Middle East Tensions Exploding

[cbacon 0]

Beirut bombings violate humanitarian law: UN

 

UN emergency relief chief Jan Egeland has condemned Israeli air strikes that have devastated much of Beirut, saying the massive bombings violate humanitarian law.

 

 

Egeland, who was on a relief mission to Lebanon, visited the city on Sunday and called for an end to the violence on the twelfth day of Israeli strikes on Lebanon and Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israel.

 

"It's terrible. I see a lot of children wounded, homeless, suffering. This is a war where civilians pay a disproportionate price in Lebanon and northern Israel. I hadn't believed it would be block by block leveled to the ground," Egeland told reporters.

 

"A disproportionate response by Israel is a violation of international humanitarian law."

 

The crisis started when Lebanon-based Hezbollah militants entered northern Israel on July 12 and attacked an army post, killing eight soldiers and capturing two others. Israel retaliated with days of air strikes and on Saturday, sent troops, tanks and bulldozers across the border.

 

Hezbollah militants are estimated to have fired more than 1,000 rockets into northern Israel during the conflict — many of them recently acquired missiles that have a much longer range.

 

At least 375 people have been killed in Lebanon, including at least eight Canadians who died when Israel bombed a village in southern Lebanon. Israel's death toll stood at 36 on Sunday, with 17 people killed by Hezbollah rockets and 19 soldiers killed in combat.

 

"If it continues like this, there will be more and more civilian casualties," Egeland warned.

 

More than $100M in aid needed: Egeland

 

He estimated it would cost more than $100 million to aid the hundreds of thousands of people who have had to flee their homes to escape the violence.

 

Egeland called upon the international community for aid.

 

The number of displaced people has grown to 600,000, according the World Health Organization.

 

Israel to ease naval blockade

 

Israel has announced it will ease its naval blockade, allowing aid supply ships to dock in Beirut. Officials also defined a route of safe passage from the capital to the northern city of Tripoli.

 

But in southern Lebanon, where the Israeli bombardment has been heaviest, officials said supplies of fuel, food and medicine were quickly diminishing.

 

"There are no supplies reaching us, not from other nations, nor from the Lebanese government," said Abdul-Rahman al-Bizri, the mayor of the port city of Sidon.

 

The first International Red Cross relief convoy on Friday made a six-hour journey over damaged road from Beirut to the southern city of Tyre. It included 24 tonnes of food and other emergency items, to be distributed to 4,000 civilians in and around the city.

 

UN warns of 'major humanitarian disaster'

 

About 200,000 Lebanese have fled to neighbouring Syria — which has also been one of the key backers of Hezbollah over the years, along with Iran.

 

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on Saturday warned that delivering aid to the refugees in Syria could be difficult and had the potential to turn into a "major humanitarian disaster"

 

The Red Crescent aid agency in Syria said it had only been able to help about 10 per cent of the refugees who have arrived in the country.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200.../un-beirut.html

[Art Sandusky 0]

Cnn and MSNBC still handle Bush and co. with kidgloves. All of American media is filtered.

Correct. Fox will make liberalism appear to be total and absolute evil, while MSNBC and CNN will, at most, strongly disagree or shake their heads at conservatism. Their "slant" is more in the stories they cover rather than outright bias. I'm sure that if you let their reporters say what they really thought like Fox does, the concern about liberal coverage would be extremely valid. Give Wolf Blitzer a few minutes to bust out an opinion segment like Fox affords O'Reilly and Cavuto and Gibson, and CNN would be under attack by everyone on the right within minutes.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Cnn and MSNBC still handle Bush and co. with kidgloves. All of American media is filtered.

Correct. Fox will make liberalism appear to be total and absolute evil, while MSNBC and CNN will, at most, strongly disagree or shake their heads at conservatism. Their "slant" is more in the stories they cover rather than outright bias. I'm sure that if you let their reporters say what they really thought like Fox does, the concern about liberal coverage would be extremely valid. Give Wolf Blitzer a few minutes to bust out an opinion segment like Fox affords O'Reilly and Cavuto and Gibson, and CNN would be under attack by everyone on the right within minutes.

