I can't remember the exact figure bu the US congress voted something like 420-4 in favour of the Israeli action against Lebanon. They are drastically out of step with the International community and probably with their own constituents.

Beginning of the end indeed.

That article is well written deserving full marks.

I believe that for nations such as America, Israel, Australia, etc to wake up, there will have to be a massive defeat against us all because of the unwarranted interferring against the world.

A lot of good work has been done by America in securing peace and these wacko's are out to destroy it all.

Deterrence doesn’t work against fanatics. The only way to stop them is to wipe them out. Thanks to the United Nations and its soft, wet EU members (who never dirty their own hands), the most recent opportunity to do this has again been taken away from Israel, and Hezbollah and other Middle East maniacs feel further empowered to carry on.

Note that Taimor Hazou demonstrates his and his Arabic think tanks claimed non-partisanship by stressing the destruction and loss off life in Lebanon (the aggressor) only, and races on to blame Israel and the US. And, as for the reference to one of the hick Jimmy Carter’s equally hickish advisors saying that the majority of the Middle Eastern countries will turn against the US – well, hallo! Name one that doesn’t hate America’s guts already.

And then, to pull in a couple of do-nothing has-beens like Malcolm Fraser and Farmer Fischer. Well, what can one say.

If Hazou’s name is not already on the Canberra lists, this twisted rant should certainly see him added

Leigh, the reason the EU isn't in favour 'wiping them out' is because they tried doing that to each other for centuries, and finally, after 2 devastating industrial wars they realised that they either put aside their difference or face total annihilation.

The Europeans are frustrated because they see the US/Israel making the same mistakes they did.

Sadly, I fear Taimor Haizou is right. US and Israeli deterrence through fear is not working any more in the Middle East. A similar point was well made today in the Canberra Times by Ramesh Thakur, who wrote: if the US (or Israel) destroys a house filled with 100 civilians in order to kill one known terrorist there, and of those 100, 90 die and 10 family members survive to become new terrorists out of implacable despair and drive for revenge, the number of terrorist enemies is multiplied by a factor of 10. That is pretty much what has just happened in Lebanon these past six weeks. Overkill deterrence just does not work – setting aside that it is a crime against humanity.

The time for peace is indeed overdue, but it may be too late for a two-state solution – the Israeli government has so carved up and walled in what could have initially been a viable Palestinian state that this can no longer work. 250,000 Israeli settlers are not going to go back tamely within the borders of Israel proper. The only way out now - the present spiral of hate and war can only end in another Masada, in this generation or the next - is a new bi-national Israeli-Palestinian secular state on the territory of Israel and what is left of Palestine, uniting the two communities in a society that is based on pluralism and equal rights for all citizens regardless of race or creed.

Would that mean the end of the state of Israel? Yes, it would. Would it mean killing or expelling the Jewish citizens of the present state of Israel? No it wouldn’t – it would mean a new state based on peace and common humanity. Israel cannot continue along its present cruel and reckless path –that way lies only more death and destruction towards an eventual huge catastrophe for all.

Hopelessly visionary ? Before making up your mind, read this 2003 article by Professor Tony Judt, advocating such an approach, in the New York Review of Books:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16671
Tony Kevin

Commissar Leigh,

Well said! All who oppose us must be wiped out! Exterminate! Exterminate!

And until Taimor [Obviously Arabic for Terrorist!] Hazou [Obviously Arabic code for Hezbollah!] is exterminated, please ensure he's on that "Canberra List" you mentioned.

Greetings from Commissar Strewth

The strenght of Hazou's article is that the same conclusion has been arrived at independantly by noted westerners from different political persuasions. And they tend mirror moderate Arab and Palestinian positions. Many of us mere mortals have arrived at the same conclusion albeit from different starting points.

Leigh's right. “Deterrence doesn’t work against fanatics”. We see this in Israel's defence minister stating, their failed commando (terrorist) raid into Lebanon, was so Israel can prepare for their next round of assaults.

Terrorism speaks for itself. Afghanistan, currently fighting the invading coalition of destruction. Iraq, currently defending their country against the invading coalition of destruction. Palestine, Lebanon, currently fighting the constant invading attacks by Jews. Who's the terrorists.

