critical alert

[EvilWeevil]

All the clips about the Israel/Lebanon war have been of innocent Lebanonese dead.
How many shots have you seen of the Israel dead?

That would be because most of Israel's dead in this conflict are military, and what Israel is doing to Lebanon at the moment is far more devastating in civilian casualties than Hezbollah's smaller scale attacks have been. The media coverage we see about Israel is military figures talking about how "well" they're driving out Hezbollah. They don't seem too concerned about people dying there, probably because they haven't got an American-backed military power bombing the hell out of them.

That said, neither side can be considered right, as pretty much all that either of them ever does is kill innocent people.

But the sort of people who hate the West and Britain, but live there, reap the benefits and enjoy a decent life, only to try and blow bits of it up, they are the most despicable ar****les on the face of this earth, and quite rightly deserve to be forcibly removed from it.

[Parm]

My 14 year old cousin from Canada is staying with me this week, I was planning on taking him to London today to see the sites but I've decided to cancel it, just in case.

[WLC-1989]

Well, you ask numerous questions there, so I'll try to answer cumulatively.

I for one, support neither side in their hostility, and neither side in their general policies. The media show us the larger results of Israeli attacks, yet fail to show the true extent of their actions. However, you'll be hard-pressed to find any news organisation which publishes the extent of Israeli dismissal of the possibility of peace, nor any mention of Hizbollah's call for ceasefire.

Indeed, I can bring an example to the table. A tape was released by Hizbollah, in which we were told that they would honour a ceasefire if declared. One cannot compare Hizbollah to the 'terrorists' who take part in apparently random attacks on military targets; they are an organised and relatively controlled organisation. In this recording, they stated their wish for peace, and in many respects, put out the olive branch. They did however warn that if Israel were to attack central Beirut, they too would attack central Tel Aviv, an action which would be justified in the tit-for-tat approach of Israeli policy. However, I can assure you that the majority of the people who read the news will have been greeted by the headlines "HIZBOLLAH THREATEN TO ATTACK TEL AVIV", instead of properly pointing out that this was a warning towards the Israelis, on the basis that they would attack central Beirut first.

Also, might I suggest you cast your mind back slightly beyond the recent conflict, of which you are likely only taking into consideration. Might we collectively recall why those two soldiers were taken. Israel was occupying part of Lebannon, a sovereign state. This would undoubtedly not be 'condoned' had it been any other nation doing so. Also, the catalyst to this crisis was not, as the medias would like you to believe, the soldiers being kidnapped, but indeed, the slaughtering of a family having a picnic on a beach. Also not considered, is the wider conflict which has lasted over twenty years, which I would suggest you research a little before you dismiss any anti-Israeli sentiment in that region.

Although I will be regarded as an anti-semite for saying this under your beliefs of what defines one, might I also suggest that Palestinian land which forms the Israeli state, was not there for Israel's taking in the first place. Indeed, if it was Germany's assault on the Jewish people which called for the creation of a Jewish state, should it not have been formed from German land, and not the land of people who had no part in it. By all means, one could define this as Zionism, and aggressive Zionism at that. Jewish people are by no means evil, in the same way Christian people are by no means evil collectively. The problem is, people use the holocaust as justification for this state, when we forget that Jews live elsewhere too; we should look at this at a purely national and political level. This is not a case of Zionism (a Jewish one), but instead an Israeli one.

However, it is unlikely given the time it has been there that one could argue as to whether its existence is justified. Israel instead should have worked on strengthening bonds with Arab states after the conflicts in its early existence, perhaps through the giving of aid and support. Yet with the American backing, we see that this is not the case. India, Israel and Pakistan have not been ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and by the hypocrisy that is international law, are by definition in possession of illegal nuclear-weaponry. However, as allies of the United States, they are allowed to do this, yet under the same laws, Iran is not. There is no doubt that Iran could be considered a threat for its opposition to Israel's presence, yet given the history we are forgetting in the light of only weeks of recent conflict, the media dismisses Iranian claims and objections as anti-semitic and unjust.

May I conclude in saying, before any of you claim I am anti-semitic: Disliking Israeli policies and indeed, objecting to its very existence as a state is not anti-semitic, nor is it the mark of liberalism or any other political allegiance. I for one, am not claiming this is Jewish problem, but, I repeat, an Israeli one. However, one could not dismiss the general consensus in the Middle East that it is a Jewish problem, given that Judaism is the justification for Israel's existence, and the leadership of Israel is largely Jewish.