 

 

Hell, they get attacked anyway. The CLINTON News Network? PMSNBC? Yeah.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

double post

[Guest JustPassinBy]

From watching all the 24 hr news stations I think that the ideologies fall like this

 

FoxNews: Conservative

CNN: Liberal

MSNBC: more middle of the road

 

If want want to watch the news with the American slant watch the BBC world news, it is less entertainment style and more straight news.

 

 

Maybe CNN and MSNBC would get better ratings if they changed their format.

Fox News destroys them.

[Red Baron 0]

They said America wasn't the brightest people though.

 

Thats why there is Fox.

[KingPK 0]

We need fewer O'Reily's and Sheppard Smiths, not more. Is it wrong for me to wish one of Hezbollah's rockets to misfire and hit that rooftop that Smith is always on? Does that make me a bad person?

[Red Baron 0]

No.

 

But I mean, CNN really needs to tone it down as to coverage in the middle east/Lebanon. I'm sure there are somethings that are important in USA.

[JangoFett4Hire 0]

From watching all the 24 hr news stations I think that the ideologies fall like this

 

FoxNews: Conservative

CNN: Liberal

MSNBC: more middle of the road

 

If want want to watch the news with the American slant watch the BBC world news, it is less entertainment style and more straight news.

 

 

Maybe CNN and MSNBC would get better ratings if they changed their format.

Fox News destroys them.

 

Yeah, as I stated in the Brookers thread in NHB, America loves retards. Hell, the fact that "we" elected Bush twice should tell you as much.

[Art Sandusky 0]

From watching all the 24 hr news stations I think that the ideologies fall like this

 

FoxNews: Conservative

CNN: Liberal

MSNBC: more middle of the road

 

If want want to watch the news with the American slant watch the BBC world news, it is less entertainment style and more straight news.

 

 

Maybe CNN and MSNBC would get better ratings if they changed their format.

Fox News destroys them.

Remember kids: ratings > truth or integrity.

 

Even then, Fox fell from the #1 position around Katrina time, from what I understand. Murdoch's been getting on the asses of the people at the network to draw in new viewers.

[NoCalMike 0]

I'd probably make the broad assumption that Fox News gets higher ratings because for one, they aren't a news station, they are basically show after show of ESPN's Pardon the Interruption or Around the Horn, which is more Opinionated Entertainment rather then actual News.

[NoCalMike 0]

Hooray for Operation "Clean Break"

 

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3208hariri_killed.html

 

Lebanon's Hariri Killed

To Make a `Clean Break'

by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach

The assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, in Beirut on Feb. 14, was a carefully planned and executed act, geared to trigger a chain reaction of events in the region, that would conform with the long-standing policy of the neo-conservative junta running Washington.

 

To understand the why of the assassinationalthough the material perpetrator, the who, remains unclearone must look back at the 1996 policy paper prepared under the supervision of now-Vice President Dick Cheney, and his neo-con task force of Richard Perle, Doug Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmser, et al. Entitled "Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," this paper outlined a scenario whereby the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would be torn to shreds, and, first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Iran, would be targetted for military assault and political destabilization.

 

The document flatly stated that Israel should engage "Hisbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by ... establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces [and] striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper." Furthermore, it said, Israel should divert "Syria's attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon." The paper also called for focussing on "removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq...."

 

The outcome of the regional convulsions provoked by the "Clean Break" doctrine, was to be a new Middle East, with Israel hegemonic in the region, presiding over a series of newly balkanized states, run by puppet regimes. The Bush Administration has recently restated its intention to pick off these governments, dubbed "outposts of tyranny," one by one. The order in which they were to be hit was assumed to start with Iran. Instead, Syria was moved into first place.

 

The reason for this, one regional expert told EIR, is that if Iran were attacked militarily by the United States or Israel, the Islamic Republic would respond asymmetrically, unleashing allied and sympathetic Shi'ite forces in the Persian Gulf and in Lebanon: Hezbollah's capabilities to target Israel could be effectively deployed. Thus, the source said, the need to eliminate the Lebanese-based Shi'ite Hezbollah as a factor, and at the same time neutralize Syria, before moving against Tehran.

