A Different Type of war in the Middle East
NCfan
Posts: 945
"Why is this war different from all other wars for Israel? For the first time, we're not really discussing a conflict over land or territory or even the treatment of individuals. We're not talking about Arab nationalism. We're not talking about the Palestinians. We're not even talking about the political existence of the Jewish state. We're talking about the divine mandate that the Islamists believe they are following, an eschatological struggle toward the End-Times, where the Jews must be destroyed as a people and as a sovereign state in order for the Apocalypse to occur. In this, Pat Robertson and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are in complete agreement. The trouble is: Robertson can be dismissed as a corrupt kook; Ahmadinejad has some serious weaponry and a state under his control."
- Andrew Sullivan
- Andrew Sullivan
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Where do you think we got the idea that that piece of real estate belongs to Israel?
Hizbullah may be connected to Iran, but Hizbullah isn't going to be able to destroy Israel. This conflict isn't about idealogy or religion. It's about Israel's discrimination against the Arab world. That's what I think anyway.
Why was it okay to wipe Palestine off the map in that process?
cunts watch their bodies
Nothing divine about it... Wikipedia is your friend...
Hezbollah is a proxy for Iran. A puppet. Pull string, watch puppet dance. Too much focus on Iranian Nuclear issue? Pull strings....
Israel discriminates against Arabs, that'd be the sons of monkey and pigs thing? Oh no, I got that reversed sorry ... Israel has never started a fight. The best way to get Israel not to attack you, is not to attack them.
I've found that's somewhat universal.
Conjecture, opinion, and unrelated to reality.
Grasping at straws.
Wrong end, wrong stick.
Unsupported by fact.
Actually it's pretty much on the money. Just read what these people actually say in Arabic. Memri would be a good tool for that (http://www.memri.org).
Err no, its not. How many Islamic nations have invaded, occupied, or brutalised another?
In which country does 'The Rapture' and those who promote it hold political sway? The End times scenario is a firm Jewish/Christian phenomenon. All major religions have one.
Your link sent me to Washington. I have come to doubt anything that comes from that city, alleged non-partisan or not.
Memri:
Founded in February 1998 to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East, MEMRI is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501 (c)3 organization. MEMRI's headquarters is located in Washington, DC with branch offices in Berlin, London, Tokyo and Jerusalem. MEMRI research is translated to English, German, Hebrew, Italian, French, Spanish and Japanese.
To support MEMRI's undertaking please click here to send your secure contribution online, or send your donations to:
MEMRI
P.O. Box 27837
Washington, DC 20038-7837
Phone: (202) 955-9070
Fax: (202) 955-9077
Email to: donations@memri.org
Please direct all general inquiries to memri@memri.org.
NOTE: We are a 501(c)3 status organization, therefore your donations to The Middle East Media Research Institute are tax-deductible.
Syria occupied Lebanon, Hizbullah is occuping southern Lebanon, Iraq did it with Kuwait, Turkey brutalised the Armenians, Sudan is brutalising a large part of its civilians as we speak... do you want me to continue? Cause there are lots of other examples.
All of these stuff have nothing to do with a certain type of religion, but with any religion (plus money&power).
Iran, for example. but than again, you believe the destruction of state and the destruction of its people are not related, so I guess nothing I would say is gonna change your narrow point of view.
Again another personal attack. Do moderators watch the boards or do you have to personally lodge a complaint?
Hizbollah is not a nation. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a US supported and funded secular dictatorship where the majority Shia population were persecuted and not allwoed topractise their religion. Turkey is, was a secular state at the time of the Armenian genocide and was led by Turkish Nationalism (Mustapha Kemal's new government), and Armenia wasn't a separate state. Nor are the tribes of Sudan, who are being attcked by, yes, you guessed it, a secular, Western supported Goverment.
You have not answered my question. How many Islamist nations have attacked others, then balance that against how many western nations have atacked and occupied Islamist nations?
And 'The Rapture' movement was created in the 1800's, in America, by one John Nelson Darby. Also known as "the father of the rapture doctrine".
Please consult your history text books before engaging in conversation with somebody who has.
Again, you are over-reacting.
Hizbullah is not a nation, but it clearly acts like one. All the other examples I gave you are valid. I didn't try to participate in this discussion, only to show you its not the type of religion that should be the center of attention - eveyone is doing bad things all across the world, including muslims.
No, none of your points were valid. I addressed them, apart from this one. Syria invaded Lebanon. Granted. But in response to what???
I know you didnt try to participate in the discussion, you just jumped in with your personal attack, your slanted opinion.
Everyone is not doing bad things across the world at all. Msulims do what they do out of self-defense, Christian, Zionist governments do things out of imperialism and oppression.
How many Moslem nations are occupying a Christian / Jewish one? How many Moslem nations are attcking a Christian / Jewish one?
