500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:21 pm

anastrophe wrote: ?

no, obviously i was referring to the figure you posted, the part i quoted. again: And 80% millitary casualties when deliberately targetting civilian residential districts in Israel must have been shocking bad luck.

And 80% is 12 soldiers out of 12 soldiers and 3 civilians killed in the figures i gave!

anastrophe wrote: well, clearly you choose to believe that all civilians killed by the israelis were intentionally targeted. that's an opinion. there's no opinion necessary with regard to hezbollah's killing of civilians. they've stated so openly - their desire is to kill as many jews as possible, civilians, military, men, women, children, it doesn't matter. so no opinion even enters into the equation.

Can you give a citation for that?

It doesn't square with them warning the Israelis to leave Haifa to avoid bloodshed :-

In a televised speech in Lebanon on Wednesday night, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah warned Israeli Arabs to leave the port city of Haifi "so we don't shed your blood, which is our blood."

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:23 pm

spot wrote: Perhaps you could demonstrate the way you'd like your "do you have a citation?" to be responded to in this thread - do you have a citation with regard to "they've stated so openly", in the context of the list you appended? I think it comes from your own head, not from hezbollah. A citation actually from hezbollah as opposed to one of their avowed enemies would be nice. A citation from one of their avowed enemies would be educational.

you're kidding, right? have you turned off the sound on the telly any time nasrallah opens his mouth?

Post by **spot** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:25 pm

anastrophe wrote: you're kidding, right? have you turned off the sound on the telly any time nasrallah opens his mouth?I'm not kidding in the slightest, I'd appreciate a straight answer to both of my current queries.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:29 pm

anastrophe wrote: (The Israelis know that there civilians in the targets they select.)

that's an interesting opinion but merely an opinion.

Rubbish, and I am sure that you know it. Have you a mental block?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:42 pm

Bill Sikes wrote: Rubbish, and I am sure that you know it. Have you a mental block?

you see no difference between killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians, and killing civilians who are being used as shields for the rocket launchers, in residential neighborhoods?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:52 pm

anastrophe wrote: you see no difference between killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians, and killing civilians who are being used as shields for the rocket launchers, in residential neighborhoods?

One is rabid. The other is cold-blooded. Both are absolutely wrong. You will not

have that, of course, will you. However, I note that you don't deny, after your

initial prevarication, that the Israelis know that they are committing atrocities.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:09 pm

spot wrote: I'm not kidding in the slightest, I'd appreciate a straight answer to both of my current queries.
A Hezbollah statement in 1992 vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth." In 2002, Sheik Nasrallah was quoted by the Lebanon Daily Star as encouraging Jews to move to Israel. "If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide," he was quoted as saying.

http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=10439

"There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel." - Nasrallah

http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/ ... 65649.html

"Just like Hitler fought the Jews, we are a great Islamic nation of jihad, and we too should fight the Jews and burn them."

— Hisham Shamas, political science student, at a symposium hosted by Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV at Lebanon's largest and only government-run university, Université Libanaise, November 29, 2005

http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=36717

"Jews invented the legend of the Holocaust," the leader of Hezbollah, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, said on April 9, 2000.

ibid.

Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated. -The Hizzballah program

http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/Hiz_letter.htm (this last is an israeli site, so i'm sure it will be dismissed out of hand)

my interpretation is that there's no distinction between civilians or military. killing the jews is the goal.

an "amusing" aside. 'at the expense of the rights of the muslim people'. mmm. yeah, when the ottomans overran palestine and imposed islam on the inhabitants, it wasn't a violation of their rights at all.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:14 pm

Bill Sikes wrote: One is rabid. The other is cold-blooded. Both are absolutely wrong. You will not

have that, of course, will you. However, I note that you don't deny, after your

initial prevarication, that the Israelis know that they are committing atrocities.

i wonder to whom you direct "the other is cold-blooded". do you direct it at hizbollah, the ones who choose to put their own civilians in harm's way?

of course, the distinction becomes further more grey, in that, hezbollah isn't going into civilian homes and holding the occupants hostage, it would seem. they are invited in by like-minded civilians. so when civilians join in with an ostensible military, and are of a mind that if they die they'll go to paradise - well, how civilian are they when they are willing to die to assist those launching the rockets?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:17 pm

and last but not least:

القدس تغني لنصر الله

تتردد في أرجاء سوق القدس القديمة أغنية تمجد الأمين العام لحزب الله حسن نصر الله وفيها "صواريخك إسرائيل تحكي عنها جيل بعد جيل"، فيما يتغنى السكان الفلسطينيون ب"صموده في وجه إسرائيل".