The fact only one-side of this story is being shown is sign enough that we are not being shown all the facts. I heartily apologise for the length of this post, but perhaps it is worthwhile for you to read the reasons why some of us might feel differently about this issue at hand than you do, as your dismissive tone suggests you are someone who believes whatever he is told by a man in front of a logo-emblazoned desk on TV, yet who does not think for himself about why these problems have intensified. It is important that in a democracy, one does try to look at all sides of the story, and indeed, is given the oppurtunity to.

[Howard]

Aren't the terrorists gonna just sit back and wait for us to drop our guard, then attempt another strike? They've successfully induced "terror" without even doing anything now, it seems. It's never-ending

[EvilWeevil]

My 14 year old cousin from Canada is staying with me this week, I was planning on taking him to London today to see the sites but I've decided to cancel it, just in case.

Tbh with heightened security the next few days will be the safest time to be in London.

Some airlines offered free travel on the first anniversary of September 11th, and they still didn't fill all their seats. But thinking about it, why would terrorists go to any trouble trying to do something when they have a higher likelihood of being caught? Times like this, and times when terrorist attack would seem a threat (ie September 11 2002) it's just not going to happen.

[ParoXoN]

Aren't the terrorists gonna just sit back and wait for us to drop our guard, then attempt another strike? They've successfully induced "terror" without even doing anything now, it seems. It's never-ending

Well, I'm not sure how much "terror" was induced... Fear maybe, but terror?

I'm glad that this operation was stopped, "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" is rarely pleasant. Regrettably this is going to set up a lot of tedious (if safe) red tape -.-

[Parm]

Tbh with heightened security the next few days will be the safest time to be in London.

That's a good point. If it were just me I'd have no problem with going to London, but as I'm responsible for my younger cousin I thought it's better just to avoid it.

[Howard]

Well, I'm not sure how much "terror" was induced... Fear maybe, but terror?

I'm glad that this operation was stopped, "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" is rarely pleasant. Regrettably this is going to set up a lot of tedious (if safe) red tape -.-

Fear, terror, whatever. They've succeeded in creating huuuge disruption

[EvilWeevil]

Well, I'm not sure how much "terror" was induced... Fear maybe, but terror?-

In this case, I wouldn't say terror. But for example when places were raided after 7/7, the terror was news networks posting up pictures of nail bombs. I have to say that while terrorists are the original source, we give them a lot of help in scaring people.

That's a good point. If it were just me I'd have no problem with going to London, but as I'm responsible for my younger cousin I thought it's better just to avoid it.

Yeah, one can't take risks with that sort of thing. However I'll be going into the centre today to enjoy some London sans gens

[ParoXoN]

Fear, terror, whatever. They've succeeded in creating huuuge disruption

I won't deny that they've caused an uproar, but I highly doubt they are back at their headquarters cheering on this "disruption." "Disruption" was not their goal. People don't fear, do not listen to, annoying radical groups that delay their planes. People fear terrifying radical groups that blow things up and kill senselessly. Sans terror, the groups in question lose the power they desire.

I fear that failure will make radicals like this more tenacious...

[frumpet]

I'm flying in a few weeks (from Liverpool though) so hopefully they'll drop the hand baggage restrictions.

For once I believe the right thing has been done by this Government and intelligence agencies. The only way of defeating these terrorists is by foiling them. Fair enough, they'll keep trying and trying again but the planning and execution of an attack will become far more costly and time consuming for the terrorists.

If you look back to the IRA as an example you can see how superior intelligence eventually wore down the group and reduced it's threat.

(Just listening to the BBC news; they claim the flights targeted were all American... but thats probably not totally true as they quoted airlines that don't even fly from Heathrow... )

[ParoXoN]

In this case, I wouldn't say terror. But for example when places were raided after 7/7, the terror was news networks posting up pictures of nail bombs. I have to say that while terrorists are the original source, we give them a lot of help in scaring people.

Regrettably the media make spreading fear very simple. I suppose one has to leverage the ability to inform people against the fright that the information induces.

[EvilWeevil]

On this note, my pack of One London posters and badges just came through the door. I shall have to go forth, displaying them prominently

[Bazzlad]

However, you'll be hard-pressed to find any news organisation which publishes the extent of Israeli dismissal of the possibility of peace, nor any mention of Hizbollah's call for ceasefire.”

Negotiation with terrorists doesn’t work. Fact.
Didn’t Israel pull out of Lebanon like it said it would? Didn’t they build a wall and pull their own people out of the Gaza strip like it said it would?

And what has happened since?

How about the UN resolution passed that meant Hezbollah had to disarm and join the Lebanese army? Oh. They didn’t.