 

The stage for the immediate destabilization was set diplomatically by UN Resolution 1559, presented by the U.S. and France together, and at the forefront of recent discussions between Secretary of State Condolezza Rice and French President Jacques Chirac. UN Resolution 1559, adopted last September, demands the termination of the Syrian presence in Lebanon (estimated to be 15,000 troops) and the disarming of the Hezbollah. Instead of mounting an Israeli assault directly on Syriawhich would have provoked an international outcrya flanking operation was launched, with a terrorist act that would trigger mass forces on the ground to move against the Syrian presence.

 

Thus, the assassination of Hariri.

 

Hariri: 'Mr. Lebanon'

Rafiq Hariri, a building magnate, was Lebanese Prime Minister from 1992-1998 and again from 2000-2004, when he resigned, in protest over the re-election of President Lahoud, who was backed by Syria. He was known for his key international connections, both with the Saudi Royal family (he became their personal contractor after building a palace for a member of the Saudi Royal Family in Taef, Saudi Arabia in 1977), and with French President Jacques Chirac. Hariri invested massively in rebuilding Beirut after the civil war, and made an estimated $3.8 billion. Thus he was considered "Mr. Lebanon," and enjoyed broad popular support. After he resigned in protest against Syria, he became a symbol for the opposition. Any harm done to Hariri would automatically unleash factional strife and anti-Syria protests.

 

As soon as the news of the brutal car bomb explosion broke, crowds of Lebanese opposition forces, who saw Hariri as one of their own, took to the streets. At his funeral on Feb. 16, hundreds of thousands demonstrated, demanding the expulsion of the Syrians. At the same time, before any investigation had yielded any leads, a well-rehearsed chorus pinned the blame on Syria. Exiled Lebanese political figure Michel Aoun, for example, stated categorically from Paris: "They [the Syrians] are responsible. It's they who control the security and intelligence services" in Beirut. Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, now with the opposition, echoed Aoun's words, as did Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom.

 

After lodging an official diplomatic note of protest with the Syrian government, U.S. Secretary of State Condolezza Rice ordered the withdrawal of U.S. Ambassador Margaret Scobey from Damascus. "The proximate cause was Lebanon," Rice told the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "but unfortunately we have an increasing list of problems with Syria." U.S. Assistant Secretary of State William Burns, who attended the funeral, said that Hariri's death "should give renewed impetus to achieving a free, independent, and sovereign Lebanon. What that means is the complete and immediate withdrawal by Syria."

 

In a press conference on Feb. 17, President Bush went further, saying "... [W]e've talked clearly to Syria about ... making sure that their territory is not used by former Iraqi Baathists to spread havoc and kill innocent lives. We expect them [syria] to find and turn over former regimeSaddam regime supporters, send them back to Iraq...."

 

But why would Syria, already politically targetted, kill Hariri, when it would obviously be the first place at which accusing fingers would be pointed? "What exactly would the Syrians gain from this?" asked Rime Allaf, Middle East analyst at the Royal Institute for International Affairs in London. "It doesn't make any sense. The first people who will be hurt by this is Syria. Given the chaos in Lebanon and the rising anger between the factions, analytically Syria loses a lot by this," Allaf told Aljazeera.net.

 

A Syrian analyst at the Middle East Institute in Washington, told Aljazeera, "The Syrians are not crazy and they are not going to be assassinating Lebanese officials." He pointed to the fact that the Syrians had been engaging in dialogue with the opposition. Others noted that Hezbollah, another prime suspect, had been lying low in the recent period, on the recommendation of Syria and Iran, both eager to avoid confrontation.

 

Chaos and Civil War

The easiest way for the "Clean Break" scenario to be implemented now, would be through a new civil war in Lebanon, which would lead to the balkanization of the country into ethnic/religious/sectarian entities. Tensions among factions in the country had been heating up prior to the Hariri assassination. Walid Jumblatt, for example, speaking to Christian Maronites at St. Joseph University, accused "elements" of the Syrian Baath Party of killing his father in 1975. The Baath party then demanded that Jumblatt be prosecuted in Lebanon for slander.

