7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. ...?
The reverend says... Make the connection BEEEYOTCH !
Yeah man, I'm with you on Cheney and those dudes being evil, but that whole "make the connection" shit is what got us all here in the first place. That's some choose your own adventure ish. All this multiple interpretaion has caused nuff suffering. We're all one. Different paths leading to the same place. End of story.
Curious if Vitamin or other folks would agree with some of the underlying arguments here, esp. the idea that Iran has played a key role in destablizing everything by helping support Hezbollah on the low, plus that Hezbollah and Hamas are starting to join forces. How significant is the latter given that one is Shiite and the other Sunni?
I have two reactions. First an emotional one. Living in Cairo, I have a lot of Egyptian freinds who I cannot talk with about what's going on now. I am both a Jew and a Zionist (though one committed to a Palestinian state). And when Hezbollah captured those soldiers, there were audible cheers I could hear from balcony. The ummah wants this. Even the most sophisticated crowd of protestors, lawyers, journalists--who criticize Arab tyrany at every turn--want this. I can feel, sadly, the region accepting the new logic of war. So I have been busy covering this, but also slightly disgusted and saddened.
On the analytical level, the question you raise--can Sunni and Shiite cooperate?--is still a deep point of contention among experts. I think it's clear that Islamists will cooperate, even though at the end of the day al Qaeda considers Khomeini an apostate. At this stage, on a grand strategic level, they see a common enemy in America, Israel and any birth of a moderate, liberal Islamic polity. So they will go about sabotaging it.
As for Iran's involvement, the circumstantial case against them is compelling. Hezbollah launches the attack on the same day the five permanent members of the security council refer their case to the UN Security Council, on the eve of the G-8 summit. But there is also a stronger case. Anyone who has ever been to southern lebanon, I have not, will tell you that Hezbollah runs their villages and towns the way the Mullahs rule over Iran. You find posters of Nasrallah next to Khomeini. Iran trained Hezbollah 1.0 and instructed them when to take and return american hostages in Lebanon in the 1980s. Today, Hezbollah does not need Iranian money. But the Qassam rockets they launch into Israel, the Katyusha's come from Iran and Syria. Indeed, US signal intelligence picked up a shipment of these missiles from Iran in an alleged Syrian flight returning from a relief mission in 2004 after the Bam earthquake.
I think it's going to be a big war. One silver lining is that the crisis has prompted the Lebanese army to move into southern Lebanon, which is what Israel would accept on their border.
Israel has been doing a great job spinning this as, "Oh, we're just sitting here minding our own business and these terrorists came and took our men. So we had to drop huge bombs all of Lebanon." Kudos.
And for all this talk about Iran and Syria:
Yes. Iran and Syria are providing foreign aid to Lebanon. And this fringe faction of the Lebanese population uses that to aid destoy homes, kill and capture people in an attempt further an ideological agenda that most reasonable people in the world disagree with. I can think of a few others who pull that kind of shit, but the names escape me right now... Oh, I got it: The USA.
Yes. Iran and Syria are providing foreign aid to Lebanon. And this fringe faction of the Lebanese population uses that to aid destoy homes, kill and capture people in an attempt further an ideological agenda that most reasonable people in the world disagree with. I can think of a few others who pull that kind of shit, but the names escape me right now... Oh, I got it: The USA.
Yeah...did you catch Condi Rice warning the Iraelis to be careful about civilian casualties? I guess she was speaking from experience....
Israel has been doing a great job spinning this as, "Oh, we're just sitting here minding our own business and these terrorists came and took our men. So we had to drop huge bombs all of Lebanon." Kudos.
And for all this talk about Iran and Syria:
Yes. Iran and Syria are providing foreign aid to Lebanon. And this fringe faction of the Lebanese population uses that to aid destoy homes, kill and capture people in an attempt further an ideological agenda that most reasonable people in the world disagree with. I can think of a few others who pull that kind of shit, but the names escape me right now... Oh, I got it: The USA.
Frank,
No offense but when you weigh in on Israel, you sound like an idiot.
1) What spin? Almost everyone in the world has condemned Israel's response against the Lebanese airport etc.. But are you saying Hezbollah had a right to cross the border and abduct two Israeli soldiers? Even the editor of the Beirut Daily Star sees that for what it is, an effort by Hezbollah to destabilize the rest of Lebanon, and so does the Arab League, Egypt, Saudi. You on the other hand imply that you are taking the Ahmadinejad view, that it was appropriate. Because it would put pressure on Israel to do a prisoner swap?