Thousands kidnapped, murdered, incarcerated and untried, indiscriminate bombing, carried out by the Jewish invaders from their beach head. Judah christianity, killing, maiming, destroying people, infrastructure and economies in their unbridled zest for power. Who's the terrorists

On the other side, a small number of attacks outside the Middle east killing people over the last 5 years. Not day after day around the world, as with the judah christian assaults on other peoples countries. Arabs aren't blowing up cities, bombing people daily or causing disruption around the world. Its Christian Judaism's propaganda that's promoting fear and terrorism worldwide.

So who's the fanatics here, but the followers of Yahweh, god of war. If we're lucky, the world will open its eyes and see who's at fault, who causes the most destruction and whose followers always talk of peace yet use murder and ethnic cleansing as their solution.

If zionist's hadn't invaded the Middle East, causing ongoing war, there'd probably be no islamic terrorism. Jews and Christians have provoked this situation, invading and grabbing control of oil. Before long the coalition of the despotic, will feel the heat of disquiet, distrust and rejection by sensible peoples of the world

The credibility of these despots from all Yahweh factions, is beyond redemption, the world's starting to judge them harshly. Once the tide turns against these morons, as it historically does, we'll have a final solution, by burying the god of war, yahweh, for good.

50 million christian zionists share Leigh's view but it is very strange. Their claim is that if all the Jews go back to Israel that will bring about the second coming, 2 billion people will be slaughtered and we will all live in a peaceful Utopia for 1000 years.

I would prefer not to have to wipe out 2 billion people based on the rantings of these fundamentalist lunatics thanks Leigh.

Now there have been arabs and Jews both in Australia for decades if not centuries living side by side without too many problems so why are we carrying on like nutcases now about either group? They all have the right to live.

Most of South Lebanon has been littered with cluster bombs that are blowing up children with one site having been identified as a hospital, they are in houses and back yards, orchards and cropping lands.

No justification for this from the IDF that I can see yet I guess Leigh would applaud it. War crimes is war crimes Leigh and your attitude reduces you to about the level of a mindless, racist fundamentalist.

Don't like that description? Well, guess what? My arab and muslim friends don't like your blanket description of them as they are all gentle, intelligent people who love their children.

Nations of Europe and Ireland are opposed to all these 'Destroy Destroy' wars of USA and her subserviant allies...all subserviant to an immoral Israel.

Ever wonder why?

It is because they have experienced it first hand while nations such as America and Australia have never really experienced this beast of war. It's so easy to crave for war when you've never really ever experienced it yourself.

Leigh, it is people like you that the people need to fear. You need the people to fear the government when its the government that should fear the people.

I believe in strong dissent and if that means people blockading the Parliaments, bringing down the economy to remove our corrupt, war mongering leaders, then so be it.

Dissent is the responsibility of the people in both out false democratic system and dictatorships.

Unfortunately when I read piece after piece on OLO on the Middle East issue, I find myself driven to an unpalatable but inescapable conclusion: that Israel should do more or less what it's been doing on the West Bank. Build a bloody big wall around itself and let those on the other side fend for themselves.

Hezbollah should not have kidnapped those two Israeli soldiers. It was an opportunistic attempt to inflict wounds while Israel's attention was on the events in Gaza. If Hezbollah had not been so stupid, then none of this would have happened.

Anth

I think Taimor is spot on with much of what he says. Hezbollah have pushed Israel's buttons and despite deplorable tactics, have managed to win the propaganda war.

So, what next. The UN move in, the people of South Lebanon move back home and Hezbollah open up on Israel's towns and cities again. Isreal now appears to target not only civilians placed in harms way by Hezbollah, but also an ineffective UN. All played out (again) in front of the world's TV news cameras.

Masterful!

Alchemist,
I believe (delving deep into memory) that the Yaweh god of Moses was actually a god that was created by the people who lived in what is now Jordan. It was(is?) a god of volcanoes and was merged with the Abraham god when the two groups collided.

This invasion and demolition of Lebanon back 20 years started being planned as early as February 2005, was endorsed by the US and UK months before the kidnapping.