 

Meanwhile, members of the Lebanese government accused opposition figures of being tools of the United States and Israel. The Mufti of Lebanon, Mohammad Khabani, added fuel to the fire, when he stated that the Sunnis in Lebanon believed that they were being targetted through the murder of Hariri, who was a Sunni. As journalist Robert Fisk, who was on site when the bombing occurred, stressed in the British paper the Independent: "Anyone setting out to murder Hariri would know how this could reopen all the fissures of the civil war from 1975 to 1990."

 

Iran and Syria Close Ranks

In response to the propaganda barrage aimed against Syria, the government strengthened its strategic alliance with Iran, another neo-con target. Syrian Prime Minister Mohammad Naji al-Otari visited Tehran, and after talks with Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref, stated: "This meeting, which takes place at this sensitive time, is important, especially because Syria and Iran face several challenges and it is necessary to build a common front." The two discussed increasing cooperation in transportation, oil, irrigation, energy, and trade, as part of their "common front," and Aref pledged Iran's support.

 

More significant, strategically, is the support which Moscow has lent to both Syria and Iran. Flying in the face of Israeli and U.S. protests, Russian President Vladimir Putin sent a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, one day after Hariri's assassination, saying that Russia would fulfill its pledge to sell Syria vehicle-mounted anti-aircraft missiles. The next day, Feb. 16, Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, former senior member of the Russian Defense Ministry, and currently president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, warned: "Should an aggression be launched against Iran, the war will come to Russian borders." Hassan Rowhani, head of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council (and a negotiator on nuclear issues), visited Moscow for talks with Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov. And on Feb. 26, the head of the Russian Federation Atomic Energy Agency, Alexander Rumyantsev, is expected in Iran, to sign the final agreements on the Bushehr nuclear reactor. According to regional sources, Russia has de facto established guarantees for Iran's security, and is beefing up its southern border, from the Black Sea into Central Asia, a signal that Moscow is taking the threats against Iran and Syria very seriously.

 

One Iranian official summed up his view of the situation by saying, "The Third World War has already begun." Unless the political opposition inside the U.S. takes over policy-making soon, that indeed is the danger.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3040cleanbreak.html

 

Cheney Behind New

Mideast War Drive:

Return of `Clean Break'

by Jeffrey Steinberg

With very little fanfare, in September David Wurmser moved over from the State Department office of arms control chief and leading war-party agitator John Bolton, to the Old Executive Office Building, working directly under Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Wurmser's move was highly significant, given that the former American Enterprise Institute and Washington Institute for Near East Policy neo-conservatives was one of the primary authors of the now-infamous 1996 "A Clean Break" document, which spelled out the current joint Mideast war strategy of the Ariel Sharon government in Israel and the Cheney cabal inside the Bush Administration in the United States.

 

Just days after Wurmser joined the Vice President's "shadow national security council," the Bush Administrationat Cheney's urgingmade an abrupt shift in policy towards Syria, a shift that has now brought the entire Mideast region to the brink of war and chaosworse, even, than the fiasco of the American occupation of Iraq, which military experts are increasingly describing as "our new Vietnam" (see page 60).

 

At an American Enterprise Institute event on Oct. 7, Leo Strauss acolyte William Kristol, the publisher and editor of the Weekly Standard, candidly admitted that he was miffed that the United States had not already moved beyond the Iraq war to the "next regime change" of "the next horrible" Middle East Arab "dictator"Syrian President Bashar Assad.

 

`A Clean Break' Revisited

Turn the clock back seven years. On July 8, 1996, Richard Perle, currently a member, and formerly the head of the Defense Policy Board in the Don Rumsfeld Pentagon, delivered a document to the new Israeli Prime Minister, Jabotinskyite Benjamin Netanyahu. Perle, and a team of American neo-cons, had been tasked by Netanyahuthrough the Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS)to draft a strategy for abrogating the Oslo Accords and overturning the entire concept of "comprehensive land for peace," in favor of a jackboot policy of U.S.-Israeli-Turkish raw military conquest and occupation.

