle East's best hope for stability as Iran is not even in the Middle East.


And the US isn't in Europe... some point to that post?

And the US isn't in Europe... some point to that post?

First off, hard to be a stablizing force in the Middle East when you are not in the region. Secondly, they are doing everything they can to disrupt the Middle East. Not what I call very stabilizing.

First off, hard to be a stablizing force in the Middle East when you are not in the region. Secondly, they are doing everything they can to disrupt the Middle East. Not what I call very stabilizing.


The US didn't have any trouble stabilizing Europe after the second world war, all the way up until the end of the cold war.

And the US didn't border Europe, like Iran borders Iraq.

A nuclear deterrent is necessary on the Arab/Muslim side of the middle east to counteract israeli aggression like the sort we have today in Gaza and Lebanon.

The desperation and frustration that leads to suicide attacks can only be overcome by providing Muslims in the middle east with substantial security guarantees.

A nuclear deterrent is necessary on the Arab/Muslim side of the middle east to counteract israeli aggression like the sort we have today in Gaza and Lebanon.

So you are saying that Israel should not be defending themselves from attacks by terrorists? Israel was attacked in a cross-border assault by Hezbollah and Israel retaliated. Israel pulls out of Gaza and they get attacked there as well and they retaliated. What about the agressions of Hezbollah and Hamas? I do not see you condemning their agression since it was their agression that started this latest round.

As to a nuclear armed Iran, no Middle Eastern nation wants them to have Nuclear weapons.

The desperation and frustration that leads to suicide attacks can only be overcome by providing Muslims in the middle east with substantial security guarantees.

Like what? What guarantees short of Israel's destruction would they settle for?

So you are saying that Israel should not be defending themselves from attacks by terrorists? Israel was attacked in a cross-border assault by Hezbollah and Israel retaliated. Israel pulls out of Gaza and they get attacked there as well and they retaliated. What about the agressions of Hezbollah and Hamas? I do not see you condemning their agression since it was their agression that started this latest round.

As to a nuclear armed Iran, no Middle Eastern nation wants them to have Nuclear weapons.



Like what? What guarantees short of Israel's destruction would they settle for?


A) What israel is doing far outsteps the bounds of legitimate self defense.

B) M.A.D, same as the parties to the cold war had.

A) What israel is doing far outsteps the bounds of legitimate self defense.

In your opinion. How do you fight an enemy who hides among civilians, has no uniforms, wears no insignia, and fights using human shields?

B) M.A.D, same as the parties to the cold war had.

I would trust the Soviets over the Iranians and that is saying something.

In your opinion. How do you fight an enemy who hides among civilians, has no uniforms, wears no insignia, and fights using human shields?



I would trust the Soviets over the Iranians and that is saying something.

Not by bombarding entire villages and hospitals. Israel is showing it's true colors on this one. They escalated this entire conflict which their invasion, only because a soldier was kidnapped. They play on the whole ' we need to get our man back' and go around killing hundreds of innocents. This is the height of hypocrisy. Israel NEVER attempted diplomacy.

Not by bombarding entire villages and hospitals. Israel is showing it's true colors on this one. They escalated this entire conflict which their invasion, only because a soldier was kidnapped. They play on the whole ' we need to get our man back' and go around killing hundreds of innocents. This is the height of hypocrisy. Israel NEVER attempted diplomacy.

When your soldiers are taken in an act of war, that does tend to throw diplomacy out the window. Also, as to other things you pointed out, civilians were being used as human shields so that Hezbollah can go around launching rockets at Israel. Israel has full right to bomb the sites that Hezbollah is using and, under International Law though we may not like it, Hezbollah is to be blamed for any civilian deaths occured in such an assault.

When your soldiers are taken in an act of war, that does tend to throw diplomacy out the window. Also, as to other things you pointed out, civilians were being used as human shields so that Hezbollah can go around launching rockets at Israel. Israel has full right to bomb the sites that Hezbollah is using and, under International Law though we may not like it, Hezbollah is to be blamed for any civilian deaths occured in such an assault.

Sorry, but the Hizbollah and Israel are to be equally blamed for the civilian deaths. The Hizbollah for hiding behind them, and Israel for throwing the bombs on them in the first place.

Israel attemped NO diplomacy. Israel didn't even attempt to understand the situation and why their soldier was taken.