I fail to recognise a political party whose flag is an AK47 and whose operational history reads like this:
Hezbollah is believed by the United States and some other countries’ intelligence agencies to have kidnapped and tortured to death U.S. Marine Colonel William R. Higgins and the CIA station chief in Beirut, William Francis Buckley,[23] and to have kidnapped around 30 other Westerners between 1982 and 1992, including U.S. journalist Terry Anderson, British journalist John McCarthy, the Archbishop of Canterbury's special envoy Terry Waite and Irish citizen Brian Keenan.[24] Hezbollah was accused by the US government of being responsible for the April 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed 63; of being behind the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, a suicide truck bombing that killed 241 U.S. marines in their barracks in Beirut in October 1983; of bombing the replacement U.S. Embassy in East Beirut on September 20, 1984, killing 20 Lebanese and two U.S. soldiers; and of carrying out the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome. These accusations are denied by Hezbollah.[25]
• The U.S. claims Hezbollah carried out two terrorist attacks in Argentina during the early 1990s: the 1992 Israeli embassy bombing in Buenos Aires, killing 29 people, and the bombing of a Jewish community center there, killing 85.[26][27] Hezbollah denies these claims.[28][29]
• On July 26, 1994, eight days after the community center bombing, the Israeli Embassy in London was car bombed by two Palestinians. The United Kingdom, Israel and Argentina blamed Hezbollah for the attack.[30]
• On October 7, 2000, Hezbollah kidnapped three IDF soldiers from the Mt. Dov sector: Adi Avitan, Omer Soued and Binyamin Avraham .[31]
• On March 12, 2002, in a Hezbollah shooting attack on the Shelomi-Metzuba route in northern Israel, six Israelis civilians were killed.[32]
• On August 10, 2003, a 16 year old Israeli boy was killed by shrapnel from an anti-aircraft shell fired by Hezbollah, and four others were wounded. [33]
• On April 7, 2005, Two Israeli Arabs from the village Ghajar near the Israel-Lebanon border were abducted by Hezbollah operatives. They were later released. [34]

One cannot compare Hizbollah to the 'terrorists' who take part in apparently random attacks on military targets; they are an organised and relatively controlled organisation.

The organisation who allegedly invented the Suicide bomber cannot be called terrorists? The ONLY difference is the mass funding they get from Iran allows them to be a bit more business like about it.

Also not considered, is the wider conflict which has lasted over twenty years, which I would suggest you research a little before you dismiss any anti-Israeli sentiment in that region.

So by your example.
Would Argentines be justified in suicide attacks, rocket attacks and kidnappings in Britain? I hate people who dwell on the past to justify actions, you can’t move forward looking backwards – your history will tell you that.

Although I will be regarded as an anti-semite for saying this under your beliefs of what defines one, might I also suggest that Palestinian land which forms the Israeli state, was not there for Israel's taking in the first place. Indeed, if it was Germany's assault on the Jewish people which called for the creation of a Jewish state, should it not have been formed from German land, and not the land of people who had no part in it. By all means, one could define this as Zionism, and aggressive Zionism at that. Jewish people are by no means evil, in the same way Christian people are by no means evil collectively. The problem is, people use the holocaust as justification for this state, when we forget that Jews live elsewhere too; we should look at this at a purely national and political level. This is not a case of Zionism (a Jewish one), but instead an Israeli one.

Ok let’s play your way. It wasn’t their land for the taking?

Starting around the 11th century BCE the first of a series of Jewish kingdoms and states established intermittent rule over the region that lasted more than a millennium.
So it was their land originally, until the Muslims conquered the land from the Byzantine Empire in 638 CE.

Thus and therefore they have every right to that land, a lot more than the Arab invaders, just as we have no right to India anymore.

[EvilWeevil]

Starting around the 11th century BCE the first of a series of Jewish kingdoms and states established intermittent rule over the region that lasted more than a millennium.
So it was their land originally, until the Muslims conquered the land from the Byzantine Empire in 638 CE.

Thus and therefore they have every right to that land, a lot more than the Arab invaders, just as we have no right to India anymore.

I'd say firstly that one cannot compare 7th century Middle Eastern affairs to 18-19th Century colonial powers. I'd say that back then, invasion was the way things were done. By your reasoning, Britain should rightfully be returned to the original Picts, who probably weren't from here anyway, and that the current amalgamation of Roman, Germanic and Norman peoples have no right to it.

[Bazzlad]

If people say that the Jews have no right to Israel they've very much mistaken is my point. Which was made in a tongue in cheek way.