 

The short policy memo, which Netanyahu, and his successor-Likud Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, totally adopted as the core strategy of their administrations, spelled out a four-pronged attack on the peace process and the entire Arab world. It has become a self-evident truth that, since the Bush "43" and Sharon governments came into power simultaneously in early 2001, "A Clean Break" has been the guiding strategic doctrine of bothparticularly following the irregular warfare attacks on New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001.

 

The Perle-Wurmser policy document demanded: 1) Destroy Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, blaming them for every act of Palestinian terrorism, including the attacks from Hamas, an organization which Sharon had helped launch during his early 1980s tenure as Minister of Defense. 2) Induce the United States to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. 3) Launch war against Syria after Saddam's regime is disposed of, including striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and targets in Syria proper. 4) Parlay the overthrow of the Ba'athist regimes in Baghdad and Damascus into the "democratization" of the entire Arab world, including through further military actions against Iran, Saudi Arabia, and "the ultimate prize," Egypt (see Documentation following for the "Clean Break" report).

 

On Oct. 5, for the first time in 30 years, Israel launched bombing raids against Syria, targetting a purported "Palestinian terrorist camp" inside Syrian territory. The bombing immediately raised fears that Sharon is preparing a nuclear strike, most likely against Iran. A senior Israeli intelligence source told EIR that Sharon's action was clearly backed by the "pro-Sharon" crowd in Washington, led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz: "They continue to be committed to their basic plan: Destroy Iran and Syria, and make Israel the dominant power in the region, and drive the Palestinians across the Jordan River." The source added that there "is obviously an agreement in Washington to do nothing." In a press conference a day after the Israel attack on Syria, President George W. Bush said Sharon had the right to "defend his own people," and then added, "We would be doing the same thing."

 

'Clean Break' Who's Who

In addition to arch-chicken-hawk Richard Perle, the other participants in the "Clean Break" exercise now constitute the hard core of the neo-con apparatus poisoning the Bush Administration.

 

The principal author of "Clean Break" and a series of follow-on IASPS strategy papers elaborating the new balance of power schema for the Middle East, was David Wurmser, now in the Office of Vice President Cheney. Wurmser's wife, Meyrav Wurmser, another of the "Clean Break" authors, is the head of Middle East policy at the Hudson Institute, a neo-con hotbed, heavily financed by Lord Conrad Black, owner of the Hollinger Corporation and sugar-daddy to Richard Perle, who was installed by Black on the Hudson Institute board as soon as the London-based publisher poured a pile of cash into the think tank at the start of the Bush "43" Presidency. Meyrav Wurmser received her doctorate at George Washington University, by researching the life and works of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism and a self-professed fascist. Before coming to Hudson, she headed the Washington office of the Middle East Research and Investigation Project (MERIP), of Col. Yigal Carmon, a retired Israeli Army Intelligence careerist, who is hard-wired into the U.S.A. neo-con gang.

 

Meyrav Wurmser has taken the point in promoting the overthrow of the House of Saud and the American military occupation of the Saudi Arabian oil fields, through a string of Hudson Institute policy papers, commentaries, and seminars.

 

Hudson has also played a pivotal role in the drive for war against Syria and Lebanon, as spelled out in "Clean Break." On March 7, 2003, Hudson sponsored a forum addressed by Gen. Michel Aoun, who was Prime Minister of Lebanon from 1988-1990, and who is pushing a military action against Syria, right out of the pages of "Clean Break."

 

Other authors of the 1996 war scheme were: Douglas Feith, now Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy, and the overseer of the Office of Special Plans "information warfare" unit, which was instrumental in the black propaganda campaign to sell President Bush and the U.S. Congress on the Iraq war; and Charles Fairbanks, Jr., a longtime friend and disciple of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, dating back to their graduate studies under Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago. Fairbanks is now at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.

