"We believe that they also prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage in a system of apartheid that left the country culturally and genetically Germanised.
And the downside was?
#1
Pooh. The Vikings may have prevented British genes from getting into their population, but I have no doubt they equally ensured -- individually if not deliberately -- that Germanic genes got into the British population.
Hmmm, gee, Gaza blows up, Lebanon blows up, Shi'a kick up trouble in Iraq, PKK yowls in Turkey, North Korea screams for attention, trains blow up in Mumbai --
-- you'd think this was all coordinated or something. So keep an eye on Bosnia and Kosovo. The left-progessives won't believe it until Halliburton is invoked.
#1
You forgot about the Ethiopians invading Somalia and Venezuela rebuilding Gran Columbia . Im not sure about it all being coordinated though. More like If you see a chance, take it!
If I was to tell you that another French public figure is calling for 'action' against the Joos Israel, you would probably shrug and mumble "right, just another of those anti-globalization morons, or one of those preposterous National Front fossils, or one of those losers belonging to one of the 1656 Communist flavor you have over there..." Mais ce fou est different. But this moonbat is different.
Every other day, you would be right and to be honest, these types are opening their big full mouths on their big empty brains over that topic so frequently nowadays that I can't even be bothered to report about it anymore.
But this time, Ladies and Gentlemen I give you Jacques Myard, a full blown member of the French Parliament, elected by the people (from the Paris suburb of les Yvelines) to his very own seat at the Assemblée Nationale, publishing on his website a communiqué where he calls for France to undertake military action against Israel.
#1
Given the state of French conventional Army and the fact that most of it is busy patrolling the Paris metro against precisely those Muslim terrorists this guy loves so much, I were him I wouldn't be so eager to pick a fight against Israel.
Unless he wants to watch the Star of David flating on the Eiffel Tower.
Letâs say that the relations between France and its
neighbors are not very good.
Letâs also say that the Belgium government
doesnât recognize Franceâs right to exist.
Letâs also say that every day, someone from
Belgium fires 5 rockets to the city of Lille,
and 70% of the Belgiums are happy about it,
and their government is doing nothing to stop it.
Now letâs assume that a group of people from Belgium crosses the border, attacks French troops, kills some of them and captures a French soldier and brings it back to Belgium.
What should France do?
PART B
In the mean time, there is a party in the Italian parliament that has its own army and does whatever it wants. The Italian government says or does nothing to this party.
Letâs say that in a certain morning this party decides to start bombing the French Riviera.
While doing that, they also penetrate the French-Italian border, attacks a border patrol, kills 3 French soldiers and captures another 2.
Again, in this case,
What should France do?
For those who are not familiar with the current events â this is the exact situation Israel is standing against these days, and only retaliates to them.
Would you negotiate for these soldiers knowing youâre legitimizing the next kidnappings? Will your government allow these attacks on its own land?
Hopefully, the saner voices will rise and the fighting will stop. The majority in Israel wants peace and is willing to give up land for it, but not without the insurance of the safety of the citizens. Would you?
Posted by: dana ||
07/19/2006 4:21 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Dana! Futures for white handkerchiefs in France just went through the roof! We can use this!
#7
JFM - your country was instrumental in the success of our revolution. We thank you for that and hope your present day countrymen rise to their former wisdom and courage.
#10
"#2 Given that Fwance has never won a war, perhaps we should encourage them to shoot higher and fight alongside NorK and Iran!"
Don't forget they won the Hundred Years War when England forfeited.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
07/19/2006 7:01 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Ah, that explains it! As I've said before, sorry if I've offended you or yours. Often my remarks are meant for American consumption and I don't have to explain the details of what I say. Yes, I know France has contributed its share of what I consider to be great assists, the American Revolution included, of course! :-) I and most other Americans think about it every Independence and Memorial day. Like most Americans, France siding so heavily with governments that dabble or marinate themselves in terrorism these days "irritates" me enough that I don't feel too much compuction about irritating back and hoping they slow down enough to figure it out somehow. That was what I was getting at when I mentioned Iran and NorK. Anyway, I don't want you to infer something that I never intended to imply about France's soldiers. The president who got us into the Vietnam war knew we would lose, but did it anyway. I'll never think badly of the soldiers who fought there because they fought in good faith thinking they were doing something good. But I do have serious problems with the US government choosing to fight that war, because it was never going to be won the way they chose to fight it. In this hopefully worst case I still think well of the soldiers. The same goes for any soldier anywhere in the world, France included. If you have opinions that run contrary to what seems to be the prevailing attitude there, then I'll even thank you for being so clear headed! If I'm thinking wrong, just let me know because I would rather see things right than trudge down the road thinking the wrong things. What is France's view on this war? How does her citizens feel? What are the demographics there that make up these opinions? Is France afraid of the muslim population there, or would her decisions be the same regardless?