وأوضح صاحب متجر لبيع الأسطوانات، فضل عدم كشف اسمه تجنباً لتعرض محله لعملية دهم إسرائيلية، أن الأغنية التي تؤديها فرقة فلسطينية بيعت منها خلسة مئات النسخ بين أشرطة وأقراص مدمجة في المدينة القديمة.

وأفاد العديد من التجار أن الشرطة الإسرائيلية قامت خلال الايام الماضية بتفتيش متاجر عدة للموسيقى بحثاً عن اسطوانات تتغنى بحزب الله وبأمينه العام. ويتردد من آلة الأشرطة الموسيقية القديمة في متجر صغير "الكاتيوشا اكبر دليل انه ارهب الصهيونية".

والجميع في أزقة القدس القديمة يتكلم عن الحرب الجارية بين إسرائيل وحزب الله في لبنان، فيتحلق التجار في مجموعات صغيرة أمام ابواب متاجرهم مطلقين شتى الافتراضات والتكهنات حول سير المعارك فيجمعون كلهم على انتصار حزب الله وحسن نصر الله.

ومنذ اندلاع النزاع قبل 28 يوماً تراجعت الاعمال، غير ان اصحاب المتاجر يؤكدون انهم لا يأبهون لذلك.

ويقول جبرا ناظمي (25 عاما) جالساً في متجره للاقمشة "انني سعيد لرؤية الجنود الإسرائيليين يتساقطون كالذباب. اما مقاتلو حزب الله الذين يسقطون فهم شهداء يذهبون الى الجنة".

وفي الشارع التجاري الصغير المؤدي الى باحة المسجد الاقصى يشاهد اصحاب المتاجر الذين يملكون اجهزة تلفزيون على شاشاتهم قناة "الجزيرة" الفضائية القطرية او قناة "المنار" التابعة لحزب الله.

وعند كل إعلان عن مقتل جندي اسرائيلي او سقوط صواريخ على مدينة إسرائيلية يعلو السرور وجوه المشاهدين.

ويقول احد التجار "بالأمس وزع جاري حلوى عندما اعلن التلفزيون مقتل 12 جندياً اسرائيلياً دفعة واحدة". ويوضح خالد التميمي (42 عاما) صاحب متجر للملابس "ان الناس معجبون بنصر الله. انه شخص يقف في وجه اسرائيل التي تحتلنا منذ نحو اربعين عاماً". وهو يرى ان الفلسطينيين من شدة خيبة املهم من الرؤساء والملوك العرب يرفعون الى مصاف الابطال "اي زعيم معاد لإسرائيل والولايات المتحدة".

ويضيف "انظروا الى (الرئيس الفنزويلي) هوغو شافيز. إننا نحترمه لأنه تبنى مواقف معادية لإسرائيل وللأميركيين". واعتبر التميمي ان القادة العرب "متواطئون" مع الهجوم الاسرائيلي على لبنان. وقال بحماس عارم "ان نصر الله هو بالتأكيد بطل، خصوصاً اذا ما قارناه بخائن مثل...

وقال جواد الريشق (54 عاما) "كانت إسرائيل تعتبر اكبر قوة عسكرية في الشرق الاوسط وحسن نصرالله أذل هذه القوة". ويوافقه الرأي ماجد ابو صبيح صاحب متجر للأقمشة ويقول "لم يستطع العرب منذ اربعين عاماً ان يهزموا إسرائيل. نصرالله فعل ذلك".

وعلى مسافة بضعة متاجر يجلس رائد امام مدخل متجره يقرأ صحيفة "القدس"، كبرى صحف الاراضي الفلسطينية وهو مستغرق في مقالة بعنوان "استراتيجية حزب الله تربك إسرائيل وتسقط عقيدتها العسكرية".

المصدر:وكالات. بتاريخ 09/08/2006 الساعة 19:41

var textFontSize=12;function fontUp() { if(textFontSize==30) return; document.all.textFontSize1.style.fontSize=(++textFontSize); document.all.textFontSize2.style.fontSize=(++textFontSize); document.all.textFontSize3.style.fontSize=(++textFontSize); }function fontDown() { if(textFontSize==8) return; document.all.textFontSize1.style.fontSize=(--textFontSize); document.all.textFontSize2.style.fontSize=(--textFontSize); document.all.textFontSize3.style.fontSize=(--textFontSize); }

Post by **spot** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:17 pm

anastrophe wrote: when the ottomans overran palestine and imposed islam on the inhabitants, it wasn't a violation of their rights at all.I thought you maintained that there had been a continuous Jewish minority in the Holy Land throughout that period. Were these Muslim Jews of which you speak?