What is this farcical nonsense that smashing most of a country, killing 1300 people in Lebanon and getting 150 Israelis killed and other appalling stats. is about 2 soldiers being kidnapped especially now that Haaretz reports that Peretz has ordered the negotiation of their release?

People need to be a mite more realistic I think. What say the Israelis gave back the Palestinian land, the settlers stopped using it as an excuse to play the victims, the gave back the Golan heights and they gave back the Shebaa farms.

Even Austraila, Canada and the US have managed to return land to aborigines, inuit and Indians without savage consequences.

If anyone does not believe that 'total elimination' does not work, they should refer to the activities of the 'Great Khan' who dealt with the "Ismailies" who were the "proto Hezbollah" of the Islamic world.

I won't repeat all I've said about human solutions in detail, but the bones are:

Warn
Defeat
Deport
Disperse
Absorb.

Tony Kevin, you point about creating 10 more terrorists for the sake of one, is not lost on me. But the difficulty becomes 'how many anti terrorists' are created in embryo form of not fully born, by the actions of Muslim terrorists against Western Interests ? The relatives of 9/11 and Embassy bombings. I wonder how many now work for the CIA etc ?

Marilyn please stop self medicating and for goodness sake have a nice long rest. Step back for a moment, the destiny of the world does not depend on you, or your friends. Perhaps your energies would be better spent in quiet humble service ? rather than shouting and ranting.

Look up the work of this man... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Warren

I'd be interested in your take on his bio.

Cheers

Marilyn, neither Aborigines, Inuit nor Indians call for the desctruction of Australia, Canada or the USA. Neither do they fire Qassam rockets into cities. Neither do they send suicide bombers into buses and marketplaces.

I personally believe that in Australia we should honour our Aboriginal people and their culture, and that some level of land justice should occur. But if I thought they were going to bomb Australian cities I am not sure I would feel the same way.

So far as I know, Israel has not called for the destruction of any nation states. They made tentative steps in the right direction by withdrawing from Gaza. And what was the Palestinian people's response? They elected a government led by an internationally listed terrorist organisation. No wonder the hawks are in the ascendency in Israel.

Re: The beginning of the end? DOOMSDAY?

Doomsday Pending? or Doomsday Thwarted?

In the year 1905, Nobel physicist, Albert Einstein, discovered the Proton Genie, and gave the World his paradigm E=mc² equation.

Einstein proved that extracting and fusing PROTONS from ordinary pure water can make everybody on Earth so idly rich and content from the benefits of this clean, virtually-free and inexhaustible energy supply that nobody should ever again have to worry about pollution, war or poverty, and Mother Nature can once again reign as The Supreme Mistress of any and all Climate Change.

The Earth Clock reads: One Minute Until Doomsday!

Is it too late? Or, will some ordinary, individual tinkerer (maybe just an average high school student) rise to the occasion and demonstrate the physical expression of Einstein's equation so that the entire World Population can move forward into the future with peace, contentment, and tranquility?

web site:
http://howtosavecivilization.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-to-save-civilization.html

Narcissist, the Hebrew god, variously called Yahweh, Yaw, Yah, Yahu, El, Elohim or Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, could well be a conglomerate of other gods, up to 50, if you drag them all out of the bible and other works used in creating the old testament..

Historical evidence shows, if there's a God at all, that God is a God of anger, revenge, jealousy, a violent war engrossed god. This description fits only one perfectly, Yahweh.

Yahweh's commandment to the Israelites was firstly, to fear him (Deut.110:12). The wrath of Yahweh was felt by hundreds of thousands of innocents, who were in the way of his plans for his chosen people. They were eradicated in a continuous blood-bath that marks Yahweh's modus operandi throughout the Old Testament.

Two thousand years of history, seemingly unexplainable in terms of a loving Christian God, is perfectly consistent with the character of Yahweh. The wars, the pogroms, the suffering, the ethnic eradications are copied right out of Yahweh's record in the Old Testament and continued today

In the New Testament we're informed Jesus Christ was Yahweh-Elohim of the Old Testament. So Christ made Adam and Eve, Christ gave Moses the 10 Commandments, the God-blinded Jews unknowingly had been worshipping Christ, not God the Father.