#14
Too bad Monsieur Myard of the French Parliament couldn't have gotten as outraged against Hamas for seizing Gilad Shalit, who happens to have dual Israeli and French citizenship.....
#15
I am at times very, (overly?) sensitive. I am ashamed each time France sides with evil and opression.
Also I could understand governments fearing riots if they sided with Israel but thye could just shut up instead of siding with so repugnant movements as Hamas, PLO or Hezbollah. Also, in order to have immigrants integrating teh first step is making thm think that being French is better than being Arab, and ever siding with Arabs, hiding their crimes and infamies is exactly the wrong thing to do. 40 years of pro-Arab alignment and of telling them that French tortured peole during Algerian war (1) and not telling of FLN atrocities have succeeded in having people displaying Algerian flags at plays involving France national football team.
I am afraid however that France's attitude has less to do with fear of riots and more with raw lust for power from its elites and with positive hate towards America in most of them.
(1) FLN din't have qualms about massacring whole (native) villages or placing bombs in school busses. You have all proofs the guy is guilty. But you don't know where the next bomb is going to detonate. A number of French officers (often previously victims of German torture) thought it was better to torture than to let things happen.
#17
JFM, can you help us ? Where does the positive hate come from ?
Some thing that by saving France's bacon in the 1940s, we Americans are a constant reminder of their lack of capability. Therefore, the French hate America and all things American.
#20
Instead of thinking of us as Melting Pot Americans, think of us as rebellious Anglo Saxons who are even more obnoxious than our forebearers across the pond, which is what we are culturally.
#21
JFM: Looks like the start of an interesting thread! Lots of interesting stuff there. How about the attitude of French citizens? Do they agree with the government line because of propaganda? Do they actually understand things and don't agree with it? Do they actually understand things but still agree with it? :-) Who is more likely to agree/not agree with the government line?
I had never really considered the "power" thing. But I don't know that France is a big or populous enough nation to ever be a superpower. The EU could, but not one nation in the EU. One of those "united we stand" things again! :-)
#22
I'd pick one nit, gorb - the Monarchy of France helpd us out during our revolution, mostly because it was at war with the British crown at the time.
But to the best of my reccolection, the French Fifth Republic hasn't done squat except be a pain in the ass. To pretty much everybody.
Also, y'all need to remember that France has a long statist streak (often masonic/socialist, same thing here unlike traditional anglosaxon FM dubbed conservative), despite being home of Tocqueville or Bastiat, and that the current "french model" our Enlightened Elites/ruling oligarchy is defending was born in 1945, from the marriage between gaullism (rightwing statism) and communism (and french communism was a particular vicious one, ideologically speaking, the french commies teached Ho chi minh and Pol Pot, literally).
And the Vth is the reign of the technocracy...
De Gaulle really was a disaster for France, with hindsight, jacketed us with a structurally socialist model, set up the "french Arab Policy", and delivered Algeria to the national-islmaists of the fln, the true start of all that, for all the wrong reasons. Shiraq is his true heir.
#24
Btw, Myard is a gaullist, and a "sovereignty type" (souverainiste), he's considered rightwing (he's a somewhat frequent guest at the "oeucumenical" conservative/rightwing radio Radio-Courtoisie), and he's probably soemwhat free-market oriented (he was invited by a corresponding show host, IIRC).
He became known in 2005 when he attacked a racist rapper who compared France to a "slut one had to f*ck into exhaustion", has made non-idiotarian comments about the riots, etc, etc...
Still, when he's invited at RC, listeners recall he's still in shiraq's party, yet he talks like he was in the opposotion... clearly, his actions don't follow his words.
And he's also a french "Arab Policy" guy.
there is worse in that popular french political niche (sovereignty, gallic model vs anglosaxon model,...), I think for example of Paul-Marie Couteaux, a De Villiers follower who suggested "giving the atom bomb to the arabs", to counterbalance Israel's, and give a counterweight to the US influence in the region. No comments.
That's why I have so much difficulties finding a pol I'm confortable here. Except for a few very minor (but worthy) persons like Claude Reichman or Bruno Megret (this one is real rightwing), I'm stuck with "better than nothing alternatives", like De Villiers or pépé Le Pen, whom I like, but whose politics I do not trust.
Bummer.
Nooo chance, we can turn a beautiful fishing village in Spain into a den of fish-n-chips and warm beer virtually overnight Nimble me old mucker. And to cap it all, we have ... 'The Birdie Song'
Fear us...
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
07/19/2006 15:05 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Haven't been on the Small World ride at Disneyland yet, Tony?
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
07/19/2006 15:13 Comments ||
Top||
#29
#28 Tony - re #27: Fear us. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/19/2006 16:38 Comments ||
Top||
#30
I'd pick one nit, gorb - the Monarchy of France helpd us out during our revolution, mostly because it was at war with the British crown at the time.