Would you now like to go onto the question of the West Bank expulsions?

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:26 pm

anastrophe wrote: look at map and tell me that israel isn't a tiny little country, with a small population, surrounded on all sides by nations that want them gone. i'd say they're a minority. they aren't a minority in israel, obviously. they became the majority.

you miss the point. I'm agreeing with you. They are a minority. But I'm refering to the Jews in the occupied territories. They make up for being a minority by bearing guns and tanks and bulldozing houses with the Arab occupants still inside them. The part I'm disagreeing with is that the actions mentioned are reasonably called "asserting themself".

the peace process, which has throughout history been a slow, tedious process where borders, ownership, and other claims are in dispute, was moving forward. there had been setbacks and steps forward. but negotiations had been moving forward.

I asked a while ago if you studied at all what the great deal offered to the Palestinians was. I would like you to tell me the full details. From what I understand it was a crappy deal and there was no way the Palestinians could accept it.

something happened to stop that peaceful process. determining who started it, as has been pointed out, accomplishes nothing in terms of resuming a path towards peace. stopping the fighting, on both sides, will allow the peace process to move forward again.

I believe you are the one who keeps reverting to how long the Jews have had a presence in the region. I posted an essay by King Hussein and that is when you decided it wasn't important. Until it is again. I agree with you. Drop the whole thing about who was there a for the last few thousand years.

i don't know if jews and palestinians living in peace, side by side, will happen in my lifetime. i'd like to think it's possible. up until a month or so ago, things were peaceful - there was no war raging. this is the first time in quite a long while that a pitched battle has been raging between israel and its neighbors.

perhaps we have a different definition of peaceful. I would like to see why you believe things were peaceful when all the journalists and most of the European world, who are much closer to the actual events, seem to agree there has been lots of violence without end. Just because a bomb wasn't exploded does not mean there was peace. It is the Israelis who hold thousands of hostages, many of which have yet to be charged with a crime.

note - saying things were peaceful before this conflict began isn't to suggest that it was wine and roses.

i have no concluding point here, besides despair that the israelis and palestinians can't embrace each other.

this is your "out"? You consistently say this war was started with the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers and this denies that the Israelis regularily kidnaps civilians. You're right: you have no concluding point. Except to fall back on the out when someone points out the obvious response to the preceding statement.

I despair that the palestinians are constantly being painted as the aggressors.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:27 pm

spot wrote: I thought you maintained that there had been a continuous Jewish minority in the Holy Land throughout that period. Were these Muslim Jews of which you speak?

no, they were jewish jews. glad i could clear that up for you.

Would you now like to go onto the question of the West Bank expulsions?

no need, i've already conceded the point to you that only a few israeli settlers had been forcibly removed from the west bank. but thanks for asking!

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:33 pm

spot wrote: I thought you maintained that there had been a continuous Jewish minority in the Holy Land throughout that period. Were these Muslim Jews of which you speak?

Would you now like to go onto the question of the West Bank expulsions?

i do want to however acknowledge how well you completely ducked the lengthy citations i provided that throw to hell your assertion that the notion that they want to kill all the jews is 'all in my mind'.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:40 pm

anastrophe wrote: i wonder to whom you direct "the other is cold-blooded". do you direct it at hizbollah, the ones who choose to put their own civilians in harm's way??

To use your logic, then are the Israelis rabid?

anastrophe wrote: of course, the distinction becomes further more grey, in that, hezbollah isn't going into civilian homes and holding the occupants hostage, it would seem. they are invited in by like-minded civilians. so when civilians join in with an ostensible military, and are of a mind that if they die they'll go to paradise - well, how civilian are they when they are willing to die to assist those launching the rockets?

The distinction is no shade of grey, it's as plain as the nose on your face. You

are being disengenious, are you not. You are a terrorist, in a house next to

mine. I do not even know of your prescence. However, when your house is

blown up, then so is mine. I had no link with you or your organisation at all.