2) Iran and Syria do not support Lebanon. They support Hezbollah. Hezbollah was the only major group that opposed the withdrawal of Syrian occupying forces last fall. Insofar as Hezbollah has a private army and conducts its own foreign affairs, its presence in southern Lebanon is arrayed against Lebanese sovereignty.
3) This moral equivalency is also piffle. In the last year Israel has abdicated its claim to most of the territory it won in the 1967 war, it has started a unilateral withdrawal and you come up with this hackneyed one sided crap about home demolitions. The Israeli supreme court pretty much outlawed the practice last year. Get some new talking points and explain why as the Jewish state has abandoned its fantasy of occupying the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians embrace the nostalgic terror fantasies of Hamas and Hezbollah; greet withdrawal with rockets and kidnappings and suicide bombings.
Israel should bomb all the countries that threaten it to dust & rename the whole of the middle east "New Florida". We could build condos, resorts & malls & make billions. We'd never have to experience another 9-11 & the investment potential is huge. It's a win-win situation. Kill all the people who want to kill you & cake off it. All this sensitive, peaceful shit is going to doom modern civilization. Some asshole who thinks he's going to get a bunch of hoes & cupcakes when he dies is going to blow up America one day.
Yeah man, I'm with you on Cheney and those dudes being evil, but that whole "make the connection" shit is what got us all here in the first place. That's some choose your own adventure ish. All this multiple interpretaion has caused nuff suffering. We're all one. Different paths leading to the same place. End of story.
I'm hyporbolizing a bit, a-la Reverend X. (look like the yellow pages) But yeah man, I know. People take it & interpret it into all kinds of crazy you will die, kill the unsaved, whatever. Bigger problem is, our fearless leaders (and leaders of other nations) have `chosen an adventure` which we'll probably get us all vaporized one day... It is an entertaining read though.
Anyhow, there is a record put out by some preacher saying some real insane doomsday revelations shit which comes to mind. (I don't own it). I think it's from the 80's, I recall hearing it one day in a store several years back. The ill shit is dude starts 'speaking in toungues' & goin off how israel will be the starting point of 'the end'. Real fucking crazy with the pipe organ goin' off in the background. pretty sure it's a private press/church thing. But yeah, crazy.
Ok, lemme go get my "doomsday" sign & go stand on the corner...
Yeah man, I'm with you on Cheney and those dudes being evil, but that whole "make the connection" shit is what got us all here in the first place. That's some choose your own adventure ish. All this multiple interpretaion has caused nuff suffering. We're all one. Different paths leading to the same place. End of story.
I'm hyporbolizing a bit, a-la Reverend X. (look like the yellow pages) But yeah man, I know. People take it & interpret it into all kinds of crazy you will die, kill the unsaved, whatever. Bigger problem is, our fearless leaders (and leaders of other nations) have `chosen an adventure` which we'll probably get us all vaporized one day... It is an entertaining read though.
Anyhow, there is a record put out by some preacher saying some real insane doomsday revelations shit which comes to mind. (I don't own it). I think it's from the 80's, I recall hearing it one day in a store several years back. The ill shit is dude starts 'speaking in toungues' & goin off how israel will be the starting point of 'the end'. Real fucking crazy with the pipe organ goin' off in the background. pretty sure it's a private press/church thing. But yeah, crazy.
Ok, lemme go get my "doomsday" sign & go stand on the corner...
I guess your joking about Revelations, hard for me to tell. Anyway I've read the whole thing. Anyone who says they understand Revelations, and knows what it means is full of shitte. I like this quote:
At my table you will eat your fill of horses and riders, mighty men and soldiers of every kind,' declares the Sovereign LORD.{/quote]
When people in the middle east start eating horses and riders and mighty men, and soldiers, I will know we are in the end times. Until them I say bringing up Revelatins is
No offense but when you weigh in on Israel, you sound like an idiot.
Oh, thanks. But you don't make that much sense either.
And btw that neocon shit is turning out great. Nice work! You guys are so on point. Yeah for you!
1) What spin? Almost everyone in the world has condemned Israel's response against the Lebanese airport etc.. But are you saying Hezbollah had a right to cross the border and abduct two Israeli soldiers? Even the editor of the Beirut Daily Star sees that for what it is, an effort by Hezbollah to destabilize the rest of Lebanon, and so does the Arab League, Egypt, Saudi. You on the other hand imply that you are taking the Ahmadinejad view, that it was appropriate. Because it would put pressure on Israel to do a prisoner swap?
of course it was wrong for them to go in and kill/abduct those dudes
spin: look at what Isreal's Foreign Minister and the Ambassador to the UN has been saying. Syria is spinning it too.