It entered the war at a great risk to France and it damn near bankrupted them. We didn't pay them back either.
#31
6, that's not quite true. We did repay almost all the undisputed portion of the principal debt though not interst on late payments. As part of the edd of the war with France in the late 1790's and the Louisiana Purchase, the remaining disputes were settled.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
-----
They're still pissy they didn't have much influence w/us after the Revolution. Some in Congress were promoting that - like they'd be our patron.
#34
I can highly recommend the book JFM suggested. It made a lot of things said to me when we lived over there sensible, because the discussions at the time most certainly weren't.
#35
We did repay almost all the undisputed portion
I belive the privy purse loans prior to the treaty are part of the disputed portion. That's a fair chunk of change. Otherwise I do stand corrected.
Most of them are Shi'ite Muslims, many of whom hold dual U.S. and Lebanese citizenship. Many are anchor babies born here to Muslims in the U.S. illegally. Some are illegal aliens who became citizens through rubber-stamping Citizenship and Immigration Services (and its INS predecessor) coupled with political pressure by spineless politicians.
Of the 25,000 American citizens and green-card holders in Lebanon, at least 7,000 are from Dearborn, Michigan, the heart of Islamic America, and especially Shia Islam America. These 7,000 are mostly Shi'ite Muslims who openly and strongly support Hezbollah. Ditto for many of the rest of the 25,000 that are there.
Many of the 7,000 plus Detroiters in Lebanon are active in Dearborn's Bint Jbeil cultural center (the Lebanese American Heritage Club also features mostly Hezbollah fans). Bint Jbeil is a Hezbollah-dominated city in the South of Lebanon, a frequent destination of Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, who is very at home there. Bint Jbeil is a frequent source of shellings on Northern Israel.
Bint Jbeil natives now living in our country so strongly support Hezbollah that they got Republican Congressman Joe Knollenberg (and his then top staffer, Paul Welday) and then-U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham to give Hezbollah forces in Southern Lebanon about $86 million of our tax money, no strings.
Given this information, and the fact--as I've detailed numerous times on this site--that several Shi'ite Muslim Lebanese U.S. citizens from Dearborn have been indicted and/or convicted of laundering money to Hezbollah, is it a good idea to rush to bring 25,000 such persons back to the U.S. at a time when Hezbollah is at war against the strongest U.S. ally?
Does the fact, that Hezbollah numerous times--and especially now--has announced veiled and not-so-veiled intentions to attack Americans on U.S. soil, necessitate urgently bringing these terror-sympathizing Americans back to U.S. soil? Many are individuals whose activity should have mandated prosecution and jail-time. But they are free because of a spineless U.S. Attorney (and, incredibly, Bush Federal Court of Appeals nominee), Stephen Murphy III a/k/a "Abu Porno," and equally weak federal law enforcement chiefs of Michigan FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who pander to them.
These are people who hold U.S. citizenship but support a group that murdered over 300 U.S. Marines and civilians, some through torture; a group that is part of the Al-Qaeda network; a group that trains insurgent terrorists against our troops in Iraq, giving them IEDs to blow our soldiers up; a group that worked with Qaeda to bomb the Khobar Towers. Americans who support this group are not American. They merely possess the proper paperwork.
And they are very dangerous. One of them, Lola Elzein--a student at the University of Michigan-Dearborn and an officer of the Hezbollah-supporting Arab American PAC--threatened my life and that of my family members because I've written about the group's Detroit-area extremist Hezbollah sympathizers. Hezbollah's violence has already arrived in America, and we don't need to pay to transport 25,000 of its sympathizers back to our shores from their chosen vacation destination.
While the government has announced it will charge these individuals for the expensive transport out of Lebanon via Cyprus back to the U.S., the feds say they will accept IOUs for that transport. Think we'll get the money back? Just ask the Katrina aid administrators.
**** UPDATE, 11:08 p.m.: Even more outrageous, our government has now relented and will not charge these people for exorbitant, tax-paid transport back to the U.S. $3,000 per person on the U.S. taxpayer dime. This is ABSURD! And unprecedented (in other airlifts/evacuations, Americans must pay). Who told them to visit Lebanon? Not us (State Dept. warned against travel to Lebanon). Just Sheikh Nasrallah. Let him and his Iranian/Syrian patrons pay. ****
Do you want your tax dollars to subsidize Hezbollah supporters' return to America? Are these the kind of U.S. citizens we badly need back in our country at this time?
Should Hezbollah supporters be transported on a ship named for one of the most heroic events in U.S. history, the U.S.S Iwo Jima? Should U.S. tax dollars fund the charter of commercial ships to transport the rest of these terror-sympathizers?