There is no shade of grey.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:42 pm

Hesitate throughout Jerusalem's Old Market song glorifying Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, "Souarejk Israel tells of a generation after generation," With praises Palestinian population "steadfastness in the face of Israel." The owner of a shop selling CDs, preferred to remain anonymous to avoid exposure locality stormed the Israeli The song performed by a team of Palestinian surreptitiously sold hundreds of copies of tapes and CD-ROMs in the Old City. According to many traders that the Israeli police had in the last few days inspecting several music shops in search of cylinders road Hezbollah and the Secretary General. The rumors of a musical tapes in the old store small "There is clear evidence that the dead Zionist." Everyone in the alleys of Jerusalem's Old talk about the current war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Vithelk traders in small groups in front of the doors of various businesses cheerfully assumptions and speculations about the course of battles are bringing the triumph of Hizbullah, Hasan Nasrallah. Since the outbreak of the conflict has decreased by 28 business days, but the shopkeepers claim that they do not worry about that. He says forceful Nazimi (25 years old) sitting in his shop garment "I am happy to see Israeli soldiers dropping Kalfbab. The Hezbollah fighters who fall martyrs they go to Paradise. " On the streets of the small business leading to the courtyard of the Al-Aqsa Mosque watched shopkeepers who own television screens the Qatari satellite channel "Aljazeera" or channel "Al-Manar" of Hezbollah. Upon a declaration of the death of an Israeli soldier or rockets fall on the Israeli city outgrow pleasure Faces viewers. He says one traders "yesterday and is being distributed candy when television announced the deaths of 12 Israeli soldiers at once." Explains Khalid Tamimi (42 years) owner of a clothing store, "people admire its shared Nasr Allah. That the person who stands in the face of Israel, which Thtlena for about forty years. " It is believed that the Palestinians of severe disappointment of the Arab kings and presidents to the ranks of heroes who "Any leader hostile to Israel and the United States." He adds, "Look to the (Venezuelan president) Hugo Chavez. We respect that build positions hostile to Israel and the Americans. " He added that the Arab leaders Tamimi "accomplices" with the Israeli attack on Lebanon. He enthusiastically overwhelming, "Nasrallah is certainly hero, especially when compared to Bakhan like ... He said Jawad Alerishak (54 years), "Israel is the largest military force in the Middle East, Hassan Nasrallah overpowered the force." He agrees with the view Majid Abu Subaih garment shop owner says, "since the Arabs were unable to forty years invincible Israel. Nasrallah did that. " The shops at a distance of a few pilot sitting in front of the entrance to his shop read in the newspaper "Al-Quds", Major newspapers in the Palestinian territories is Mstgerk in an essay entitled "Strategy Hezbollah overwhelm Israel and the fall of military doctrine."

-rough translation of text under picture of Nasrallah posted earlier.

actually it was last and the least.

Israel has elected leaders from terrorist organizations as well. I thought you were looking for something that shows directly that Hizbollah's publically stated political agenda is to kill all Jews. Keeping in mind that eliminating Israel is not the same as eliminating all Jews. And keeping in mind I'm not supporting eliminating Israel, I just ask for citations as well.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:44 pm

Bill Sikes wrote: To use your logic, then are the Israelis rabid?

The distinction is no shade of grey, it's as plain as the nose on your face. You

are being disengenious, are you not. You are a terrorist, in a house next to

mine. I do not even know of your prescence. However, when your house is

blown up, then so is mine. I had no link with you or your organisation at all.

There is no shade of grey.

bollocks. that's not what's happening, so who is being disingenuous?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:50 pm

koan wrote: -rough translation of text under picture of Nasrallah posted earlier.

actually it was last and the least.

wait - am i to understand that you're judging the quality of what i posted by the fact that google does a crappy job of translating? sheesh..

i posted that for spot's benefit, anyway. i didn't even bother looking up the translation. spot - grand boy that he is - had posted some document in german a short time back. i was returning the favor.

Israel has elected leaders from terrorist organizations as well. I thought you were looking for something that shows directly that Hizbollah's publically stated political agenda is to kill all Jews. Keeping in mind that eliminating Israel is not the same as eliminating all Jews. And keeping in mind I'm not supporting eliminating Israel, I just ask for citations as well.

i can't imagine how you missed this, since it's posted in black and white. perhaps you were skimming over the distasteful parts.

A Hezbollah statement in 1992 vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth." In 2002, Sheik Nasrallah was quoted by the Lebanon Daily Star as encouraging Jews to move to Israel. "If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide," he was quoted as saying.

