News:

Ramadan Mubarak!

I pray that we get the full blessings of Ramadan and may Allah (SWT) grant us more blessings in the year to come.
Amin Summa Amin.

Ramadan Kareem,

Main Menu

Israeli raid south of Beirut, 23 dead in Gaza

Started by Ete, July 14, 2006, 02:45:03 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ete

lionger, thanks for providing the link on the darfur discussion.  It makes for a very interesting reading.  Like some people observed, many usual vocal participants on issues here simply disappeared and justified their lack of participation. I see why it is easy for people to interprete their action to mean certain things.

A brother of my friend that visited me while here in the states some months ago had been stationed in the darfur region as part of Nigerian military. This guy is a Major in the Nigerian Army (Military Police Unit) and from Plateau state.  He had explained to me concerning the crisis in darfur that members of the Nigerian peace force had an eye opener when they landed in the region. For one, he said his hausa-fulani colleagues who had not yet been deployed to the region used to be quite non-chalant when he communicated the situation to them back in Nigeria, and that they seemed offended whenever he berated the janjaweed and Sudanese government for the atrocity in darfur. He said it was only when these indifferent colleagues of his arrived and saw that the displaced black African were mostly hausas and of similar origin like them, that their mindset began changing due to the shock of what they witnessed. They began dispising the Arab government in khartoum for the mistreatment of the black sudanese.

I was glad to hear this, but I also sense that many people see this as a sides issue.  Many people are not taking a critical and objective look at the seriousness of the darfur situation.  I think Mr. Guest pointed out that some people prefer to be silent and non critical of the Arab govt in Sudan because of religious affiliation. If that is the case,  that is seriously unfortunate.

But lionger, watch, if it comes to a time when the situation reverses and the darfurians become able to defend themselves adequately and launch counter-offensives, you will see all kinds of people condeming them. You'll also find others who chose to focus on the darfurian retaliation, but mention nothing of  decades of Arab mistreatment . They chose and pick their stories from the middle but never objectively present the full picture., and this in itself is one of core issues in any conflict, the inability to be honest with ourselves.


HUSNAA

Quote from: "Ete"But Husnaa, if you call Isreali actions bullish and cowardly because according to you,  the folks suffering the brunt of these attacks are "helpless victims that cant retaliate in equal measure, and a coward only strikes when one is most vulnerable.", does that characterization not apply to terrorists that bombed the World Trade Center and killed thousands of innocent people going about their business? Does that Characterization not apply to all terror groups that bomb commuter trains, planes, churches, mosques, synagogues, etc?

I wouldnt call that cowardice. I would call that acts of desperation. Its like the bite of a worker ant. It stings but it stops hurting after a while. What's more, you get to crush the ant when you find it, and that is exactly what happens to these so called terrorrists. They are hunted down, get caught and  are severely punished and they know the risks they are taking when they do so. The odds are heavily stacked against them. On the other hand, Israel amputates and leaves a permanent scar, with the  full force of its arsenal might, with the blessing of Bush and his pentagon inmates, and no one hunts and punishes her. No one.

Quote from: "Ete"Would you caracterize the 1967 arab Isreali war as bullish and cowardly when Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria began an offensive against one nation, Israel, and then lost in a most undignified manner?

What would u characterize the allied forces during the first and second world war as? And presently, what would you characterize America and Britain ganging up on poor old uncle  (:lol:) Saddam Hussein as then? If cowardice means ganging up on one party then British and American war tactics have always been those of cowards since the first world war.


Quote from: "Ete"Syria is about to learn a bitter lesson.  Perhaps President Assad should learn a lesson for Libyan Ghaddaffi who is now a born again citizen of the World following years of sanction and isolation.

An Israel spokesman announced yesterday (or today) that Israel has no intention of attacking Syria. Apparently, Syria has enough fire power to inflict more than a few casualties on the Israelis and that is why Israel doesnt want to get involved with Syria, but attacks hapless Lebanon. For that matter that is one of the reasons why it agreed to a peace treaty with Egypt. If u equalize yr cashe of weaponry to some level where u can cause discomfort to Israel, then you 've got the currency to live in peace with Israel.