2) Iran and Syria do not support Lebanon. They support Hezbollah. Hezbollah was the only major group that opposed the withdrawal of Syrian occupying forces last fall. Insofar as Hezbollah has a private army and conducts its own foreign affairs, its presence in southern Lebanon is arrayed against Lebanese sovereignty.
so aid to Hezbollah has no impact in Lebanese state policies? certainly not direct, but it's there.
3) This moral equivalency is also piffle. In the last year Israel has abdicated its claim to most of the territory it won in the 1967 war, it has started a unilateral withdrawal and you come up with this hackneyed one sided crap about home demolitions. The Israeli supreme court pretty much outlawed the practice last year. Get some new talking points and explain why as the Jewish state has abandoned its fantasy of occupying the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians embrace the nostalgic terror fantasies of Hamas and Hezbollah; greet withdrawal with rockets and kidnappings and suicide bombings.
i'm not as comfortable being a hypocrite.
"the Jewish state has abandoned its fantasy of occupying the West Bank and Gaza" because it could not claim to be a representative democracy otherwise. and now that they've pulled out, it's like magic. poof! it never happened. yeah!
what are those dirty Arabs bitching about now? Geez!
"the Palestinians embrace the nostalgic terror fantasies of Hamas and Hezbollah" because they are uneducated, desperate and oppressed people. there is no justification for their behavior. but Israel and the USA need to stop trying to play the innocent victim.
we've sent 3 million dollars a day to Israel for over 40 years.
what do we get for it?
meanwhile, i'm over here begging the the Dept of Education/Juvenile Justice and the Virginia General Assembly for a few hundred thousand dollars to provide literacy training to the adolescents with drug charges in detention centers.
And btw that neocon shit is turning out great. Nice work! You guys are so on point. Yeah for you!
I just don't see what the neocons have to do with Hezbollah attacking Israel and declaring "open war." At least the Gaza situation reasonable people can disagree on. But these dudes attacked Israel and are now gonna get got as a result. Lebanese will die as an unfortunate result and then when the dust clears maybe they and the Europeans will rethink the whole idea of letting an Islamist militia run the Southern half of their country.
Make up all the lizardoid conspiracy theories y'all want to.
The hommie Ori Nir is usually on point though if anyone's intersted in more analysis .
As for Israel and why we send tax dollars, that's at least a five pager. I like this little bit of right-wing propaganda , though. Sums shit up pretty nicely.
I have two reactions. First an emotional one. Living in Cairo, I have a lot of Egyptian freinds who I cannot talk with about what's going on now. I am both a Jew and a Zionist (though one committed to a Palestinian state). And when Hezbollah captured those soldiers, there were audible cheers I could hear from balcony. The ummah wants this. Even the most sophisticated crowd of protestors, lawyers, journalists--who criticize Arab tyrany at every turn--want this. I can feel, sadly, the region accepting the new logic of war. So I have been busy covering this, but also slightly disgusted and saddened.
E*i, you and Charles crack me up with this schitt. Aren't your friendly relations with these people a little superficial when you know they would slit your throat or sell your kidnapped body to Iran if push came to shove? I mean, I've had plenty of Arab and Muslim friends over the years (yeah, yeah, some of my best friends are black, whatver - save it) but I never give them a pass on this. Is it the state-controlled media branwashing them? Do they not know any better? Seems a little condescending to just ignore these opinions on their part...
And btw that neocon shit is turning out great. Nice work! You guys are so on point. Yeah for you!
I just don't see what the neocons have to do with Hezbollah attacking Israel and declaring "open war."
The neo-con promise was; Iraq will quickly become a democracy, Syria and Iran (like dominoes) will then become democracies, and democracy will spread through out the region (like kudzu on a vacant lot), then Palestine will be happy with whatever lot they are handed by Israel.
So the neo-con promise was peace for Israel. Sadly Iran and Palestine were caught up in the democratic fervor, which turned out to be a vote for extremism.
And btw that neocon shit is turning out great. Nice work! You guys are so on point. Yeah for you!
I just don't see what the neocons have to do with Hezbollah attacking Israel and declaring "open war."
The neo-con promise was; Iraq will quickly become a democracy, Syria and Iran (like dominoes) will then become democracies, and democracy will spread through out the region (like kudzu on a vacant lot), then Palestine will be happy with whatever lot they are handed by Israel.