The instant answer from all freedom-loving Americans to these questions should be a loud "NO."
These people went to Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon of their own accord. And they were safe there because they support the terrorist group. Now, their fortune has changed. Tough.
It is not the responsibility of U.S. taxpayers to rescue terrorist-supporters who voluntarily went to a dangerous area...just because their whines are loud and annoying.
We are picking up the tab for this unfortunate rescue. U.S. funds used to rescue terrorist-sympathizers--YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK.
So, is America too slow to get these undesirable U.S. citizens out of Lebanon? On the contrary, not slow enough.
#2
Those who are not loyal to Americans are not themselves Americans. FBI eyes Hizbollah in US as tensions with Iran rise American law enforcement officials are concerned the Lebanon-based Hizbollah, which has so far focused on fund-raising and other support activities inside the United States, could turn to violence in solidarity with Iran. "If the situation escalates, will Hizbollah take the gloves off, so to speak, and attack here in the United States, which they've been reluctant to do until now?" said William Kowalski, assistant special agent in charge of the FBI in Detroit.
Posted by: ed ||
07/19/2006 12:55 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I have the same reservations about the 40,000 "Canadians" in Lebanon. That is one wack-load for a country with our population. I'm not happy about a mass evacuation without some very pointed questions and vetting.
#6
Internment camps? If US citizen Muslims started blowing up stuff in the US the libs would just blame Bush for inciting them. Only thing they could do to upset the left in this country is drive SUVs or smoke cigarettes.
...or just sweeping excess clutter out of the attic before their move?
Our "public editor" Irwin Chusid sends along this remarkable account of yet another way the "Pinch" Sulzberger regime is destroying the New York Times franchise. Irwin says, "A friend at the New York Times emailed this note today. She gave permission to circulate it, though I deleted identifying names and modified job titles."
The old Times Building is now owned by Tishman-Speyer Realty Corp. Being the new owners, they sent a fire inspector about four months ago to check out the nooks and crannies of their building. On the 14th or 15th floor there is a quite large room that NO ONE ever enters. About two months ago I'm riding in the freight elevator with a few custodial gents. They're poring over an old payroll book. I ask them where they got it, and they tell me that they've been dumping shelves and shelves of them dating back to the turn of the last century (1900). The fire inspector and Tishman said "they're a hazard." I'm stumped. Didn't the NYT want ANY of them? For a historian they're the raw material of history. For example: what did that elevator operator and reporter earn in 1904? How many hours did they work?
The real compelling facts would be the roster of reporters. Before the 1920's stories rarely had bylines. Here were the lists of reporters whose names have been lost to history. Why not donate them to the Museum of the City of NY? Or the NY Historical Society? Out of hundreds, only two were salvaged -- one from 1906 with Adolph Ochs' signature signing off every week on the pay of these unknown men who made the paper the Great Gray Lady.
As I was looking at the payroll books I saw a bound volume of the Times from September 1963, and a bound volume of the "Western Edition" that spanned about two years. One of the men working on the removal noted that "there were hundreds of them." (Remember it took 3 to 4 months to clean out the room.) I opened the Sept 63 volume and laughed ... a hearty blackly humorous chuckle. On most pages where there was no byline, someone had inked in and revealed the names of the writers. "Special to the NYT ..." Mysteries uncovered. The writer of each editorial was also noted. (Herbert Matthews, Abe Raskin, on and on...) Of course!!! These were the bound REFERENCE copies FOR THE RECORD. All dumped in the year 2006. I don't know if there was a complete run of the paper. I doubt it. But even 50 years of them would have been valuable.
So who's to blame? Certainly not the janitors. They were following orders from above. Upper level management was asked and they passed it on down to (I think) Corporate Records (different than the Family and Company Archives), who also passed. No one with any, as they say in Yiddish, "saychil," historical understanding, ever bothered to look at them. They would have known right away that these volumes were priceless. I told [a colleague] about the loss, and he said, "Why didn't they ask me?" Because that would have meant more work.
It's a dangerous time here on W. 43rd St. We're moving into smaller digs so the emphasis is to dump, and since "everything is on the Internet," who needs this &*?!*%? I hold the Philistines controlling the Temple to blame for this disheartening wound.
The irony is that I heard several times that these bound volumes (of the daily) had been dumped years ago. A very cruel joke. Long gone, then they reappear for an instant, and then gone again ... forever.
I laughed quite a bit -- and then I was heartsick.
Posted by: The Ghost of Walter Duranty ||
07/19/2006 9:14 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I have seen it in the corporate world before too... complete corporate histories tossed in the dumpster post mergers.
Usually happens when the manager over the facilities person gets RIFed. New "change management" team, usually young bucks, say "We are paying $110 a Sq ft to keep this stuff in downtown corporate HQ... Dump it, and any of the corporate knowledge that went with it.