Sorry, but the Hizbollah and Israel are to be equally blamed for the civilian deaths. The Hizbollah for hiding behind them, and Israel for throwing the bombs on them in the first place.

Not according to International Law. If an enemy uses civilians to prevent them from being bombed and they get bombed anyway and civilians die, then the fault lies with those who are using Human Shields.

Israel attemped NO diplomacy. Israel didn't even attempt to understand the situation and why their soldier was taken.

They do not need to understand it because what occured was an Act of War. When an Act of War is committed, all bets are off. That is the long and the short of it. Would you have negotiated if say one of your cities was attacked by another nation?

They do not need to understand it because what occured was an Act of War. When an Act of War is committed, all bets are off. That is the long and the short of it. Would you have negotiated if say one of your cities was attacked by another nation?

But Israel wasn't attacked by another nation. It was attacked by a listed terrorist group.

And AFAIK, legally an 'act of war' can only be between States - not groups and States.

But Israel wasn't attacked by another nation. It was attacked by a listed terrorist group.

And AFAIK, legally an 'act of war' can only be between States - not groups and States.

But then you have to look at Hezbollah which is indeed a political party inside Lebanon. Also have to look at the fact that Lebanon did not follow through on their obligation under UN Resolution 1559 which is binding on all member nations and has the full force of International Law. By not doing so, they have given tacit consent to Hezbollah (a political party) and Hezbollah up and does this. What Hezbollah did is indeed an act of war, just like 9/11 was an act of war. Just like the Embassy Bombings in Africa and the USS Cole attack as well. It was an act of war and Israel decided to take the war to the enemy.

But Israel wasn't attacked by another nation. It was attacked by a listed terrorist group.

And AFAIK, legally an 'act of war' can only be between States - not groups and States.

One might also conclude that the Lebanese habit of letting Hezbollah participate in Lebanese government, and remain armed in violation of UN resolutions to the contrary is an act of war.

One might, as an Israeli, presume that Lebanon either intends to use Hezbollah as a proxy, or accedes to its use as a proxy by other nations. Using a proxy force in this manner is also an act of war. In the old days, this used to be called hiring mercenaries.

But then you have to look at Hezbollah which is indeed a political party inside Lebanon. Also have to look at the fact that Lebanon did not follow through on their obligation under UN Resolution 1559 which is binding on all member nations and has the full force of International Law. By not doing so, they have given tacit consent to Hezbollah (a political party) and Hezbollah up and does this. What Hezbollah did is indeed an act of war, just like 9/11 was an act of war. Just like the Embassy Bombings in Africa and the USS Cole attack as well. It was an act of war and Israel decided to take the war to the enemy.

You've made a huge leap of faith with that interpretation.

(Probably not great practice to use the words 'Israel', 'UN Resolutions' and 'enforce' in future arguments. ;) )

One might also conclude that the Lebanese habit of letting Hezbollah participate in Lebanese government, and remain armed in violation of UN resolutions to the contrary is an act of war.
Hez'ballah being in Govt. =/= Hezb'allah being the Govt.
Yes yes, UN Resolution I know. Maybe had the Lebanese Army being beefed up or internationally supported after the forced Syrian withdrawal things might have been different

As it was, the Lebanese Army was as strong and capable in disarming Hezb'allah as a two day old kitten.

One might, as an Israeli, presume that Lebanon either intends to use Hezbollah as a proxy, or accedes to its use as a proxy by other nations. Using a proxy force in this manner is also an act of war. In the old days, this used to be called hiring mercenaries.
One might take that stance, as a cynic. Would be open to many contradictions sadly for that person.

You've made a huge leap of faith with that interpretation.

Its not that great a leap as Hezbollah is indeed a member of the government.

(Probably not great practice to use the words 'Israel', 'UN Resolutions' and 'enforce' in future arguments. ;) )

I know Israel's history with UN Resolutions just like I know the history of the Middle East in regards to UN Resolutions.

Incredible! Eut can't spell Hezbollah!

Incredible! Eut can't spell Hezbollah!

It is also spelt the way that Eut has it spelled.

Incredible! Eut can't spell Hezbollah!


so that makes them less of a threat somehow?

Hizbullah, Hizbollah, Hezballah, Hizballah, Hisbollah, and Hizb Allah are all transliterations of the same group. Just FYI

"Hezbollah" can only properly be spelt in Arabic Script. Any of a wide variety of transliterations should be considered correct.

so that makes them less of a threat somehow?