This statement is typical of someone who knows they are wrong, or have been proven wrong, but yet continues to argue the case irrespectively. It really does amuse me to see people with fixed, dogmatic, and skewered opinions - normally conservatives/republicans - squirming in their own juices.
I don't see what your first point has to do with the original statement, though there have been plenty of examples of Muslim and Arab nations invading others. Iraq in Iran and then Kuwait. Syria in Lebanon. Egypt's war with Yemen. Not to mention the many wars multiple Arab countries have fought against Israel.
I don't even get your second point. First you say that the end time is a Jewish/Christion scenario, and then you say that all religions have such a scenario. Which is it. In any event the point is that Iran and Hezbollah do subscribe to these sort of messianic apocolyptic beliefs and seek to act on them.
I think it is very close minded to disregard anything simply because it comes from Washington. Memri translates information from arabic into English. These are translations of what is really said in the arabic speaking world. If you want to know what the discourse is in that world, and not only rely on the statements made for the benefit of the English speaking world (statements which are often radically different from what is said in Arabic) then Memri is a great source. I urge you, if you want to expand your understanding of the topic, to make use of this site.
How can you say this and take yourself seriously? Do you really think that the left isn't just as dogmatic and slanted in their opinions as the right? If you do think that then I'm afraid you're a part of that part of the left that does just that, and you just can't see yourself for what you are. The fact is that dogmatism exists on both the left and the right in equal strength, and there are moderate, non-dogmatic people on the right, just as there are on the left. I'm sorry for you if you can't see this.
If you really don't see the aggressive, violent, expansionist, fascist, and imperialist nature of the Islamic terrorists we are fighting against then you are simply blind. It truly astounds me that the West has become so rotten at its core that it could produce someone like you.
Hence my use of the word 'normally'. As far as you feeling sorry for me, that cannot be. Republicans are devoid of compassion, other than for their Bank managers.
The comment you have made above is plainly ridiculous and should be reserved for a playground argument between 4 year olds.
The fact is that 'terrorists' in the sense of the word which we have recently been led to believe - i.e, those who attack 'us' - do not, by their very nature, exist in the form of a nation/country. Therefore, how can a terrorist be imperialist, or expansionist? Where exactly do you see them expanding from? Please elaborate...
THe US and UK invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan is expansionism.
Tell me where Islamist terorists are doing the same?
Fascist? How so? I don't know of any Islamic nations that have ever gotten into bed with fascist states...but guess what, I know of a few Western and Zionist ones.
Whats this we bullshit?
"I aint got no quarrel with no vietcong."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/magazine/06israel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
If you would like the full argument you should read "Terror and Liberalism" by Paul Berman. In brief, today's modern Islamic terrorists fit nicely into the theory of totalitarianism put forward by the political philosopher Hannah Arendt, who was very familiar with the topic, having herself fled from Nazi Germany because she was Jewish. Basically Islamists fetishize violence and death, dream of recreating the mythic greatness of their past empire (in this case the Islamic Caliphate) and rose out of an opposition to Liberalism, etc. The book is pretty short and very convincing (and well written). And I don't think 4 year olds use words like Fascism.
The US and UK only still have soldiers in these countries because without them there the people who are now slaughtering innocent people in the hopes of plunging these countries into civil war would take over (I am of course talking about Al Queda and co.) It isn't expansionism because they have no intention of ruling these countries indefinitely. You should be less loose with your terms.
The Baath party is fascist. They controlled Iraq and still control Syria. They are basically people that adapted Nazism for use in the Arab world. Furthermore, I didn't say they were in bed with fascists, I said they are fascists.
I assume you live in a western liberal country, therefore whether you like it or not the US and UK are fighting for your future. If you think so highly of the Islamists and so little of the West why don't you go live with them? I wonder how long it would be before you changed your tune.
Solidly on the left, but still capable of blinding himself to realities. This article describes his trip to Israel, and he describes various meetings with Israeli officials and military men. He also describes the fact that rockets are being fired at Israel and talks of how terrible this is for the Israelis who are at the receiving end. He says that:
"Up north again, near the Lebanese border, I travel from Avivim to Manara, where the Israelis have set up, in a crater 200 yards in diameter, an artillery field where two enormous batteries mounted on caterpillar treads bombard the command post and rocket launchers and arsenals in Marun al-Ras on the other side of the border. Three things here strike me. First, the extreme youth of the artillerymen: they are 20 years old, maybe 18. I notice their stunned look at each discharge, as if every time were the first time; their childlike teasing when their comrade hasn’t had time to block his ears and the detonation deafens him; and then at the same time their serious, earnest side, the sobriety of people who know they’re participating in an immense drama that surpasses them — and know, too, they may soon pay a steep price in blood and life. Second, I note the relaxed — I was about to say unrestrained and even carefree — aspect of the little troop. It reminds me of reading about the joyful scramble of those battalions of young republicans in Spain described, once again, by Malraux: an army that is more friendly than it is martial; more democratic than self-assured and dominating; an army that, here, in any case, in Manara, seems to me the exact opposite of those battalions of brutes or unprincipled pitiless terminators that are so often described in media portraits of Israel."