Quote from: "Ete"Sharon reached out to the palestinian authority on several occasions. He kept his own part of the bargain which was to withdraw from the occupied territories in that famous land for peace deal. Palestinian leadership failed to keep its own part of the deal because they could not maintian the ceasefire and prevent further attacks in Isreal. Despite repeat attacks by palestinian suicide bombers and gun men which left scores of Israelis dead, Ariel Sharon's govt kept the truce and did not retaliate.  This is a fact!

Ariel Sharon was trying to atone for his part in the Sabra and Chatilla genocide that he masterminded in 1982. He probably had a premonition of how close to the graveyard he was (which he is awaiting at the moment) and decided to be at peace with his God



Quote from: "Ete"I think we should put things in perspective here sometimes. It is ingeneous to point out the Isreali attack that killed nine palestinian family members on a beach, but simply ignore the several attacks against Israel by hamas and other palestinian militants. This type of one sided observation is exactly what undermines any effort at reaching any degree of compromise.

The killing of the nine family members was carried out during this recent Israeli incursion into the Gaza strip to 'rescue' the nineteen yr old soldier. Its not that 'accidental killing on the beach. These nine were killed inside their house, when the Israelis were shelling Hamas property.
Look whenever, there is an attack on either side, there is always a counter attack, so there is no ingenuity involved here. What is unfair is that retaliation from Israel is always in geometric progression to the scale of attacks or counter attacks carried out by Palestinians. Its tens of lives lost for the kidnap of one soldier. If he is accidentally shelled out by the Israelis in a case of 'friendly fire' how many Palestian lives would they demand as blood money?

Quote from: "Ete"They call Israel occupiers. Occupiers of what? Lebanon was occupied by Syria for decades and that seemed to be fine. Lebanon should have the sense to expel Hezbollah from its society especially after Syrian forces were sent packing so they could begin afresh as a civil society.

Lebanon was a part of Syria before the first world war. After that war, the middle eastern region was divided into British and French colonies or territories (dont know which). Thus Syria has always felt proprietal towards Lebanon as a result. As for expelling Hezbollah, blood is thicker than water, Ete, u as an African should know that.
Ghafurallahi lana wa lakum

Ete

Husnaa,
The comparison you make between WW1/WW2 and the Arab-Isreali war is not a very sound one. Quite frankly it makes no sense. WW1 was a total war which left millions of people dead and shaped the modern World thereafter. This was a war between the Allied powers which was led by Britian and included, France, Russia, and later also Italy and the United States; Versus the Central power, which were made up of Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire.  
So this wasn't five countries against one or all the countries in the region against one.  WW1 was a rather balanced war between two powers. That aside, the Allied forces had no agenda to wipe out the Central powers. This was a war of containment, which is quite different from the mindet of the Arab states against Israel.  That eccentric Iranian leader has openly expressed the very sentiments that most Arab leaders have shyed away from, which is as he puts it "to wipe out Israel from the face of the planet". So your point about the Allied forces makes little sense because at the initial and middle stages of the war, the Central powers had more troops and outnumbered the Allied forces.

Again you keep talking about how Isreal amputates, but fail to go to the apex of events that give rise to Israeli actions against their Arab neighbors.  If you contend that the actions of criminal terrorists that kill innocent and unarmed people are simply acts of desperation, how come it does not occur to you that Isreali militant actions may be out of desperation and an instinct to survive when surrounded by over one hundred million enemies all plotting against their downfall? How come you find that difficult to comprehend?

I challenge you to put things in perspective here, and not just pick, choose and mention transgressions but leave out the event that led to the act of counter aggression. That is very ingenious on your part, and this selective condemnation is typical of most Arabs. In the case of the Arabs and their sympathizers, they wail and cry about all the atrocities committed by Israel, but never own up to any responsibility on their part. They conveniently ignore their own atrocities against the Israelis, but are quick to point the finger whenever Isreal retaliates in self-defence. You are obviously not familiar with the history of the conflicts in the region, but I did take some time to research several sources on the web, and I will be glad to provide you with links to the history sites that I researched.

