Short term memory loss playing up again JJ?

You might remember, only a couple of months ago, that lebanese gangs, where travelling through Sydney in packs to destroy cars, bash and stab passersby?

eg. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3962

I seem to recall that they were proud of their lebanese heritage, preferring it to their Aussie heritage? Guess now they have picked a fight they can't win, they are willing be aussies again.

Not sure however, that I, and many other Australians, will have them back. If they wish to return to the place they were granted asylum from, they are obviously not frightened of going there? Thus they are here under false pretences, and no longer need asylum.

Inshallah

2bob

PS how many of the overseas dual nationals are responsible for the current situation by voting for Hizbollah? Given that so many of them reside in the South of Lebanon (its stronghold) I would suggest many. If they supported the actions of Hizbollah, why should they not suffer the consequences of them?

Johnj

I dont know where you get your facts from but in regard to the pre 1984 British immigrants they had to undergo naturalisation in order to get and keep an Aust PassPort and thereby did swear allegiance. Many of of us were even called up for National Service, and were prepared to serve over seas, well before 1984. Allegiance was taken as read, which given the orgins is pretty self evident. The reason we were asked to undergo naturalisation was because of an International Law legal opinion, that deemed us to be mercenaries for serving in the armed services of a country we did not hold a pass port for.

The pre 1984 Brits are not a problem at all, and never have been, but I dont know about the seemingly very large numbers of Lebanese who seem to have dual citizen ship and live in Lebanon, and presumably have voted for the Hezbellah parliamentarians, and tolerate the role of Hezbellah as a terrorist organisation in Lebanon. I hope ASIO is doing its checks.

Johnj said "Thanks 2Bob and Pericles for reminding me of the nobility and humanity of the punters in this forum", and wobbles added "I assume the opinions above about not helping citizens travelling overseas would include those Aussies who recklessly got themselves involved in the Bali or London bombings and those others who were caught in the Tsunami."

Humanitarian aid is not the topic here. It is whether it is the automatic responsibility of the government to spend as much of our money as they feel like, rescuing citizens from any and every adverse situation in which they find themselves.

We had absolutely no say in whether they went there or not, and even if we (I'm talking about the taxpayer here) had said "don't go", we would have been ignored.

I think it is utter selfishness to assume that wherever you might be in the world, and into whatever danger you have placed yourself, you have the right to run sobbing to the nearest embassy and demand assistance.

Of course people help people in distress. Of course human nature will always guide us to help those less fortunate than ourselves, whatever the circumstances. What gets my goat is the whingeing and moaning that the government doesn't drop everything else that it might be doing to charter a plane for anyone who, through the independent exercise of their own free will, finds themselves in discomfort.

Big Ted,

"Correcting my distortions"? You crack me up.

1)"Israel's 82 invasion of Lebanon (in which I personally participated)..." Geez, BT, I wouldn't admit to being part of that crime against humanity, if I were you, but the ultimate irony from your angle is that YOU helped create Hizbollah with that monumental stuff-up! Talk about own goals! Let's review 82 (& yes I do indeed see "similarities to the current situation"): Abu Nidal, enemy of Arafat, wounds Israeli ambassador in London. Begin exploits shooting to execute plan to finish off PLO in Lebanon despite PLO ceasefire and only 1 Israeli death in the 12 months before invasion. Sharon charges all way to Beirut, killing & wounding 14,000 people in 1st month, destroying vital infrastructure & imposing blockade, eventually invading West Beirut and organising Sabra/Shatila massacre after PLO departure. In come Americans, up springs Islamic Resistance to American presence and Israeli occupation, crystallizing in - voila - Hizbollah. Good work, BT.

2) The 1967 Israeli aggression was not a war of self-defence as the following Israeli leaders have attested:
Rabin: "Nasser didn't want war. The 2 divisions he sent to Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. he knew it and we knew it." (Le Monde, 28/2/68)
Eshkol: "The Egyptian layout in Sinai and the general buildup there testified to a militarily defensive Egyptian setup south of Israel." (Yediot Ahronot, 16/10/67)
Begin: "In June 67 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." (New York Times, 21/9/82)

So your silly attempt to suggest that Israel is NOT into the same old biffo it's always been into falls flat on its face.

Strewthie:

Sigh - are you still trotting out that old argument even though I blew its (and your) credibility out of the water during a previous exchange between us? You never learn, do you?

Here is the text of my prior refutation of your case:

"Ah, STREWTHIE,

You never let an opportunity pass to recycle an erronious assertion from a dubious lefty website. Rabin never made the comment that you attribute to him because it simply doesn't convey the true facts. You are regurgitating an anti-Israel urban myth. Why am I not surprised?

Allow me to present an accurate account of the stituation immediately prior to the commencement of the Six Day War:

After evicting the UN force, Nasser sent 5 divisions into the Sinai to reinforce the 30,000 Egyptian troops already there and the 10,000 strong Palestine Liberation Army division stationed in Gaza. The units dispatched from Egypt into the Sinai on 15-16 May 1967 included: the 5th, 2nd and 7th Infantry Divisions and the 6th and 4th Armoured Divisions, as well as several independent brigades that collectively amounted to the strength of another division. Each division was composed of about 15,000 men, and bringing the total Egyptian troop strength in Sinai to over 100,000. And they brought with them over 900 tanks, hundreds of artillery pieces of various calibres and vast ammounts of ammunition.

The Egyptian order of battle is openly available from a variety of sources on the 1967 war. Michael Oren's "Six Days of War," and Eric Hammel's "Six Days in June" are just a couple of books on the subject.

You might want to do a little reading from reputable sources before you embarass yourself further.

Posted by Ted Lapkin, Friday, 28 April 2006 8:06:02 PM"

By contrast, you cite radical anti-Zionist sociologist (not historian) Baruch Kimmerling, whose credibility has been eviscerated by scholar Efraim Karsh. You cite secondary sources coming from far-left polemicists with no academic expertise in the field. But then, why let truth get in the way of your anti-Israel invective?

Riddle Me This, Ted - Part 1

Ted Lapkin, now that we have dutifully had our morality based arguments, can we turn to the underlying corporate and geopolitical reasons for the present strategies?

During the invasion of Iraq and the fall of Baghdad, a window of candour and refreshing honesty briefly opened to reveal the following:

*

Guardian 2003:

Israel's finance minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, predicted yesterday that the British-era oil pipeline from Iraq's northern oilfields through Jordan to the Israeli port city of Haifa would be reopened.

"It won't be long when you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa," Mr Netanyahu told a group of British investors in London. "It is just a matter of time until the pipeline is reconstituted and Iraqi oil will flow to the Mediterranean."

The pipeline was closed during the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948 and has never been used since. Its rehabilitation would dramatically enhance regional economic co-operation after decades of war and mutual suspicion.

But the project is unlikely to become reality before a permanent settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

*

Again, The Guardian 2003:

The revival of the pipeline was first discussed openly by the Israeli Minister for National Infrastructures, Joseph Paritzky, according to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz .

The paper quotes Paritzky as saying that the pipeline would cut Israel's energy bill drastically - probably by more than 25 per cent - since the country is currently largely dependent on expensive imports from Russia.

US intelligence sources confirmed to The Observer that the project has been discussed. One former senior CIA official said: 'It has long been a dream of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration [of President George W. Bush] and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel's energy supply as well as that of the United States.

*