I wasn't aware I said that, perhaps you can direct me to a post where I did so I can become reacquainted with my own views?

Hizbullah, Hizbollah, Hezballah, Hizballah, Hisbollah, and Hizb Allah are all transliterations of the same group. Just FYI

Hey, I'm just going by Al-Manar's spelling.

I wasn't aware I said that, perhaps you can direct me to a post where I did so I can become reacquainted with my own views?
Such hostility. You'll make the bunnies cry. :(

if France fixes the problem...fuck it...I love France.

Oh jeah! they surely aprove bomming mururoa,and the metro back in 86.
it was chirac.this guy is bad but not so bad as bush
Long live france,vive la merde
Again a funny topic
Oh! it was a belgium joke:p
Sorry,i didn't know the hizzbollah was so good.

Oh jeah! they surely aprove bomming mururoa,and the metro back in 86.
it was chirac.this guy is bad but not so bad as bush
Long live france,vive la merde
Again a funny topic
Oh! it was a belgium joke:p
Sorry,i didn't know the hizzbollah was so good.
...Que?

Oh jeah! they surely aprove bomming mururoa,and the metro back in 86.
it was chirac.this guy is bad but not so bad as bush
Long live france,vive la merde
Again a funny topic
Oh! it was a belgium joke:p
Sorry,i didn't know the hizzbollah was so good.

That was not funny at all. Are you sure that is a joke because that was not even close to being a joke.

That was not funny at all. Are you sure that is a joke because that was not even close to being a joke.
i'm french and i really can tell you it is a joke

i'm french and i really can tell you it is a joke

Its not at all funny.

Peut-être bien, mais même traduite elle est pas vraiment drôle.

It's not really a funny joke, even when translated in french.

Peut-être bien, mais même traduite elle est pas vraiment drôle.

It's not really a funny joke, even when translated in french.
tu sais pas besoin de traduire.suffit de vivre la.
no need for translation just live there.

France support hizbollah:fluffle:
is that not funny?

Just when you thought Nation States General was the place to make you laugh:Its not at all funny.

Go France go! w00t! w00t!

No, they attacked civilians and civilian infrastructure. What the US calls "soft targets". Their actions fall squarely under the US definition of terrorism.


When you said you support the contra.
Were these government civilians perchance?

A) What israel is doing far outsteps the bounds of legitimate self defense.

Actually, when someone declares war upon you(which the killing and kidnapping of the soldiers was), if you are a country you should treat it as any sane person wouold if someone purposely and calculatingly shot at them. That is, they shouldn't stop until they've obliterated the fuckers.

Sorry, but the Hizbollah and Israel are to be equally blamed for the civilian deaths. The Hizbollah for hiding behind them, and Israel for throwing the bombs on them in the first place.

Israel attemped NO diplomacy. Israel didn't even attempt to understand the situation and why their soldier was taken.
Because we all know diplomacy has worked well in previous situations like this. Oh wait, you mean it hasn't? Wow, I would have thought a group like hezbollah would be completely rational.

Actually, when someone declares war upon you(which the killing and kidnapping of the soldiers was), if you are a country you should treat it as any sane person wouold if someone purposely and calculatingly shot at them. That is, they shouldn't stop until they've obliterated the fuckers.
like the us with sadam or israel with sadam it is not war it is bringing democracy
if you do kidnapp 10000 peoples, it is nation state right,but if you come in an other country and got caught, then you are kidnaped.
Strange way to look to facts ,if you ask me.
Israel is not going for libanon,or hezbollah.
Only fools believe that

like the us with sadam or israel with sadam it is not war it is bringing democracy
if you do kidnapp 10000 peoples, it is nation state right,but if you come in an other country and got caught, then you are kidnaped.
Strange way to look to facts ,if you ask me.
Israel is not going for libanon,or hezbollah.
Only fools believe that

Anyone confused by this statement? I can not make heads or tails out of it.

Yay for French Islamophilia! </sarcasm>

---

Ok, there's a difference between supplying a militia to fight the Soviets, and just supporting terrorists like Hezbollah because you're anti-Semetic.
QFT! ^^^

I dispute it. Now.

They were fighting sandinism, right?
They were fighting chaps and gals with Kalashnikov's, right?