Going back to 1948, the Jews never had a history of violence against the Arabs. The Arabs are the ones with a history of violence against the Jews. Arab violence against Jews go back even further to the 1920s when Under the leadership of Haj Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the local Arabs rebelled against the British, and attacked the growing Jewish population repeatedly. These sporadic attacks began with the riots in Palestine of 1920 and Jaffa riots (or "Hurani Riots") of 1921. During the riots in Palestine of 1929, 67 Jews were massacred in Hebron, and the survivors were driven out.

This type of sustained violence against Isreal continued even up till the second World war when Arabs sought the help of Nazi Germany to solve their anti Israeli issues. Here is an excerpt of a white paper by Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem;
Main article: Amin al-Husayni

?The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni, the Chairman of the Arab Higher Committee collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War. In 1940, he asked the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right, "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy." He spent the second half of WWII in Germany making radio broadcasts exhorting Muslims to ally with the Nazis in war against their common enemies. In one of these broadcasts, he said, "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you."[19] [20] In the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders (along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history) led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a new ?warrant for genocide.?[ Amin al-Husayni


On November 29, 1947, the United Nation General Assembly approved a plan, UN General Assembly Resolution 181 to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict by partitioning the Bristish mandate of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. Each state would comprise three major sections, linked by extraterritorial crossroads; the Arab state would also have an enclave at Jaffa. Taking into consideration their religious significance, the Jerusalem Area and Bethlehem were assaigned to an International Zone to be administered by the UN. The UN plan was criticized by both Arabs and Jews, but overall, most Jews welcomed the resolution. However, the Arab population in Palestine and sorrounding Arab states considered it unacceptable. Gee, why am I surprised? Is anything ever acceptable to them?

On the day following the adoption of the UN resolution, seven Jews were killed by Arabs in Palestine in three separate incidents. Three Arabs attacked a bus from Netanya to Jerusalem, killing five Jewish passengers. Half an hour later a second bus attack left one passenger dead. Later in the day a twenty-five-year old man was shot dead in Jaffa. Arab prisoners also attempted to assault Jews in Acre prison, but were beaten back by guards. In Jerusalem the Arab Higher Committee called a three-day general strike from Tuesday, 2 December to be followed by mass demonstrations after Friday prayers. Over the months following the partition, larger organized forces became increasingly engaged in the violence. The Arab Legion attacked a Jewish civilian bus convoy at Beit Nabala on December 14. Three weeks later the first Arab irregulars arrived and the Arab leadership began to organize Palestinians in order to wage guerrilla war against the Jewish forces. The largest group was a volunteer army, the Arab Liberation Army, created by the Arab League and led by Arab nationalist Fawzi Al-Qawuqji. In January and February, Arab irregular forces attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine but achieved no substantial successes. The Arabs concentrated their efforts on cutting off roads to Jewish towns and Jewish neighborhoods in areas with mixed populations. They also massacred several Jewish convoys. At the end of March, the Arabs completely cut off the vital road going from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem, where one sixth of Palestine's Jews lived.

This is just a chronology of events that show the history of violence of the Arabs, and there is nothing Isreal can do to change the twisted mindset of the Arabs but to wage war against them in return. That appears to be the only language they understand. Isreal pulled out Gazza and Lebanon a long time ago. Isreali presence on those regions was Hezbollah?s main excuse for launching rocket attacks against Isreal. So why did the attacks continue after Isreal's withdrawal?