Post by **spot** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:50 pm

anastrophe wrote: and last but not least: [...]Very well put too, one might think, given the turmoil in East Jerusalem last month. It's quite reasonable for Khaled Al Tamimi to say that "after so many years the Palestinians, from the intensity of their disappointment in Presidents and the Arab Kings, bring to an heroic category any leader hostile to Israel", adding "look at Hugo Chavez - we respect him because he adopted attitudes hostile to Israel and to the Americans".

The lyrics of the CD "that glorifies the Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah" being confiscated in the Old Market are blunt enough... "tales of your missiles at Israel will be passed down from generation to generation". One can well see why the store owner asked for anonymity, in that he "preferred an avoidance of the exposure of his shop to an Israeli attack operation" as a consequernce of expressing his views more openly.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:54 pm

anastrophe wrote: bollocks. that's not what's happening, so who is being disingenuous?

There is none so blind as he who will not see

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:59 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: There is none so blind as he who will not see

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 20,00.html

indeed.

Post by **spot** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:03 pm

anastrophe wrote: no, they were jewish jews. glad i could clear that up for you.

In which case, in what sense did the ottomans impose islam on the inhabitants when they overran palestine, if the Jews remained Jewish? Perhaps you could explain what "impose islam on the inhabitants" means in this context?

anastrophe wrote: no need, i've already conceded the point to you that only a few israeli settlers had been forcibly removed from the west bank. but thanks for asking!This is a pitiful demonstration of "providing a citation" on request, then. There are times when you would do well to sound less cocky, less proud of whatever point you feel you've scored.

I didn't make any point that "only a few israeli settlers had been forcibly removed from the west bank", I asked you to cite any reference to "israel has withdrawn some of its settlers from the west bank. by no means many, most, or all" - I'm asking for sufficient detail of that claim to be able to appreciate its import. What bit of the west bank? When? How many did they remove, vis a vis those they left in situ? If we can put your claim into some context here it might help us greatly.

Do you have a citation with regard to "they've stated so openly - their desire is to kill as many jews as possible, civilians, military, men, women, children, it doesn't matter". I think it comes from your own head, not from hezbollah. A citation actually from hezbollah as opposed to one of their avowed enemies would be nice. A citation from one of their avowed enemies would be educational.

You interpret what you hear. What you hear is not what has said. "their desire is to kill as many jews as possible, civilians, military, men, women, children, it doesn't matter" does not follow at all from the quotes you scraped together spanning the last two decades. The quotes you found aren't even remotely representative, and they do not say what you claim they said.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:07 pm

anastrophe wrote: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 20,00.html

indeed.

I have never denied that there is wrong in the actions of Hezbollah! You appear to see nothing but their wrongs.

From everything I can see the balance of wrong is biased against Israel but you paint them as the victims in everything that happens. They have almost all of the power in the region and they systematically abuse it - when the indiginous population fight back with what weapons they've got you call them evil.

Look at both sides of the coin and you'll see that it has two faces.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:09 pm

anastrophe wrote: bollocks. that's not what's happening, so who is being disingenuous?

It *is* what has happened in some cases, isn't it. Do you really need to

say "bollocks"? I wonder whatever happened to the FG auto-censor. Perhaps

the fact that you are in a minority of approximately 1 (one) is beginning to tell.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:19 pm

spot wrote: In which case, in what sense did the ottomans impose islam on the inhabitants when they overran palestine, if the Jews remained Jewish? Perhaps you could explain what "impose islam on the inhabitants" means in this context?

it means that islam was imposed on the inhabitants. that the jews didn't turn to islam is why they remained jewish. perhaps they hid their religious affiliation to avoid being slaughtered by the turks. that islam was imposed on the native peoples, and the jews remained, seems to indicate that apparently the imposition wasn't 100% effective, no? you're trying to paint an absolutist take on it. sorry. won't wash.

This is a pitiful demonstration of "providing a citation" on request, then. There are times when you would do well to sound less cocky, less proud of whatever point you feel you've scored.

thanks, but i don't take direction as to how to comport myself from you; as likewise you don't take direction from me.

I didn't make any point that "only a few israeli settlers had been forcibly removed from the west bank", I asked you to cite any reference to "israel has withdrawn some of its settlers from the west bank. by no means many, most, or all" - I'm asking for sufficient detail of that claim to be able to appreciate its import. What bit of the west bank? When? How many did they remove, vis a vis those they left in situ? If we can put your claim into some context here it might help us greatly.

here's some citations on the matter.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005 ... ions_x.htm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... i-news-hed

Do you have a citation with regard to "they've stated so openly - their desire is to kill as many jews as possible, civilians, military, men, women, children, it doesn't matter". I think it comes from your own head, not from hezbollah. A citation actually from hezbollah as opposed to one of their avowed enemies would be nice. A citation from one of their avowed enemies would be educational.