Then along comes Islam, saying, Jesus was not the God of the Old Testament, Allah was. So we have before us, some 4,000 years of Godly usurpations via the rise and fall of political entities, debated in the blood of innocents and on the battle fields of the world.

Anth

Whatever gave you or Israel the right to decide who the Palestinians should elect or not elect? Surely if Hamas didn't behave as the voters wished, and prior to the election they stated they would not endorse or follow through with their desire for the destruction of Israel, then they would be answerable at the ballot box. If they had carried on with that violent attitude, then they'd be going to get the same rejection that Ehud and his warmongering mates are about to get at the next Israeli election.

Remember the shelling of Palestinian civilians on Gaza Beach? No violence was shown by Hamas or the Palestinian Government prior to that. A kidnapping of an Israeli solder followed that outrage. Then followed the mayhem persued by Ehud and his warmonger mates.

Why didn't Ehud and his mates do what they are doing not? Negotiating with Hamas...well the Parliamentary Members of Hamas who are not DETAINED by the Israelis.

What right have Israel to interfere in the internal affairs of another Government?

They are not democrats, they don't believe in the goodness of democracy. They are no better than barbarians who feign a likeness for democracy. I think they in fact just manipulate democracy so as to gain support from Western Liberal Democracies. Certianly they are not liberal and do not carry on the Western traditions of our Greek and Hebrew heritage...yep but they are Judeo-christian fundamentalists something the west rejected centuries ago.

Mate there is no depth in your argument it is as simple as the Israeli propaganda and that thinks we are all idiots who will blindly swallow their line ... because we have done so for decades.

Heh, nice post Strewth.

The moment I read the article, I was just waiting for a rabid white winger to show the colour of their teeth - sure enough Leigh, you provided an excellent example. Wipe them out? come on. Seriously. (You aren't serious are you? that would be kind of scary...)

The article is reasonably well written - (though according to Leigh's worldview, apparently I'm now a terrorist... damn. Kind of shame we don't have a better definition dont'cha think? Or maybe that would make it harder to lock people up without charge...)

It's a simple assessment of the facts - they're trying to bomb a concept.
You can't do that, it doesn't work.
You bomb it, you may destroy the buildings, but you construct a support base.

And as for exterminating the enemy entirely, the muslim people represent nearly a quarter of the planet's population... that would make the holocaust look like a day at the park.
Is that what you want to be Leigh? a nazi? I don't mean that as a facetious question, though in light of your earlier statements I think it's a valid one.

Dear Keith

You said 2 things:

1/ Remember the shelling of Palestinian civilians on Gaza Beach? No violence was shown by Hamas or the Palestinian Government prior to that.

COMMENT... r u serious ? good grief. ur a worry. To what point in time do you consider 'prior' ? Mate.. *shake shake*..... I've been reading the papers too u know, and I recall numerous attempts to penetrate the barrier, with explosives. Tunnels, checkpoint attacks etc etc etc. I also remember when there was a 'ceasefire' for like 6months and suddenly out of the blue KA-BOOOOOOOOOOM a bus full of Jewish civilians is blown up for no reason. (now go on.. tell me Mossad did it ? :)

2/ What right have Israel to interfere in the internal affairs of another Government?

COMMENT = "Plenty"

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

Keith, would you PLEASE READ carefully the Charter of this 'democratically elected' government Hamas. It's just as bad as MEIN KAMPF
Instead of referring to the 3rd REICH lasting for a 1000 years, it refers to the Islamic WAQF from the day of conquest to the day of resurrection. Meaning "Palestine".

If you don't appreciate what this means, in terms of the very existence of Israel, then please refrain from commmenting on that which you clearly have not sufficiently researched.
You are letting emotion and compassion rule your reason instead of the other way round.

Have you read it ?

Do you understand it ?

Article 8 = Justification and encouragement of homicide bombing.
Article 11 =

a) Admission that it was taken BY FORCE by the Muslims.
b) Declaration that it can NEVER be ceded in part or in whole.

Israelis can actually read mate... and reading this, If I was an Israeli, would hold every palestinian voter responsible for the destruction which is now inevitable and which you see with your own eyes.

Possibly not defeat, because America still has brute force, but just a quiet signal from the right quarter, that the US must change its ways.

One of our posters blames the UN, saying that it has been always against America using force.