So the neo-con promise was peace for Israel. Sadly Iran and Palestine were caught up in the democratic fervor, which turned out to be a vote for extremism.
I think the term you're looking for is "blowback."
Certainly, I don't think any neocon would have wanted to see what's happening in the Middle East now go down but as you suggest, there is a rather pointed irony in how the "democratization" of parts of the Middle East have not exactly turned out the way the pro-Iraq War lobby thought it would.
That said, I don't think you can pin the tail on neocon ideology or policy for what's happening right now.
What I'm waiting to see is how involved the US plans to get over this.
And btw that neocon shit is turning out great. Nice work! You guys are so on point. Yeah for you!
I just don't see what the neocons have to do with Hezbollah attacking Israel and declaring "open war."
The neo-con promise was; Iraq will quickly become a democracy, Syria and Iran (like dominoes) will then become democracies, and democracy will spread through out the region (like kudzu on a vacant lot), then Palestine will be happy with whatever lot they are handed by Israel.
So the neo-con promise was peace for Israel. Sadly Iran and Palestine were caught up in the democratic fervor, which turned out to be a vote for extremism.
I think the term you're looking for is "blowback."
Certainly, I don't think any neocon would have wanted to see what's happening in the Middle East now go down but as you suggest, there is a rather pointed irony in how the "democratization" of parts of the Middle East have not exactly turned out the way the pro-Iraq War lobby thought it would.
That said, I don't think you can pin the tail on neocon ideology or policy for what's happening right now.
What I'm waiting to see is how involved the US plans to get over this.
The US owns this. Face up bitches!
"pin the tail" i like that.
the neocons are running US (and by proxy$ Israeli--sorry) foreign policy and they've been doing a crack* job. that's all i'm saying.
we're the sole superpower. remember?
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
??? we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
??? we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
??? we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
??? we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
What I'm waiting to see is how involved the US plans to get over this.
If it's anything like past Bush policy they will make some public comments and then just sit on the sidelines doing nothing. Rice seems to be more into diplomacy and has at least an equal footing with Cheney unlike Powell who got cut out of a lot of decisions, but I'm not sure anyone in the administration actually wants to get involved right now. If things completely go buck wild public opinion might force them to though.
What I'm waiting to see is how involved the US plans to get over this.
If it's anything like past Bush policy they will make some public comments and then just sit on the sidelines doing nothing. Rice seems to be more into diplomacy and has at least an equal footing with Cheney unlike Powell who got cut out of a lot of decisions, but I'm not sure anyone in the administration actually wants to get involved right now. If things completely go buck wild public opinion might force them to though.
given the unpopularity of the war in iraq, a heap of domestic troubles and a well-known shortage of troops, it's gonna have to get pretty fucking wild before the US gets involved. were we not already wasting our time in iraq, this is about two weeks away from a great excuse to invade iran, but that would be political suicide.
Here???s my reading of what???s happened over the last couple years.
1) There were some in Israel that believed in the idea of a ???Greater Israel??? and wanted to occupy everything they thought of as historical Israel such as the West Bank and even Jordan, etc. There were many others that wanted to hold onto the Occupied Territories after the 67 War because the greatest threat was another land war with the surrounding Arab countries and these areas could be used as a buffer.
2) In 1980s the Intifadah starts, and holding onto the territories becomes a lot more difficult. At the same time many within Israel come to believe that there can be a land for peace resolution to the conflict.
3) This leads to the Oslo peace process led by Clinton from 1993 to 2000 where Israel and the PLO attempted to negotiate with the U.S. as moderators. Israel made all kinds of concessions to the PLO such as letting a bunch of their leaders return, released a bunch of prisoners, even gave them some guns and let them run parts of the Occupied Territories. In return, Arafat was suppose to set up a government, recognize Israel, and crack down on Palestinian terrorists. Arafat took the guns, didn???t really govern, never cracked down on the terrorism and then when he finally got offered almost everything the PLO wanted he rejected it. The PLO started the 2nd Intifadah instead. The Israeli Left had expected Arafat to make a deal and keep it, while the Right thought he would make a deal and break it. Both turned out to be wrong, leaving them to believe that the Palestinian leaders didn???t really want negotiations, but continued struggle instead.
4) A new consensus emerged in Israel that took elements from the Left, Right and the military. The Israeli military didn???t want to fight the Intifadah anymore because it was unwinnable and defending all the Israeli settlements spread out all over the place was impractical. This led to the idea of the wall that could be made into a defensible line. This fused with ideas from the Left about withdrawing from the Occupied Territories. From the Right came the idea that the Palestinians didn???t want to negotiate about any of this so Israel should just act alone. The military also didn???t think that there would be another land war with its neighbors so the idea of the Occupied Territories as a buffer lost its importance.