I looked around one such room and found payroll documents with SS numbers all over the place, being thrown into open dumpsters.
I pointed it out to a manager (I was a consultant), he shrugged and said "..it's what the new guys wanted done".
#3
New Mexico is a poor place, with one of the highest proportion of people living on food stamps Its political tradition also long had a Latin American feel, based around a padrón system of clients and bosses. The bosses ran grocery stores, gave you credit, helped you if you needed a job. And all you had to do was vote for the Democrats New Mexican politics is still about jobs, contracts and personal loyalty, not ideology. And Mr. Richardson personifies this
True on face value, but...
New Mexico has the highest population of natives living mostly on tribal/reservation federal land in the lower 48 and the state can do nothing about the decades of what former Reagan Interior Secretary James Watts called the BIA, the model of failed welfare state. The pooling of the natives on federal reservations and everyone else into a single state average throws the statistics into a very suspect category. Those few tribes which discovered gambling and the former, native friendly, Republican governor Gary Johnson, are actually plowing their gains back into the community for vast improvements in the quality of life and opportunity. The comparison between what BIA wrought and what a few tribes themselves have done is as different as day and night. Once the tribes got some money, they discovered the incredible world of 'lobbyists. If you don't think that is important, then check the federal legislation on 'campaign reform' and look for the little exemption for tribal monies. Heh.
However, one of the nice sides to the whole situation is the animosity between the Natives and the Hispanics. The Natives still remember the oppression of their long past former Spanish masters and book no pandering to their egos by diversity proponents.
The present situation in the Middle East shows the desperate need for the UN to include state terrorism within any international convention on terrorism. Israel's unleashing of its military might against the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian people and against the hapless Lebanese state shows most starkly the terrorism a state with massive military resources can unleash.
With US President Bush and his faithful sidekick Tony Blair, continuing to declare their absurd refrain of Israel's "right to defend itself", the international community has been reduced to a frustrated spectator to this latest act of Israeli terrorism. If ever there was a true reflection of unilateralism, it is this ability of the US to undermine all efforts at multilateral diplomacy and international peace and security.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john ||
07/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Lions of Islam vs. the Kosher American Delhi
#2
"Apart from the historic record of Israel to kill Arabs at will -- after all who can forget the massacres of Sabra and Shatila and the almost daily target killings by the Israelis of Palestinians"
As opposed to the attempted daily, random mass killings of Jewish citizens. BTW, you can't use the word "massacre" and "targeted killings" in the same sentence. The blatant rhetoric loses the desired effect.
#3
As for the Arab World, their sheer helplessness, despite their economic power, is a disgrace. They have failed to translate their economic strength into political and military prowess, and so remain subject to the political, psychological and military terrorism from the West and Israel. Is it any wonder the Arab street continues to become more radicalised? And the anger and frustration is spreading to Muslim civil societies beyond. In the final analysis, state terrorism has to be condemned, irrespective of the power of the perpetrating state.
Interesting article - written on Mars was it? hmmm? Oh Islamabad - same thing really.
Economic power? Take away their oil and countries like Spain have more economic clout than all of them combined! - ie they're a one trick pony.
Military prowess? (snigger) That won't happen until you get rid of the Arab mindset of nepotism and blame-shifting.
The much vaunted Arab street They never seem to answer the phone do they?
Great, start with Syria and Iran and go onto the Soddies and I might be interested in what you have to say.
Nitwit.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
07/19/2006 1:48 Comments ||
Top||
#4
after all who can forget the massacres of Sabra and Shatila
#5
G'ah! that didn't come out right, last bit should be...
In the final analysis, state terrorism has to be condemned, irrespective of the power of the perpetrating state. - Great, start with Syria and Iran and go onto the Soddies and I might be interested in what you have to say.
Preview is your friend.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
07/19/2006 1:56 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Shabra and Shaktila? Seeems this guty has forgotten that it was not Israel but Lebanese Christians, seems he has also forgotten that it was a vengeance not only for the assassination of Bashir Gemayel but also for the many massacres perpetrated by the PLO.
And by the way an answer to #4 Lenan on is an Arab speaking country but it is the only one who doesn't define itself as Arab and the Maronites tend to tell they are descndents of Phenicians no Arabs. I don't know if same holds true for Lebanese Muslims.
#7
only a muslim -- at a time when virtually ALL the terror atrocities around the globe are perpetrated by muslims -- could claim that Hindus and Jews are terrorists.