 

From Words to Warfare

On Sept. 16, just as David Wurmser was going to Cheney's office to replace Eric Edelman, a longtime Wolfowitz protégé now tapped to be the new U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, the Syria war drive was seriously launched. Chief arms control provocateur John Bolton was given the green light to testify before a House International Relations subcommittee hearing on Syria and Lebanon. That testimony had been held up for several months, as the result of a direct intervention by the Central Intelligence Agency, which issued a highly unusual white paper challenging many of Bolton's planned allegations of Syrian current involvement in terrorist operations and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

 

The fact that Bolton was given the go-ahead to Capitol Hill signalled that Cheney had scored a tactical victory over those in the Bush Administration who were promoting a dialogue with Damascus. In fact, Bolton's provocative testimony undercut quiet efforts, then under way, to establish fresh channels of cooperation between the United States and the Assad government.

 

The day after Bolton's appearance, the same House subcommittee continued the anti-Damascus rant, by hosting General Aoun and rabid chicken-hawk Daniel Pipes, who demanded an immediate confrontation with Syria.

 

This public display of venom in Washington was all the signal that Ariel Sharon needed. On Oct. 5, Israeli Air Force jets bombed a Palestinian camp deep inside Syrian territory, ostensibly in retaliation for an Islamic Jihad suicide bombing in Haifa the day before. However, the Sharon war cabinet had approved a Syrian bombing six weeks earlier. The Bolton appearance and the promotion of Wurmser into Cheney's inner sanctum just served as the green light.

 

To make the linkage between the Israeli actions and the Cheney-led Bush Administration tilt even even more transparent, on Oct. 8 the White House announced that it would no longer oppose Congressional passage of the Syrian Accountability and Restoration of Lebanese Sovereignty Act, the equivalent to the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act which set in motion the drive towards war against Saddam Hussein.

 

This time, Sharon and Cheney do not intend to wait five years to get their war. Unless they are stopped, their timetable is to have Israel launch war on Syria by November 2003. And heaven help the American GIs in Iraq if Sharon and Cheney get their way. As Lyndon LaRouche has demanded, "Beast-man" Cheney needs to be dumped from power within the next 30 days; and, along with him, the entire neo-con cabal. As Bush "41" and Karl Rove must understand by now, Cheney and his gang of "Clean Break" fanatics are the albatross around George W. Bush's neck, and time is running out.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

larouche pub?

[NoCalMike 0]

larouche pub?

 

 

yeah I know, but just google it, and it will come up with hundreds of matches. I just happened to choose one that gave too articles that laid it out pretty thouroughly.

[Guest Felonies!]

I'm not trusting anything with "LaRouche" in it.

[Guest InuYasha]

And the news only gets worse. As expected, SoS Rice stopped off in Lebanon today before heading over to Jerusalem to speak with the Jewish state's leaders. According to NPR, one of the leaders she spoke to was at least willing to listen to her. Another one completely shit-bricked her. This one, not surprisingly, has close ties to both the leadership of Hezbollah and with the Syrian gov't. You can listen to the correspondent's report on that link.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5578810

[Guest]

Those people expecting the US to put a stop to this are wasting their time.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Anyone else getting sick of the "this is the start of World War 3" commentary, especially on Fox News (its on the other channels, though)?

 

Frankly, I doubt during WW2's start that people were asking each other "Is this another world war yet?"

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Anyone else getting sick of the "this is the start of World War 3" commentary, especially on Fox News (its on the other channels, though)?

 

Frankly, I doubt during WW2's start that people were asking each other "Is this another world war yet?"

 

It's typical media exaggeration but what else is new?

 

By the way, I thought Benjamin Netanyahu schooled Wolf Blitzer last night on CNN when Wolf kept pressing him on the casualties. Advice to Wolf: It's usually not a good idea to press politicians that are leaders in a parliamentary government because they actually have to DEBATE FOR REAL on a regular basis and aren't as easy to beat in an argument as politicians in America.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/ap_on_...zkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

 

I've had it with that Kofi Annan, to stoke a potential fire like this. The UN clearly is full of a bunch of racists who hate Israel. They said it was an accident... then it was.

 

I'm so angry over the UN's response I can't tell you.

 

It's time for Israel to take the gloves off!