5) This came to fruition with the death of Arafat and the Sharon government. After Arafat died, the Palestinian leadership became even more fractured with the radicals basically holding all the cards, and none of them wanted to negotiate. Sharon decided to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza, build the wall, and pull out of parts of the West Bank as well without negotiating with the Palestinians about any of it. This was continued by Olmert after Sharon passed.
6) This policy has had its ups and downs since then. There are some in Israel who feel like: 1) Israel should never give something up without getting something in return, and 2) It makes Israel look weak. That leads into Hamas??? election with 40% of the vote, open warfare between it and the PLO, no real working government in Gaza for the Palestinians, and now all these attacks. Hamas definitely argues that Israel withdrew from Gaza because of its terrorist tactics, so that has only incited them to more attacks, rather than think about actually governing.
7) I???ve talked about Bush???s policy towards Israel before. Bush doesn???t think the conflict can be solved so he doesn???t want to get involved. Powell, while he was Sec. of State, and Tony Blair, especially because he supported the U.S. in Iraq, both tried to push Bush to get back into negotiations, but they got rebuffed. The U.S. will make some statements about wanting a Palestinian state, like Bush???s press conference with Blair after his re-election, but it???s all talk and no real action. Yes, we still give Israel the most U.S. aid, but we were also giving a bunch of money to the Palestinian Authority. When Hamas got elected though, the U.S. cut that off. That???s why I think the U.S. will still sit on the sidelines during this flare up.
Yes, we still give Israel the most U.S. aid, but we were also giving a bunch of money to the Palestinian Authority. When Hamas got elected though, the U.S. cut that off.
Yes, we still give Israel the most U.S. aid, but we were also giving a bunch of money to the Palestinian Authority. When Hamas got elected though, the U.S. cut that off.
Yes, we still give Israel the most U.S. aid, but we were also giving a bunch of money to the Palestinian Authority. When Hamas got elected though, the U.S. cut that off.
Yes, we still give Israel the most U.S. aid, but we were also giving a bunch of money to the Palestinian Authority. When Hamas got elected though, the U.S. cut that off.
And this doesn't bother you?
Doesn't bother me. Fuck them.
Doesn't bother me, either. Plain and simple, HAMAS (who controls Judea, Samaria and Gaza) is a terrorist organization of the most brutal kind.. how could anyone possibly support continuation of funding to them? Besides, they're still getting money to terrorize Israel from their other terrorist friends.. the biggest consequence of the lack of Western aid is that a dent has been put in their budget for music videos celebrating how great cowardly suicide bombing *cough* i mean "martyrdom" *cough* is..
Yes, we still give Israel the most U.S. aid, but we were also giving a bunch of money to the Palestinian Authority. When Hamas got elected though, the U.S. cut that off.
And this doesn't bother you?
Doesn't bother me. Fuck them.
Woo-hoo! Yeah, Bubba!
sorry dude I am half a Jew and I am not really into Islamic militants that kill Jews
we were also giving a bunch of money to the Palestinian Authority
A "bunch of" aid to Palestine? Are you serious? Or you're talking about Palestine, TX. Anyhoot, them Arabs just fight with rocks and homemade nail bombs becuase they are scum. Let's smoke 'em out boys!
Yes, we still give Israel the most U.S. aid, but we were also giving a bunch of money to the Palestinian Authority. When Hamas got elected though, the U.S. cut that off.
And this doesn't bother you?
Doesn't bother me. Fuck them.
Woo-hoo! Yeah, Bubba!
sorry dude I am half a Jew and I am not really into Islamic militants that kill Jews
we were also giving a bunch of money to the Palestinian Authority
A "bunch of" aid to Palestine? Are you serious? Or you're talking about Palestine, TX. Anyhoot, them Arabs just fight with rocks and homemade nail bombs becuase they are scum. Let's smoke 'em out boys!
dude they want to kill us. the Israelis don't.
plus the Israelis have taken the aid money we've given them over the years and a) spent most of it on US exports (per the aid agreements) and b) built a democracy that has provided refuge for millions of Jews and been a strong US ally.
the billions that Palestinians have recieved over the years, well, I'm still trying to figure out where all that went.
though I have a suspicion miss crocodile tears here might have an idea.