#9
Man, what I love about RB! Who knew the Indians were running Afghanistan too? I, for one, just thought it was all those tribal warlords and/or drug (poppies) runners. I've been lied to all this time? Dadgum, the only thing s/he didn't mention was Skull & Bones and the Bilderbergers
*ducks*
Posted by: BA ||
07/19/2006 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Well the actual Bilderbergers, as opposed to the fanciful scaremongering version of the Bilderbergers, are, IMO a bit scary since their aim is to create a one-world government in order to increase commerce beneficial to themselves . . . but that's another story.
The article above is a terrific illustration of HOW the whole Arab propaganda machine works. Reads like a comic book in terms of "bad" guys, "good" guys, and is chock-full of the kind of fantasy and soap opera feel that greatly appleals to general Arab culture. Totally ignores the truth and the political/social complexities involved--which would NOT be a big sell in Arab lands. Sure is annoying how some people like to play on the stupidity of others for profit. Mazari got paid, but what was the real price? More knucklehead Arab teenagers joining "jihad"?
One week after the humiliation it suffered in a Hezbollah cross-border raid in which eight soldiers were killed and two captured, Israel senses one of its major military and political victories is within reach. The stunning campaign it has waged against Hezbollah has reportedly brought the militia to a point where it is willing to discuss Israel's major demand - that it pull back several kilometres from the Israeli border, perhaps to the Litani River. Reports from Beirut yesterday said that Hezbollah officials had declared readiness to discuss the pullback proposal as well as a ceasefire with Israel but were not willing to discuss Israel's demand that it disarm.
For six years, since its hasty pullback from Lebanon after an 18-year occupation, Israel has been harassed by Hezbollah, which set up posts flying the organisation's yellow flag a few score metres from Israeli military posts all along the border. What made Hezbollah more than a nuisance was the fact that it was a forward outpost for Iran, which armed and trained its fighters and used them as a strategic threat against Israel. The huge missile arsenal Tehran sent to Hezbollah - 13,000 missiles, according to Israel - was intended primarily as a deterrent against Israel should it contemplate an airstrike against its nuclear facilities.
To respond heavily to a Hezbollah provocation could bring down a rain of missiles on Israel's cities. Surprisingly, it was an Israeli leader without a significant military background, Ehud Olmert, who decided to take on Hezbollah and pay the price. More than 1000 missiles have struck Israel in the past week but the Israeli public overwhelmingly calls on the Government to continue pressing Hezbollah.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
07/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The huge missile arsenal Tehran sent to Hezbollah - 13,000 missiles, according to Israel - was intended primarily as a deterrent against Israel should it contemplate an airstrike against its nuclear facilities.
interesting. so by taking out hezbollah, Israel is freer to strike Iran's nuclear facilities? hmmmmm
#2
More likely the US is. One of Iran's threats is that if the US attacked its nuclear facilities, it would attack Israel. The missiles that Hezballah posesses were probably designated for this and were probably the most reliably "accurate" asset it had. The home-based missiles may be able to hit their target, but they have to be considering what would happen if they missed and landed one in Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, etc.. Well, I guess considering could be a pretty loose term here! :-)
(via anti-Mullah blog, salt to taste)
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad has declared he will make an announcement - earliest on Wednesday July 19th, 2006 or in the next few days which:
"WILL LET THE MOSLEM WORLD AROUND THE GLOBE KNOW THAT AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR ARMS OR NUCLEAR CAPABILITY EVER AGAIN"
This provides three possible scenarios:
1. Iran is about to nuke Israel.
2. Iran will declare they have nuclear capability with at least four missiles with NUCLEAR warheads (common knowledge in intelligence circles) that can easily reach all of Israel and threaten to use these against Israel if that country does not immediately cease attacks on the Hezbollah and Lebanon.
3. In the event that Israel does not immediately comply, Iran will declare war on Israel and fire nuclear missiles, which would not leave much of a country over which any more fighting is logical.
HOPED FOR RESULT: Depending on the extent of damage to Israel and the ability of that country to continue as a nation in a radioactively polluted environment, already weak-kneed Western powers will call for creating non-aggression pacts with nuclear Iran.
He has already told a group of Arabs meeting in Tehran around the time the Hezbollah/Hamas attacks began a similar general concept:
RIA Novosti reported that just before the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel. Ahmadinejad addressed a high-profile Muslim forum held in Tehran saying "the main issue faced by the Islamic world is Israel's existence. The Islamic countries should mobilize their efforts to do away with this issue," and that "all the conditions for eliminating the Zionist regime" are "currently in place."
#2
the main issue faced by the Islamic world is Israel's existence.
Leaving aside the ugly implications, this is totally hilarious. Your governments suck, your people are uneducated, your economies unproductive, your science non-existant and you are worried about 6 million Israelies. Them evil Jooz is certainly influential sumbitches! I don't know whether to laugh or weep.
#3
I think, no, I know Israel would have their missiles in the air before the Iranian missiles hit. There would be no Iran left either. What the U.S. would do is a mystery to me , but I'm sure it would include some very strong language in a UN draft.