But since WW2, has not America, apart from helping win a few skirmishes, like Korea and Serbia been more in trouble through using force unlawfully or preemptively, similar to the attack on Cambodia during the Vietnam War, which according to historians, the increasing unpopularity at home helped them to actually lose in Vietnam.

As the move into Cambodia was carried out mainly from orders by Henry Kissinger, Minister of State at the time, it is so interesting that the more recent illegal preemptive attack on Iraq was also carried out partly at the bid of persons of Jewish ancestry similar to Kissinger who has also been accused of double diplomacy instigating the first Arab attack on the fledging Israel, already having warned Israel about an impending Arab attack and having them quickly armed accordingly.

We might well wonder who is really running America, and many are possibly beginning to agree that the hate that has developed between the Arabs and the Israelis since Israel has been so powerfully armed by the US, makes us wonder that possibly the weakest thing that the UN allowed happen in the Middle-East was to let Israel go militarily nuclear.

Part Two

Not sure, but was it another US veto that allowed Israel to manufacture atomic warheads? If Iran justifiably does the same, God knows what might happen?

But what we might suggest after using overhead logic possibly, is that what the US has been losing lately in the Middle-East and thus throughout the world, is that eminent respect she achieved after WW2, even though it took the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, to bring her into the war.

How could we bring America back to sanity? If miracles could happen, maybe both Tony Blair and John Howard could do a turn about face and admit they’d backed the wrong horse.

Anyhow, if there is any praying to be done by the more religous members of our group, please pray not for America to be more powerful, but for the UN to be more powerful, which one could believe a global vote would win hands down.

bushbred: I know you think the U.N. is a fantastic organisation, whereas I see it as a corrupt and unaccountable would-be world government. We've been through that before though.

Anyhow, about the topic...

Personally, I don't see that there will ever be peace in the Middle East. Other regions may advance themselves so they can engage in scientific inquiry and commercial trade, but I don't see modernism as being on the agenda of that region.

I do indeed think it's a massive mistake for the west to be involved in the entire region. I think what we need to do is hurry up with the alternative fuels so we can cut the region loose. The Jews have indeed produced a lot of great minds, but unfortunately, if some of those great minds insist in on staying in Israel, then that's too bad for them. I say we just cut the entire barren, crappy region (after all, aside from oil, what does the ME produce -- intellectually, culturally or in terms of resources or finished products -- that actually matters to anyone? Minus oil, it contributes about as much as the Falkland Islands or Franz Joseph Land) loose and let it descend back into the Dark Ages where it belongs and desires to be.

Let's leave them alone to their own inanity, but let's not be pacifists if they won't content themselves with their own in-fighting.

I think what we are seeing in the Middle East, is that tribalism
is still very much the problem there. Even on this thread,
we see Marylin getting her breasts in a tangle over Lebanon,
yet lets look at the reality:

In Iraq, Sunnis are killing Shias, Shias killing Sunnis,
around 3500 last month, so three times as many casualties
as in Lebanon, in just one month.

In Darfur, Arab Muslims are killing black non Muslims
by the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, yet
the Arab world remains largely silent about what their
brothers are up to, prefering to focus on 1000 people
in Lebanon.

There are many more examples.

Looks like our tribal heritage shows up again and again,
especially in the Middle East, where its still
common thinking.

There's also been a lot of bad committed by my country. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the bad out-weighs the good, but at some point it may, unless science helps soon.

Capitalism is only as good as the ethics which compete for attention with profit motive by decision-makers -- not that I have a better recommendation for governance. Greedy corporate execs result in bad for everybody in the world, and charitable donations to Causes are insignificant to the total impact -- a token to diminish societal guilt.

I believe that America made another horrible mistake by intervening needlessly in Iraq -- similar to Vietnam. The obvious result, of course, will be, ultimately, a religious cause that draws plently of programmed participants against peace.

Our pollution has contributed to global warming. Our consumerism is out-of-control. But, we still produce the best rock and roll music --and that's our true saving grace.