Comments
Yeah man, I'm with you on Cheney and those dudes being evil, but that whole "make the connection" shit is what got us all here in the first place. That's some choose your own adventure ish. All this multiple interpretaion has caused nuff suffering. We're all one. Different paths leading to the same place. End of story.
I have two reactions. First an emotional one. Living in Cairo, I have a lot of Egyptian freinds who I cannot talk with about what's going on now. I am both a Jew and a Zionist (though one committed to a Palestinian state). And when Hezbollah captured those soldiers, there were audible cheers I could hear from balcony. The ummah wants this. Even the most sophisticated crowd of protestors, lawyers, journalists--who criticize Arab tyrany at every turn--want this. I can feel, sadly, the region accepting the new logic of war. So I have been busy covering this, but also slightly disgusted and saddened.
On the analytical level, the question you raise--can Sunni and Shiite cooperate?--is still a deep point of contention among experts. I think it's clear that Islamists will cooperate, even though at the end of the day al Qaeda considers Khomeini an apostate. At this stage, on a grand strategic level, they see a common enemy in America, Israel and any birth of a moderate, liberal Islamic polity. So they will go about sabotaging it.
As for Iran's involvement, the circumstantial case against them is compelling. Hezbollah launches the attack on the same day the five permanent members of the security council refer their case to the UN Security Council, on the eve of the G-8 summit. But there is also a stronger case. Anyone who has ever been to southern lebanon, I have not, will tell you that Hezbollah runs their villages and towns the way the Mullahs rule over Iran. You find posters of Nasrallah next to Khomeini. Iran trained Hezbollah 1.0 and instructed them when to take and return american hostages in Lebanon in the 1980s. Today, Hezbollah does not need Iranian money. But the Qassam rockets they launch into Israel, the Katyusha's come from Iran and Syria. Indeed, US signal intelligence picked up a shipment of these missiles from Iran in an alleged Syrian flight returning from a relief mission in 2004 after the Bam earthquake.
I think it's going to be a big war. One silver lining is that the crisis has prompted the Lebanese army to move into southern Lebanon, which is what Israel would accept on their border.
And for all this talk about Iran and Syria:
Yes. Iran and Syria are providing foreign aid to Lebanon. And this fringe faction of the Lebanese population uses that to aid destoy homes, kill and capture people in an attempt further an ideological agenda that most reasonable people in the world disagree with. I can think of a few others who pull that kind of shit, but the names escape me right now... Oh, I got it: The USA.
Yeah...did you catch Condi Rice warning the Iraelis to be careful about civilian casualties? I guess she was speaking from experience....
Frank,
No offense but when you weigh in on Israel, you sound like an idiot.
1) What spin? Almost everyone in the world has condemned Israel's response against the Lebanese airport etc.. But are you saying Hezbollah had a right to cross the border and abduct two Israeli soldiers? Even the editor of the Beirut Daily Star sees that for what it is, an effort by Hezbollah to destabilize the rest of Lebanon, and so does the Arab League, Egypt, Saudi. You on the other hand imply that you are taking the Ahmadinejad view, that it was appropriate. Because it would put pressure on Israel to do a prisoner swap?
2) Iran and Syria do not support Lebanon. They support Hezbollah. Hezbollah was the only major group that opposed the withdrawal of Syrian occupying forces last fall. Insofar as Hezbollah has a private army and conducts its own foreign affairs, its presence in southern Lebanon is arrayed against Lebanese sovereignty.
3) This moral equivalency is also piffle. In the last year Israel has abdicated its claim to most of the territory it won in the 1967 war, it has started a unilateral withdrawal and you come up with this hackneyed one sided crap about home demolitions. The Israeli supreme court pretty much outlawed the practice last year. Get some new talking points and explain why as the Jewish state has abandoned its fantasy of occupying the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians embrace the nostalgic terror fantasies of Hamas and Hezbollah; greet withdrawal with rockets and kidnappings and suicide bombings.
I'm hyporbolizing a bit, a-la Reverend X. (look like the yellow pages)
But yeah man, I know.
People take it & interpret it into all kinds of crazy you will die, kill the unsaved, whatever.
Bigger problem is, our fearless leaders (and leaders of other nations) have `chosen an adventure` which we'll probably get us all vaporized one day...
It is an entertaining read though.
Anyhow, there is a record put out by some preacher saying some real insane
I think it's from the 80's, I recall hearing it one day in a store several years back.