This particular passage has the intention of making the reader pity the poor, innocent Israeli artillerymen - "an army that is more friendly than it is martial.." - and the entire article reads about the same way. This is a classic example of someone not being able to see the wood for the trees. If Henry Levy had also visited Lebanon during his travels then perhaps his article would have aquired a certain element of credibility. Surprising from someone with such supposed pedigree.
Do you see what you just did? Do you? You can't deny that this guy is on the left so you say that he must be brainwashed because he says something that you don't like and don't want to be true. Honestly, who is it that is close minded and dogmatic and unwilling to see the situation as it is?
'Solidly on the left' was your description. I was paraphrasing you. You can now cease patting yourself on the back for a moment. And, as for brainwashed, that again is your wording, not mine. And as for 'seeing the situation as it is', are you saying that you see the situation as it is, as opposed to, myself, for example? You really must be very proud of yourself.
Solidly on the left, but still capable of blinding himself to realities.
This is a classic example of someone not being able to see the wood for the trees.
These were your words. Solidly on the left may have been my phrasing but it is nevertheless true. Maybe not brainwashed, but you still say that he must be blind to the situation, even though he is actually there in person, because he sees things differently than you do. I will concede that perhaps the reality is not as I see it (though I don't believe this), but the fact remains that here you have a brilliant and left-leaning philosopher, one of the stars of modern French philosophy, who is writing about a situation he is witnessing with his own eyes, and you label him as blind to reality because you don't like the conclusions he comes to.
1.He's in Israel in person. He's not visted Lebanon 'in person'.
2. I'm not saying he must be blind to the situation 'because he see's things differently' than me. I'm saying he appears to be blind to the wider picture because he has done nothing but speak to Israeli officials in Israel.
3. I don't know much about Bernard Henry Levy other than from his t.v series on the history of ideas in the 20th century, which I still have on tape somewhere. I approached the article with few preconceived ideas about him. Basically, I couldn't give a fuck about him. I read the article and the conclusion I have come to is that he's a bit of a prick. The article is totally one-sided and overly sentimental. I've read more incisive opinions here on this message board. As I said above, surprising from someone with such supposed pedigree.
In fact, this article really is an undiluted pile of dog shit. For example, he writes:
"And then, finally, Shimon Peres. More than ever I did not want to end this journey without going, as I do each time, to visit Peres — the country’s elder statesman. I met him in the company of Daniel Saada, an old friend and founding member of the French progressive organization SOS Racisme, who has now settled in Israel and become a diplomat as well as a friend of Peres. Shimon, as everyone here calls him, is now 82 years old. But he hasn’t lost any of his handsomeness. Or the look of a prince-priest of Zionism. He still has the same face, all forehead and mouth, that emphasizes the melodious authority of his voice. And I even have the impression, at times, that he has adopted a few of the mannerisms of his old rival Yitzhak Rabin: a slight bitterness in his smile, a gleam in his eyes, a way of carrying himself and, sometimes, of shading his words.. . .
Shimon, a young man who is 82 years old, has had a dream. His invincible dream has lasted, in fact, for 30 years; the present impasse, far from discouraging him, seems mysteriously to stimulate him. So I listen to him. I listen to this Wise Man of Israel explain to me that his country must simultaneously “win this war,” foil this “quartet of evil” made up by Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah and clear the way for “paths of speech and dialogue” that will, one day, lead the Middle East somewhere. And as I listen to him, and let myself be lulled by his oft-repeated, indefinite prophecies, I find that, today, for some reason, those prophecies have a new coefficient of obviousness and force. I, too, catch myself imagining the glory of a Jewish state that would dare, at the same time, almost in the same gesture and with the same movement, to deliver two things at once: to some, alas, war; to others, a real declaration of peace that would be recognized as such and accepted."
This guy really is a prize cock. Anybody who can write such drivel and call himself a serious philosopher really is a fucking joke. I'm surprised that he didn't just take out Shimon Peres' cock and put it in his mouth. He must surely have been dying to. I'll certainly give it to you Dayan, you have a great ability of digging up some quality shit from the internet.
Somalia, Pakistan (Kashmir), Malaysia, Indonesia, Phillipines, Denmark, Sweden, France, Spain, UK, Canada, US
Sudan, Sri Lanka, India ... Past examples include Iran, Yemen ...
Yep as a Canadian I cannot express my disgust with the vast amount of Islamic fundanutalism here in my borders...give me a break....you make it sound as if they are on the verge of a coup....
Yeah, I think including the Western countries on that list was a bit of a stretch ... We haven't been overrun just yet.