I know this is a bitter pill for you to Swallow Husnna, but fact remains that tiny Isreal, even with mediocre weaponry back in 1948 defeated a heavily armed coalition of better equiped and better armed Arab forces. Here are the ordinance on paper as of May 15,

IDF(Isreali Defence force    
Tanks                                      1 w/o gun                             
Armored cars (w/ cannon)    2                                       
Armored cars (w/o cannon)   120                                     
Artillery                                5                                           
AA and AT guns                         24                                     
Warplanes                             0                                         
Scout planes                            28                                       
Navy (armed ships)                 3                                           


ARAB STATES
Tanks                                       40
Armored cars (w/ cannon           200
Armored cars (w/o cannon         300
Artillery                                140
AA and AT guns                         220
Warplanes                            74
Scout planes                            57
Navy (armed ships)               12


Do you see the disparity between these two forces? Does it not shock you that Isreal won that war? It shocked the rest of the sane World, and it should shock you.  

Lionger took the time to respond to Waziri concerning the promised Land dispute in another forum. I think you should read that piece because it seems to explain why despite the odds, Isreal still stands firm.
Regarding your celebrated Syria, what makes you think Isreal is avoiding taking the war to Syria? This is self deception on your part. They took the War to all Arab states that attacked them, and that includes Syria.  I just saw Benjamin Netanyahu give an interview in which he commented on the on-going bombing in Labanon and the Hezbollah reprisals. He said, Isreal was still exercising restraint, and that they have not even come close to using a fraction of their fire power. Now, that?s scary.

I will conclude shortly. Israel will shock you once again by coming out of this conflict unscarthed.

_Waziri_

Interesting replies am getting!

Lionger, I will not respond to your objection to my quotes from the Bible since you were not able to pinpoint the exact wrong thing I did therein.

For Ete, let you know that the state of Israel is a racist state founded on the religious inclination that JEWS are the most beloved of GOD, and I believe that evidence of that is overwhelming. I will not waste my time making reference for I believe whoever feigns ignorance about this reality does not know the subject matter well enough to attract my attention for discussion. C'mmon, isn't it ever true that the first claim of the land by the Jews is based upon a shady evidence of them given the land by God from their devine scripts?

Ete, while you submitted that both the Palestinians and the Jews were agressive to one another, you failed to point to us the first person who threw the first stone. I cited above the masaccre of Sabra and Shatilla but you failed to tell us when the Arabs first reacted to give the Jews the needed justification to have killed them in thousands.

And for those who brought up the issue of Darfur, let them stop wondering for they are not restricted from bringing up the issue again. If it seems worth my while I may discuss it. Also they may find me siding with the Arabs or the blacks on that. Whichever position I take I defend it with the little I have of reason, logic and sincere motive.

Finally, we must come out of that cocoon of foolish considerations like if one wrong that is being commited in Darfur is not discussed here,then another wrong commited in Lebanon should not be discussed either. This is very foolish thinking pattern I must say, even though I apologise, as I say it. This is akin to saying, if bats could not be eaten, then hens too should be abandoned because they both have two legs and wings.

mallamt

I have tried to follow this tread a bit, initially I was not going to contribute but changed my mind.  I thought the thread was about the recent Isreali-Arab conflict, I find it interesting that religion is being discussed instead and qoutes made of religious books, and as can be seen should we go that route the Isreali-Arab conflict will never come to an end (maybe except one group completely anihilates the other).

Should we want to discuss this subject matter as someone sugggested "logically" we will need to look at the issue in a more objective manner.  I suppose one will start asking what incident/event brought about the invasion? could that event have been prevented? could the event have been resolved amicably thus leading to the prevention of an invasion?

I believe that no one can deny that their has/was a lull in the number of violence or attacks between the isrealis and arabs for a couple of years before the sudden invasion, why or what brought about that lull? why could it not have been maintained?  I am sure that no one will deny that it was wrong and an incitement to keep throwing bombs/missles into isreal just to kill isrealis irrespective of if those hurt were women or children, soldiers or civilians, so it should not come as a surprise if the attacked reacted or if the reaction was also violent.  Why should soldiers be kidnaped and murdered can we justify this action? if we say yes then we can justify the niger delta violence.