The ill shit is dude starts 'speaking in toungues' & goin off how israel will be the starting point of 'the end'. Real fucking crazy with the pipe organ goin' off in the background.
pretty sure it's a private press/church thing.
But yeah, crazy.
Ok, lemme go get my "doomsday" sign & go stand on the corner...
I guess your joking about Revelations, hard for me to tell. Anyway I've read the whole thing. Anyone who says they understand Revelations, and knows what it means is full of shitte. I like this quote:
Oh, thanks. But you don't make that much sense either.
And btw that neocon shit is turning out great. Nice work! You guys are so on point. Yeah for you!
of course it was wrong for them to go in and kill/abduct those dudes
spin: look at what Isreal's Foreign Minister and the Ambassador to the UN has been saying. Syria is spinning it too.
so aid to Hezbollah has no impact in Lebanese state policies? certainly not direct, but it's there.
i'm not as comfortable being a hypocrite.
"the Jewish state has abandoned its fantasy of occupying the West Bank and Gaza" because it could not claim to be a representative democracy otherwise. and now that they've pulled out, it's like magic. poof! it never happened. yeah!
what are those dirty Arabs bitching about now? Geez!
"the Palestinians embrace the nostalgic terror fantasies of Hamas and Hezbollah" because they are uneducated, desperate and oppressed people. there is no justification for their behavior. but Israel and the USA need to stop trying to play the innocent victim.
we've sent 3 million dollars a day to Israel for over 40 years.
what do we get for it?
meanwhile, i'm over here begging the the Dept of Education/Juvenile Justice and the Virginia General Assembly for a few hundred thousand dollars to provide literacy training to the adolescents with drug charges in detention centers.
I just don't see what the neocons have to do with Hezbollah attacking Israel and declaring "open war." At least the Gaza situation reasonable people can disagree on. But these dudes attacked Israel and are now gonna get got as a result. Lebanese will die as an unfortunate result and then when the dust clears maybe they and the Europeans will rethink the whole idea of letting an Islamist militia run the Southern half of their country.
Make up all the lizardoid conspiracy theories y'all want to.
The hommie Ori Nir is usually on point though if anyone's intersted in more analysis .
As for Israel and why we send tax dollars, that's at least a five pager. I like this little bit of right-wing propaganda , though. Sums shit up pretty nicely.
But yeah, I'm for more money for schools.
E*i, you and Charles crack me up with this schitt. Aren't your friendly relations with these people a little superficial when you know they would slit your throat or sell your kidnapped body to Iran if push came to shove? I mean, I've had plenty of Arab and Muslim friends over the years (yeah, yeah, some of my best friends are black, whatver - save it) but I never give them a pass on this. Is it the state-controlled media branwashing them? Do they not know any better? Seems a little condescending to just ignore these opinions on their part...
The neo-con promise was; Iraq will quickly become a democracy, Syria and Iran (like dominoes) will then become democracies, and democracy will spread through out the region (like kudzu on a vacant lot), then Palestine will be happy with whatever lot they are handed by Israel.
So the neo-con promise was peace for Israel. Sadly Iran and Palestine were caught up in the democratic fervor, which turned out to be a vote for extremism.
Please don't hit me.
got it.
Certainly, I don't think any neocon would have wanted to see what's happening in the Middle East now go down but as you suggest, there is a rather pointed irony in how the "democratization" of parts of the Middle East have not exactly turned out the way the pro-Iraq War lobby thought it would.
That said, I don't think you can pin the tail on neocon ideology or policy for what's happening right now.
What I'm waiting to see is how involved the US plans to get over this.
I think we will get involved when Syria or Iran do.
The US owns this. Face up bitches!
"pin the tail" i like that.
the neocons are running US (and by proxy$ Israeli--sorry) foreign policy and they've been doing a crack* job. that's all i'm saying.
we're the sole superpower. remember?
If it's anything like past Bush policy they will make some public comments and then just sit on the sidelines doing nothing. Rice seems to be more into diplomacy and has at least an equal footing with Cheney unlike Powell who got cut out of a lot of decisions, but I'm not sure anyone in the administration actually wants to get involved right now. If things completely go buck wild public opinion might force them to though.
given the unpopularity of the war in iraq, a heap of domestic troubles and a well-known shortage of troops, it's gonna have to get pretty fucking wild before the US gets involved. were we not already wasting our time in iraq, this is about two weeks away from a great excuse to invade iran, but that would be political suicide.
Here???s my reading of what???s happened over the last couple years.