[Guest]

If anything, he just gave Israel more reason to let loose. I was watching CNN earlier tonight, and the Israeli Ambassador to the US called Annan's comments "deplorable" and that Israel demands an apology. Talk about jumping to conclusions, it very well could have been Hezbollah that did this. No way to tell within such a short time period.

 

If Israel did drop the bombs, they dropped the bombs. I highly doubt it was on purpose, but Annan's comments just add fuel to an already burning fire.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

i can buy it was an accident, since Israeli's war planners seem to be, at least in spirit, possessed by the Bush Administration Iraq folks, as far as pure ineptitude goes. It completely fits the pattern of miscalculations and stupid moves that they've set so far in this whole battle.

That was some strategy, the beirut bombings (snort), boy its been REALLY effective so far hasn't it?

[KingPK 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/ap_on_...zkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

 

I've had it with that Kofi Annan, to stoke a potential fire like this. The UN clearly is full of a bunch of racists who hate Israel. They said it was an accident... then it was.

 

I'm so angry over the UN's response I can't tell you.

 

It's time for Israel to take the gloves off!

 

It's not like the UN is actually going to DO anything about it. They'll just bitch and moan and open an investigation while passing the 786th resolution condemning Israel.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

the reason Kofee seems to think it was deliberate was because the UN observers called the IDF 10 times in 6 hours telling them that the bombing and shelling was right close to them. they even called new york and had them call israel's UN people to ask for that shelling to stop. each time they were told by IDF commanders that they would stop the bombing/shelling. this is all before the actual bombing. of course, hezbollah was using the base as a shield, its still fucked up to tell them that it'll stop though each time, why not say 'we're not stopping b/c hezbollah's there, so get out' six hours earlier? i'm getting all this from an AP article i picked up on jerusalempost (yes i read israeli papers, that and haaretz, are both good reading, haaretz is more leftist i think)

 

but like i said, israel has been so strategically inept so far in this particular battle that it makes more sense that it was just a fuck up. they've developed this remarkable ability to hit everybody but their target.

[pappajacks 0]

they've developed this remarkable ability to hit everybody but their target.

 

 

they have killed 10-15 civilians for every hizbollah militant. not a ratio to be proud of.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

they've developed this remarkable ability to hit everybody but their target.

 

 

they have killed 10-15 civilians for every hizbollah militant. not a ratio to be proud of.

 

You know Hizbollah does everything they can to make sure that if Israel tries to hit them then they take a bunch of civilians with them...right?

[pappajacks 0]

they've developed this remarkable ability to hit everybody but their target.

 

 

they have killed 10-15 civilians for every hizbollah militant. not a ratio to be proud of.

 

You know Hizbollah does everything they can to make sure that if Israel tries to hit them then they take a bunch of civilians with them...right?

 

You know hizbollah has tunnels and supplies hidden deep underground...right?

 

they might be terrorists but they arent idiots.

[Guest JustPassinBy]

Anyone else getting sick of the "this is the start of World War 3" commentary, especially on Fox News (its on the other channels, though)?

 

Frankly, I doubt during WW2's start that people were asking each other "Is this another world war yet?"

 

It's typical media exaggeration but what else is new?

 

By the way, I thought Benjamin Netanyahu schooled Wolf Blitzer last night on CNN when Wolf kept pressing him on the casualties. Advice to Wolf: It's usually not a good idea to press politicians that are leaders in a parliamentary government because they actually have to DEBATE FOR REAL on a regular basis and aren't as easy to beat in an argument as politicians in America.

 

I agree.

 

I've seen Tony Blair make Christian Amanpour look like a fool numerous times when she engages him in debate.

 

The British are outstanding debaters, and often make their points through reason and logic, rather than volume/loudness/bravado (think Stephen A Smith).

[Art Sandusky 0]

Or the President.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Hezbollah builds missile launchers in civilian houses. Every Lebanese civilian that is killed is their fault, not Israel's.

 

Hey, how about all those Israelis who've been killed so far? How about the fact that Hezbollah fired 100 rockets into Israel again yesterday? Is the life of an Israeli worth less than a Lebanese one?