You interpret what you hear. What you hear is not what has said. "their desire is to kill as many jews as possible, civilians, military, men, women, children, it doesn't matter" does not follow at all from the quotes you scraped together spanning the last two decades. The quotes you found aren't even remotely representative, and they do not say what you claim they said.

fine. you're welcome to pretend that hizzbollah are a bunch of cuddly puppies. the statement made by nasrallah is clear to anyone who isn't squeezing their eyes shut to pretend the reality of their ideology doesn't exist:A Hezbollah statement in 1992 vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth." In 2002, Sheik Nasrallah was quoted by the Lebanon Daily Star as encouraging Jews to move to Israel. "If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide," he was quoted as saying.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:21 pm

Bill Sikes wrote: It *is* what has happened in some cases, isn't it. Do you really need to

say "bollocks"? I wonder whatever happened to the FG auto-censor. Perhaps

the fact that you are in a minority of approximately 1 (one) is beginning to tell.

you're equivocating again! "in some cases". so, you acknowledge now that it has been done. thanks.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:24 pm

anastrophe wrote: it means that islam was imposed on the inhabitants. that the jews didn't turn to islam is why they remained jewish. perhaps they hid their religious affiliation to avoid being slaughtered by the turks. that islam was imposed on the native peoples, and the jews remained, seems to indicate that apparently the imposition wasn't 100% effective, no? you're trying to paint an absolutist take on it. sorry. won't wash.

So if the Jews were not the native peoples then, why should they claim to be the natural native peoples now?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:26 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: So if the Jews were not the native peoples then, why should they claim to be the natural native peoples now?

where do you get that they aren't native people to the region? the jews are most emphatically native to the region. they've lived there near continuously for as long as the other arab populations.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:28 pm

anastrophe wrote: where do you get that they aren't native people to the region? the jews are most emphatically native to the region. they've lived there near continuously for as long as the other arab populations.

From your post?

it means that islam was imposed on the inhabitants. that the jews didn't turn to islam is why they remained jewish. perhaps they hid their religious affiliation to avoid being slaughtered by the turks. that islam was imposed on the native peoples, and the jews remained, seems to indicate that apparently the imposition wasn't 100% effective, no? you're trying to paint an absolutist take on it. sorry. won't wash.

Direct statement that the Jews were not the native peoples!

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:30 pm

Originally Posted by Bill Sikes

(to Anpostrophe) The distinction is no shade of grey, it's as plain as the nose

on your face. You are being disengenious, are you not. You are a terrorist, in a

house next to mine. I do not even know of your prescence. However, when your

house is blown up, then so is mine. I had no link with you or your organisation

at all. There is no shade of grey.

(to Anpostrophe)It *is* what has happened in some cases, isn't it. Do you really

need to say "bollocks"? I wonder whatever happened to the FG auto-censor.

Perhaps the fact that you are in a minority of approximately 1 (one) is beginning

to tell.

anastrophe wrote: you're equivocating again! "in some cases". so, you acknowledge now that it has been done. thanks.

Aha. The truth is a double-edged sword, isn't it, as you have just found. You

might stand back from this thread, and take in what you have said, to what

has been said, and think.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:34 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: From your post?

Direct statement that the Jews were not the native peoples!

sorry, i'm utterly at a loss. i do not understand how you see that as suggesting the jews were not also native inhabitants.

makes zero sense to me. sorry.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:38 pm

anastrophe wrote: wait - am i to understand that you're judging the quality of what i posted by the fact that google does a crappy job of translating? sheesh..

i posted that for spot's benefit, anyway. i didn't even bother looking up the translation. spot - grand boy that he is - had posted some document in german a short time back. i was returning the favor.
So you admit that the quality of that post was compromised ("i didn't even bother looking up the translation") by wanting to take a shot at spot. Good enough for me.

i can't imagine how you missed this, since it's posted in black and white. perhaps you were skimming over the distasteful parts.