1) There were some in Israel that believed in the idea of a ???Greater Israel??? and wanted to occupy everything they thought of as historical Israel such as the West Bank and even Jordan, etc. There were many others that wanted to hold onto the Occupied Territories after the 67 War because the greatest threat was another land war with the surrounding Arab countries and these areas could be used as a buffer.
2) In 1980s the Intifadah starts, and holding onto the territories becomes a lot more difficult. At the same time many within Israel come to believe that there can be a land for peace resolution to the conflict.
3) This leads to the Oslo peace process led by Clinton from 1993 to 2000 where Israel and the PLO attempted to negotiate with the U.S. as moderators. Israel made all kinds of concessions to the PLO such as letting a bunch of their leaders return, released a bunch of prisoners, even gave them some guns and let them run parts of the Occupied Territories. In return, Arafat was suppose to set up a government, recognize Israel, and crack down on Palestinian terrorists. Arafat took the guns, didn???t really govern, never cracked down on the terrorism and then when he finally got offered almost everything the PLO wanted he rejected it. The PLO started the 2nd Intifadah instead. The Israeli Left had expected Arafat to make a deal and keep it, while the Right thought he would make a deal and break it. Both turned out to be wrong, leaving them to believe that the Palestinian leaders didn???t really want negotiations, but continued struggle instead.
4) A new consensus emerged in Israel that took elements from the Left, Right and the military. The Israeli military didn???t want to fight the Intifadah anymore because it was unwinnable and defending all the Israeli settlements spread out all over the place was impractical. This led to the idea of the wall that could be made into a defensible line. This fused with ideas from the Left about withdrawing from the Occupied Territories. From the Right came the idea that the Palestinians didn???t want to negotiate about any of this so Israel should just act alone. The military also didn???t think that there would be another land war with its neighbors so the idea of the Occupied Territories as a buffer lost its importance.
5) This came to fruition with the death of Arafat and the Sharon government. After Arafat died, the Palestinian leadership became even more fractured with the radicals basically holding all the cards, and none of them wanted to negotiate. Sharon decided to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza, build the wall, and pull out of parts of the West Bank as well without negotiating with the Palestinians about any of it. This was continued by Olmert after Sharon passed.
6) This policy has had its ups and downs since then. There are some in Israel who feel like: 1) Israel should never give something up without getting something in return, and 2) It makes Israel look weak. That leads into Hamas??? election with 40% of the vote, open warfare between it and the PLO, no real working government in Gaza for the Palestinians, and now all these attacks. Hamas definitely argues that Israel withdrew from Gaza because of its terrorist tactics, so that has only incited them to more attacks, rather than think about actually governing.
7) I???ve talked about Bush???s policy towards Israel before. Bush doesn???t think the conflict can be solved so he doesn???t want to get involved. Powell, while he was Sec. of State, and Tony Blair, especially because he supported the U.S. in Iraq, both tried to push Bush to get back into negotiations, but they got rebuffed. The U.S. will make some statements about wanting a Palestinian state, like Bush???s press conference with Blair after his re-election, but it???s all talk and no real action. Yes, we still give Israel the most U.S. aid, but we were also giving a bunch of money to the Palestinian Authority. When Hamas got elected though, the U.S. cut that off. That???s why I think the U.S. will still sit on the sidelines during this flare up.
Well it looks like Syria has about 72 hours
And this doesn't bother you?
Doesn't bother me. Fuck them.
Woo-hoo! Yeah, Bubba!
Doesn't bother me, either. Plain and simple, HAMAS (who controls Judea, Samaria and Gaza) is a terrorist organization of the most brutal kind.. how could anyone possibly support continuation of funding to them? Besides, they're still getting money to terrorize Israel from their other terrorist friends.. the biggest consequence of the lack of Western aid is that a dent has been put in their budget for music videos celebrating how great cowardly suicide bombing *cough* i mean "martyrdom" *cough* is..
sorry dude I am half a Jew and I am not really into Islamic militants that kill Jews
A "bunch of" aid to Palestine? Are you serious? Or you're talking about Palestine, TX. Anyhoot, them Arabs just fight with rocks and homemade nail bombs becuase they are scum. Let's smoke 'em out boys!
I am not really into killing.
dude they want to kill us. the Israelis don't.
plus the Israelis have taken the aid money we've given them over the years and a) spent most of it on US exports (per the aid agreements) and b) built a democracy that has provided refuge for millions of Jews and been a strong US ally.
the billions that Palestinians have recieved over the years, well, I'm still trying to figure out where all that went.
though I have a suspicion miss crocodile tears here might have an idea.
Suha Arafat