The civilians, or "soft targets" as Ronald Reagan would call them, didn't have Kalashnikovs.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.17548,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

Reagan invited himself over to my country in June 1984. The Catholic church in Ireland was leading the protests against him... the missionaries witnessed many Contra atrocities.


OR are you just another libbie who ought to be stuck into Gitmo?
Assuming that libbie means liberal... I doubt there are any liberals in Guantanamo (as we call it on this side of the Atlantic).


Did I state 'I support terrorism'
Contras = terrorists.

Thus "I support Contras" = Did I state 'I support terrorism'

I won't do a definition.
Why not?

They may disagree. In the case of the Iraq War, I know >I< disagree.
We should never have gone in at all.
The decision was bad.
The Pope was spot-on.

But once the fighting starts.... let every man do his UTMOST to sustain his country.
Let the decision be cared out to the best of our abilities.
Hold on, aren't you one of the people calling for the US and Britain to pull out of Iraq immediately? That's not the government line... maybe you should be in jail.

but that has never moved me to state such things as 'F*** the troops'.
It's hardly moved anyone else, let alone most liberals, to say such things.

But I say a body WILL be commiting treason if he states that he has more sympathy with the insurgents than with, say, the Marines.
Never heard anyone say that!

They do not need to understand it because what occured was an Act of War. When an Act of War is committed, all bets are off. That is the long and the short of it. Would you have negotiated if say one of your cities was attacked by another nation?
Kidnapping isn't the same as attacking cities. Which Hezballah are also doing now that this conflict has started.

Incredible! Eut can't spell Hezbollah!
Hizballah is probably the more correct spelling. The name means "Party of God".

Anyone confused by this statement? I can not make heads or tails out of it.
ok if it is too difficult for you,
i'll make it short
Israel is not going for libanon,or hezbollah.
Only fools believe that
better;)

Kidnapping isn't the same as attacking cities. Which Hezballah are also doing now that this conflict has started.

I hate to burst your bubble Meath Street but Hezbollah has been doing this for quite sometime. Long before this current conflict started in reality.

ok if it is too difficult for you,
i'll make it short

better;)

Just uncomprehendable because of the very bad English.

And no it is not better for Israel going into Lebanon is to go after Hezbollah.

I hate to burst your bubble Meath Street but Hezbollah has been doing this for quite sometime. Long before this current conflict started in reality.
and israel never invade lebanon prior to this war?
i guess there was no hezbolah then?
tell me i'm wrong.

ZOMG UR WITH US OR AGAINST US! Fear our mighty conflict resolution penis! RAAAAAWR! I R NUKLAR HEAR ME ROAR!

That pretty much sums up this thread.

Were these government civilians perchance?
Government civilians? Do you mean government employees? Not always. And being an civilian employee of the government doesn't make you a valid target.

The civilians, or "soft targets" as Ronald Reagan would call them, didn't have Kalashnikovs.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.17548,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

Reagan invited himself over to my country in June 1984. The Catholic church in Ireland was leading the protests against him... the missionaries witnessed many Contra atrocities.

Did you read the rest of the review in which is basically says the bishop was lying through his teeth at the very least about the composition of the contras?

and israel never invade lebanon prior to this war?
i guess there was no hezbolah then?
tell me i'm wrong.

Hezbollah was formed to oust Israel out of Lebanon. Lebanon was actually invaded twice. Once in 1978 and again in 1982. Hezbollah was formed in 1982 and was responsible for the '83 barracks bombing that killed 241 service personel who were only there as peacekeepers as well as the bombing of the French barracks.

In 2000, Israel finally left and how are they repaid? Rocket attacks from across the border into Civilian populations.

Just uncomprehendable because of the very bad English.

And no it is not better for Israel going into Lebanon is to go after Hezbollah.
no it was better for israel not to chase hezbollah into lebanon while syria was expelled;)
and never use my bad english as an excuse,you could be victime of a collateral response

Hezbollah was formed to oust Israel out of Lebanon. Lebanon was actually invaded twice. Once in 1978 and again in 1982. Hezbollah was formed in 1982 and was responsible for the '83 barracks bombing that killed 241 service personel who were only there as peacekeepers as well as the bombing of the French barracks.

In 2000, Israel finally left and how are they repaid? Rocket attacks from across the border into Civilian populations.
so hezbollah is a product/reaction of an invasion?