#4
Heh, SteveS. Reminds me of the BrilliantMoronBusHitler...
It seems to be a fact that moonbats and muzzies (muzzbats) are unique in that they have a special "ability" to hold multiple contradictory "beliefs" simultaneously, apparently without the pesky migraines it causes the rest of humanity.
As a magnetic "bottle" can contain plasma, the muzzbat mind can contain cognitive dissonance.
#5
bigjim-ky: I disagree. Both the US and Israel have spent a fortune on building layered anti-missile defenses against Iran. We will defend Israel, so they won't have to use their nukes to do so.
The Israelis have 3 Patriot batteries in Haifa against any Syrian missiles, and the Arrow ABM system against Iran. The US has Patriots, PAC-3s, maybe THAAD, which is under "emergency" production, and indeterminate airborne assets.
The best the Iranians have is a recent Chinese MIRV arrival that might be good enough to evade Arrow, but everything else is 1960s technology.
I will also note that a big concern of mine, that Iran might attack one of our carrier fleets, seems to be moot, as there hasn't been a US carrier in the Persian Gulf or Arabian Sea for weeks now.
We do have a Command ship in the Red Sea, along with its escorts. And, of course, we aren't saying diddly about our bases in Iraq or Bagram in Afghanistan.
And, on the plus side, if Iran does launch anything, assuming a shoot down, Iran will be our bitch. That will invoke all sorts of Cold War protocols which will mean that Russia and China and France *have* to back off and let us do anything we want to.
#6
And the other reason that the Arabs won't have to worry about Israeli nuclear arms ever again? They will used in their entirety during the Israeli retaliation, known as the Sampson Option. The sudden loss of say 30% of the Arab population will be balanced by the loss of all major urban centers in the Arab world. No worries about a collapsing real estate market there.
#7
Neither Israel nor the United States would suffer a nuclear Iran.
If Iran fires missiles at Israel from Iranian territory, that's effectively a declaration of war against Israel and the United States. An invitation to all-out war against Iran.
If Iran announces that it has nuclear capabilities, but does not torch one off, it invites attack by the United States which says it will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. It also invites attack by Israel which absolutely cannot tolerate even the potential of a nuncear-armed Iran.
Either way, Iran ends up on the business end of a very large smoking gun.
Iran and Ahmaneedastraightjacket is inviting not only war, but courting national extinction with its rhetoric.
#8
Neither Israel nor the United States would suffer a nuclear Iran.
If Iran fires missiles at Israel from Iranian territory, that's effectively a declaration of war against Israel and the United States. An invitation to all-out war against Iran.
If Iran announces that it has nuclear capabilities, but does not torch one off, it invites attack by the United States which says it will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. It also invites attack by Israel which absolutely cannot tolerate even the potential of a nuncear-armed Iran.
Either way, Iran ends up on the business end of a very large smoking gun.
Iran and Ahmaneedastraightjacket is inviting not only war, but courting national extinction with its rhetoric.
#9
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad would not be any less sane on LSD!
Fricking mental cases!
The main problem with muslims is that the make their insane raving lunatics into leaders instead of instutionalizing them and dosing them with at the minimum thorazine!
#10
The dumbasses in charge think they can weather a US and Israeli attack, then rebuild their nukes. The counter to that, which I've long advocated, will be to partition Iran. Doing so will solve several problems.
First of all, Persia will no longer dominate the region, it will be on more of a par with all the other countries in the area. Second, they will no longer have the oil to pay for nuke tech, nor the uranium mines to get the ore.
Second, the US won't have to invade Persia, which is the tough nut. It can carve up the rest of Iran by blasting hell out of their army and revolutionary guard. Since those parts will all be incorporated into other countries, they will be hard to win back.
Kurdish Iran to Kurdistan. SW Arab Iran to Iraq. Northwest Iran to Azerbaijan, and Baluchistan to Pakistan. Azerbaijan is the only weak nation in the bunch, so US forces will have to stay in their new territories for a long time.
Persia itself will evolve in an odd direction, hopefully to give up on the mullahtocracy and become more cosmopolitan centered.
#11
Having salted to taste, I
followed the links back to
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060715/51404951.html
This is a Russian news analysis, I especially like the irony in paragraph #3 and the overt suggestion that Putin thinks AmmadandIneedajihad lied to him personally.
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
07/19/2006 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#12
On his belmont blog Wretchard had this statement to make about rocketing Hafia which applies here too:
At a meeting between RAND and the Airforce in the 1950s, one analyst sketched out the logic behind counterforce. It went thus: if you strike a country's weapons with nukes without touching his cities, your deterrence does not diminish, because despite the fact that he has been stricken, you have your hostages still. When Hezbollah struck Haifa, it did a very subtle thing. It killed the hostage.