Even if we had a problem with isrealis and their attitude to the palistinians the latest events raises questions also about the sincerity of the peace the palistinaians are searching for and if that is so I believe while we (or the world) condem the isrealis the palistinins are equally guilty and should be condemed in very strong terms.  we are getting into a situation were these two nations want to hold the world to ransom.

Barde

This issue cannot be separated from religion, if not, what is the root cause of the violence?
im

Dave_McEwan_Hill

The root of the violence is political. People who believe it is a religious problem are misinformed. Religion merely complicates it.
The root of all the conflict in the Middle East is the exisence of the State of Israel which was founded on land belonging to Palestinians.
The Palestinians , who had their land and homes and farms seized from them and given to the Israelis from all over Europe were enraged and remain enraged about this. Quite rightly so in my opinion.
This dirty deal was engineered by America and Britain and continues to be supported because of the stranglehold Jewish opinion has over American politics and the American economy.
The displaced Palestinians were driven  mainly into a small area called the Gaza Strip. There is no economy, no real farm land, no industry and very little economy in the Gaza Strip. In actuallity it is no more than a prison camp. The Israel government, who recognise that the existence of the Gaza Strip  full of Palestinians who would like to seize back their land and possessions is a threat to them, continually attack,destablise and demoralise the Gaza area. They kill Palestinains on a continuous basis. They also have invaded and seized other parts of Gaza and refuse to leave despite the United Nations telling them on many occasions to do so.
This is reason for the existence of armed groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. They are simply a natural reaction to the violent oppression being practised on Palestinian Arabs (Moslem and Christian) by Israel.
There will be no peace in the Middle East until US stops supporting the illegal and immoral behaviour of Israel to its neighbours and until there is justice for the Palestinian people.
The fact that Moslems, Christians and Jews can march together in Britain (as they did two weeks ago) in protest against the barbaric behaviour of Israel indicates that religion is not the problem - it is injustice that is the problem.
maigemu

Ete

And that exactly is the problem with Muslims. They cannot seperate religion from anything, as as Dave pointed out, it complicates everything.  A simple thing as a ping pong game can become a religious matter to Muslims. How rational is that?

Barde

Dave, Ete,

Thanx alot, you guys should enlighten me more, don't they (Jews) claim that the  lands were originally given to them by God? or let me put it this way: why did the Jews choose the Middle east to locate the state of israel?
im

Dave_McEwan_Hill

The Jews, one of the seven tribes of Israel, are semitic (ie Arabs). They left the Middle East  for a number of reasons, oppression, religious difficulties etc and migrated to Europe in the first few centuries AD.
They have always clung to the claim, accepted  by nobody else, that Palestine was the "promised land", promised to them by God. The Palestinians certainly don't agree.

The Americans and the British ( who controlled that area in the Middle East since after the First World War) succumbed to Israeli terrorism (the Stern Gang etc) and decided to give a large part of Palestine to the worldwide Jewish diaspora who wanted to set up a Jewish State. They had considered giving Uganda to them but the Jews didn't want Uganda .
That's a short history of why Israel is where it is.
maigemu

HUSNAA

UGANDA!!! OMIGOD!!! Why would they do that? Why Uganda in particular?Supposing the israelis had agreed, how would that have changed the history of the african continent I wonder?
Ghafurallahi lana wa lakum

Barde

QuoteThe Jews, one of the seven tribes of Israel, are semitic (ie Arabs). They left the Middle East for a number of reasons, oppression, religious difficulties etc and migrated to Europe in the first few centuries AD.
They have always clung to the claim, accepted by nobody else, that Palestine was the "promised land", promised to them by God. The Palestinians certainly don't agree.

Dave,

Having that in mind, how can you ignore the religious aspect of it? i would have agreed, if you say the root cause of the violence is political as well as religious. The fact that the Jews always clung to the claim is enough to give it a religious colouration, since the source of the claim is their sacred book. Do you think what we are witnessing today will happen if the palestians had accepted the claim? mind you we are talking about the root cause of the conflict.
im