A Hezbollah statement in 1992 vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth." In 2002, Sheik Nasrallah was quoted by the Lebanon Daily Star as encouraging Jews to move to Israel. "If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide," he was quoted as saying.

that quote came from the nysun and claims to have been said in 1992. That's a little broad, isn't it? I thought you were supposed to cite public statement issued by the organization. I didn't miss it, it just didn't fulfill the requirements.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:39 pm

Bill Sikes wrote: Originally Posted by Bill Sikes

(to Anpostrophe) The distinction is no shade of grey, it's as plain as the nose

on your face. You are being disengenious, are you not. You are a terrorist, in a

house next to mine. I do not even know of your prescence. However, when your

house is blown up, then so is mine. I had no link with you or your organisation

at all. There is no shade of grey.

(to Anpostrophe)It *is* what has happened in some cases, isn't it. Do you really

need to say "bollocks"? I wonder whatever happened to the FG auto-censor.

Perhaps the fact that you are in a minority of approximately 1 (one) is beginning

to tell.

Aha. The truth is a double-edged sword, isn't it, as you have just found. You

might stand back from this thread, and take in what you have said, to what

has been said, and think.

you also. you said, in response to my pointing out that rockets are being fired from within civilian residential dwellings, that "The distinction is no shade of grey, it's as plain as the nose on your face". then suggested the scenario that the house next door to the terrorists is blown up, and that's why civilians are being killed. certainly, i can see that that may be the case as well. you are suggesting that civilians harboring hizbollah and their rocket launchers does not take place, and that's quite not the case.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:43 pm

anastrophe wrote: sorry, i'm utterly at a loss. i do not understand how you see that as suggesting the jews were not also native inhabitants.

makes zero sense to me. sorry.

Simple English - the native peoples were forced to become Muslims but the Jews remained as Jews, therefore the Jews were not native peoples.

Basic logic, yes?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:43 pm

koan wrote: So you admit that the quality of that post was compromised ("i didn't even bother looking up the translation") by wanting to take a shot at spot. Good enough for me.

nothing gets past you, it's amazing! stop acting like i'm in some sort of denial that i take cheap shots, and use rhetoric to punish people. i've stated quite clearly that i know of my own less than noble tendencies. if only you could see the same in yourself. i've already shown that you engage in the same, though certainly without my joie de vive for it. "ana-straw-man" indeed.

that quote came from the nysun and claims to have been said in 1992. That's a little broad, isn't it? I thought you were supposed to cite public statement issued by the organization. I didn't miss it, it just didn't fulfill the requirements.

pretend it doesn't exist. fine.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:45 pm

anastrophe wrote: nothing gets past you, it's amazing! stop acting like i'm in some sort of denial that i take cheap shots, and use rhetoric to punish people.

That's the whole point - you are in denial!

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:46 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Simple English - the native peoples were forced to become Muslims but the Jews remained as Jews, therefore the Jews were not native peoples.

Basic logic, yes?

only if you live in bizarro universe. that the jews are, uh, jewish, doesn't make them any less native inhabitants. this is absurd.

so now you're denying that the jews are natives of the region. i suppose i shouldn't be surprised, the clear record of history contradicting you notwithstanding though.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:47 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: That's the whole point - you are in denial!

do you have anything of value to contribute? anything at all?

here: you're an anti-semite. that's just as offensive and personal as what you're flinging at me. so don't pretend to get your knickers in a knot at that.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:51 pm

anastrophe wrote: only if you live in bizarro universe. that the jews are, uh, jewish, doesn't make them any less native inhabitants. this is absurd.

so now you're denying that the jews are natives of the region. i suppose i shouldn't be surprised, the clear record of history contradicting you notwithstanding though.

Not in the slightest - it is a clear implication of what you have said and my comment was referring only to you statement.

I was trying to point out the absurdity of your words not anything in the real world - it must be the old "nothing divides us but a common language"

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:54 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Not in the slightest - it is a clear implication of what you have said and my comment was referring only to you statement.

I was trying to point out the absurdity of your words not anything in the real world - it must be the old "nothing divides us but a common language"

i'll reword it then:that islam was imposed on the native peoples, and the jews among them remained jewish, seems to indicate that apparently the imposition wasn't 100% effective, no?

clearer? that was my intent. it seemed the shorthand of 'the jews remained' would be clear within the context.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:55 pm

anastrophe wrote: do you have anything of value to contribute? anything at all?

here: you're an anti-semite. that's just as offensive and personal as what you're flinging at me. so don't pretend to get your knickers in a knot at that.

That is more than a little offensive.