This destroyed any Israeli incentive for restraint. Now it knows that Hezbollah is only limited by capability. Hezbollah's intentions have already been revealed. It is worse if the trigger were pulled from Teheran. In that case, there is even less of case for restraint.
These events put the IDF on the road they are on. All paths now lead lead to dark places.
#13
"All paths now lead lead to dark places." Well, that summs it all up very nicely. My question to everybody on the home front is this: when the Iranians light the candle will the North Koreans do the same? If so, where? California? Hawaii?
#16
It seems to be a fact that moonbats and muzzies (muzzbats) are unique in that they have a special "ability" to hold multiple contradictory "beliefs" simultaneously, apparently without the pesky migraines it causes the rest of humanity.
A very different view as you might expect by a Syrian writer in Damascus. It's very long and I haven't snipped it, instead putting it on page 49, because he develops an interesting idea. I think he's seriously wrong, but it's worth reading if only to see what's wrong with it. The thesis: a Shi'a state in southern Lebanon, with Hezbollah forced to be responsible, would lead to peace, and Israel must talk with Hezbollah to achieve this. I think that's as likely as Hamas becoming responsible for Gaza. The writer also thinks that Israel must moderate it's demands. I think this is precisely the time for Israel to create 'new facts on the ground' by taking out Syria. But that's just me.
By Sami Moubayed
DAMASCUS - The decision by Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary general of Hezbollah, to bomb the northern Israeli town of Haifa was received with mixed emotions in Lebanon and the Arab world. Those who wanted to see pain inflicted on Israel organized massive parades in his favor in Damascus, Amman, Baghdad and Cairo.
Others, however, claimed that Nasrallah was leading the Arabs to where Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser had led them in 1967 - to unforgivable defeat. Because of Nasser's adventurism, the Arabs lost the Golan Heights, the Sinai Peninsula, Jerusalem and the West Bank. Like Nasser, they claim, Nasrallah is a true patriot, but both leaders were greatly misinformed about the might of the enemy, and the power of their own armies.
They also underestimated Israel's standing and friends in the international community, which since 1967 have exceeded those of the Arabs - at least in quantity. Many in the Arab world, including the regimes of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, see Nasrallah as the new Nasser who will lead his people to certain defeat. Saudi Arabia even issued an official statement warning against "irresponsible adventurism adopted by certain elements within the state" in Lebanon.
The Saudis did not, however, mention Hezbollah by name. It would be only natural for the Saudis, who are historically at odds with Iran, and tactical allies of Saad al-Hariri, the current leader of Lebanon's Sunni community and a member of parliament, to oppose the adventurism of Nasrallah. Too much Saudi money and investment, from the days of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik al-Hariri, is at stake in Lebanon.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yeesh. Kind of makes you wonder where to start with these guys if this guy is among the cream of the crop.
The current conflict in the Middle East may appear to be limited to Israel, Lebanon, and Gaza, but as FSM Contributing Editor Tahbih Sayyed argues, it is also a war between two visions of Islam and two ways of life in the world.
There are currently two wars pulling the world apart. The first is the global jihad in which radical Islamists are confronting the rest of the world. The second is the intra-religious struggle between Shiite Islam, led by Iran, and Sunni Islam, represented by Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, in a fight for regional domination. It is this conflict that has pushed the Middle East into the latest crisis.
Iran, which is an integral part of the global jihad, is determined to establish itself as the regional superpower but its Shiite government in a Sunni region is a major obstacle. But there is one major factor working in Irans favor: whereas the masses of the region are anti-west, anti-Semitic, and totally committed to the destruction of the Jewish state, their Sunni governments have not shown the same zeal and commitment. In all the wars that the Arab governments launched against Israel, the Jewish state defeated them decisively.
As a result that Muslim masses long for leaders who have the courage to stand up to the Judeo-Christian powers. They are waiting for another Saladin, who defeated the crusaders in Jerusalem in 1187 C.E. Irans President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to be that leader. He knows his Muslim history and its numerous examples where otherwise incompetent leaders like Gemal Abdul Nasser of Egypt won the love and loyalty of the masses just by defying the West and challenging the U.S.
#1
The writer sounds like an apostate to my untutored ear.
He knows his Muslim history and its numerous examples where otherwise incompetent leaders like Gemal Abdul Nasser of Egypt won the love and loyalty of the masses just by defying the West and challenging the U.S.
And what happened to Mr. Nasser afterwards? Did he actually get the houris he so craved?
#3
He was a Muslim-world male, gromgoru. Just because he didn't believe in them didn't mean he didn't want them. For that matter, I seem to have grown up to be a Western realistic idealist; but I still dream of "Peace on Earth/ Goodwill to Men."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
One week after the humiliation it suffered in a 