I am anti violence whoever perpitrates it and I'll stand against anyone who supports those who are committing the violence.

Show me where I've thrown personal abuse at you.

Show me where I've been specifically anti-semitic.

Then apologise!

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:57 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Not in the slightest - it is a clear implication of what you have said and my comment was referring only to you statement.

I was trying to point out the absurdity of your words not anything in the real world - it must be the old "nothing divides us but a common language"

I get it, Bryn. You are right. By his own logic he declared Jews, because they are still Jewish, to be non native. Most other people get it. I think he gets it but won't admit it. If him admitting his own logical error is your desire, I doubt you'll find resolution.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:59 pm

anastrophe wrote: i'll reword it then:that islam was imposed on the native peoples, and the jews among them remained jewish, seems to indicate that apparently the imposition wasn't 100% effective, no?

clearer? that was my intent. it seemed the shorthand of 'the jews remained' would be clear within the context.

No!

The Ottomans attempted to impose Islam on the native peoples and only the Jews managed to resist

might suffice but you are still differentiating the Jews from the native peoples

Your original statement was, however, quite specific in excluding the Jews from the native peoples.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:59 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: That is more than a little offensive.

I am anti violence whoever perpitrates it and I'll stand against anyone who supports those who are committing the violence.

Show me where I've thrown personal abuse at you.

Show me where I've been specifically anti-semitic.

Then apologise!

no apology. saying "That's the whole point - you are in denial!" is directly, personally, offensive. it negates every word i've said.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:03 pm

anastrophe wrote: no apology. saying "That's the whole point - you are in denial!" is directly, personally, offensive. it negates every word i've said.

You have consistantly denied that the Israelis have and blame for the current debacle - it is an honest opinion.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:03 pm

koan wrote: I get it, Bryn. You are right. By his own logic he declared Jews, because they are still Jewish, to be non native. Most other people get it. I think he gets it but won't admit it. If him admitting his own logical error is your desire, I doubt you'll find resolution.

this has now ranged into the surreal. utterly, totally, surreal.

my words nowhere said that jews were non-native. if you reread them, you'll see that i did not say "the jews are non-native".

so, the christians who are also native people of the region, who were not turned to islam, are also now 'non-native'? you think that's what i was saying? this has really moved into the realm of dangerous silliness.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:04 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: You have consistantly denied that the Israelis have and blame for the current debacle - it is an honest opinion.

false. so, no apology.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:04 pm

Bill Sikes to anastrophe wrote: Perhaps

the fact that you are in a minority of approximately 1 (one) is beginning to tell.

I noticed that too. Should we now call a non-partisan point counter to review the thread? I'm under the impression that the Israelis are looking like the aggressors and anastrophe has not been able to absolve them of their wrongdoing.

The main defense left is that they don't strap bombs to their bodies. That, of course, is because they have planes to drop them from...which has never quite been addressed.

Does anyone think that suicide bombers prefer to use their bodies to carry the weapons? I think they'd rather have planes. If the US wants to stop suicide bombers they should ship the Arabs some planes to even up the score.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:07 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: No!

The Ottomans attempted to impose Islam on the native peoples and only the Jews managed to resist

might suffice but you are still differentiating the Jews from the native peoples

Your original statement was, however, quite specific in excluding the Jews from the native peoples.

nope. not at all. this is now idiotic.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:10 pm

anastrophe wrote:

it means that islam was imposed on the inhabitants. that the jews didn't turn to islam is why they remained jewish. perhaps they hid their religious affiliation to avoid being slaughtered by the turks. that islam was imposed on the native peoples, and the jews remained, seems to indicate that apparently the imposition wasn't 100% effective, no?

anyone who reads that as suggesting that the jews were not native is, in a word, daft.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:10 pm

anastrophe wrote: this has now ranged into the surreal. utterly, totally, surreal.

my words nowhere said that jews were non-native. if you reread them, you'll see that i did not say "the jews are non-native".

so, the christians who are also native people of the region, who were not turned to islam, are also now 'non-native'? you think that's what i was saying? this has really moved into the realm of dangerous silliness.

Slow down and re-read your original statement. Then apply basic semantics to what is being said - no reference to anything outside the statement itself.

It directly excludes the Jews from the set of people classed as native peoples.

It says nothing about the Christians - all it says is that the set consisting native peoples were forced to convert to Islam and that the set consisting Jews did not, therefore the sets are distinct.

That I'm picky and pedantic I'll accept but that I'm anti-semitic and abusive I will not!