Robert Eggleton
"Rarity from the Hollow"

Good article Timor,

Yabby I am intrigued to know why you think I only care about the 1,000 Lebanese civilians slaughtered by the Israelis and then seem to connect it to some tribal thing. I have French, Scots, English, Welsh, German, Irish and Cornish ancestry - not a trace of Middle Eastern in me. Blue eyed blonde actually. Pure Aryan if you must know.

What bothers me so much about the Iraq and Lebanon adventures by the US and Israel is the lies told in each case with the ensuing destruction. I just bet though that the Iraqis, Afghans and Sudanese would have loved a 34 day spat instead of the grinding, daily horror they live with.

Perhaps also the fact that Lebanon was immediately in our faces with the best journalists in the world bringing us the first stories of the deaths of children with the pictures attached. And that our parliament all said nothing.

Nada, zip. Now Haaretz state that the 5 Hezbollah "terrorists" that were the cause of the Baalbek bombings that slaughtered even an infant in the womb (Peter Wilson, Australian 5-6 August) have been released as innocent civilians and two of them were just kids.

It is the lies I think that make it so disturbing.

Keith,

You're dead set right about one thing. The Gaza beach tragedy was awful. Shouldn't have happened. Heads should roll. Israel should be ashamed of itself on that account. As Martin Ferguson famously said, I'm not going to try to defend the indefensible.

On the Palestinian election issue, though, you're shaky. See I didn't presume to tell the Palestinian people for whom they should vote. What I was getting at was that if the Palestinian people have, in free and open elections, given a mandate to a terrorist organisation to form a government and lead them, then it is not unreasonable to characterise the nation as a whole on the basis of its decisions. If the Palestinian people choose to be led and represented by terrorists, then let them face the consequences.

No longer can they argue "Oh, those terrorists are not the real Palestine, they're just extremists who don't represent us." Sorry. They're still terrorists, but now they've been elected by the Palestinian population and they *do* represent all of Palestine.

In short - a terrorist who wins at the ballot box is still a terrorist, and you can't blame the Israelis for treating them as such.

Yabby's comment was a good one - you cannot underestimate the significance of tribalism within the area.

What I suppose really bothers me about the whole Iraq war was its irrelevance - supposedly, public enemy number one is Al Qaeda right?

So why did the crusading americans head for Iraq? It was a reasonably secular nation insofar as hussein's iron fist did not allow for any militia outside his control - and that included Al Qaeda.
Now the country is prime position for any fundamentalist with a grudge, especially seeing as they can take potshots at american soldiers from the comfort of the middle east. I'm quite sure that when the dust settles, it will be a breeding ground for militants - let's face it, its going to be similar to the situation in afghanistan - the cities represent a relative level of calm, but outside them is a no mans land.

And as for hussein having WMDs. Uh huh. Everybody pointed to the fact that he wasn't denying it, but look at his position - he needed to maintain a position of strength among his hostile neighbours. Of course he didn't admit he had a flimsy defence.

So clearly, Iraq had nothing to do with the 'war on terror'. Which just leaves oil as the prime motive. It's amazing how often economical as opposed to political reasoning is ignored by the mainstream media when reasons for war are debated.

Good heavens Anth, how self-righteous you are about "terrorist" organisations.

Perhaps you forgot that they are only considered "terr'sts" by the US, Israel and perhaps us - they are actually a group that was born out of protecting themselves from the occupation of the Gaza and West Bank by Israel. Just as Hezbollah came about because of Israel's occupation of Lebanon. Do you seriously think then that Israel has the right to kidnap and incarcerate people who were elected?

And how dare you suggest that the people of Palestine must be punished because they elected them. The US elected that moron Bush and we keep electing the repulsive Howard.

We have blown up Iraq without cause so by your reckoning Iraq are entitled to blow all of us up. Actually the probably are.

The Afghan people didn't want Bin Laden - the US trained him and his cronies who are now the terrorist government of Afghanistan to get rid of the Russians.

And we all suffer because of it.

And if you want to blow up terrorist organisations or the people who support them you have to surely start with Fort Benning, Georgia where more terrorists have been trained than in any other place in the world.

Here is a news flash - you don't slaughter the children because you think their father is a criminal.

Part One

Maybe you could learn a bit more about Middle East history, Shorbe, where you will find that the US in the ME has never liked UN involvement because the UN has most always tried to cramp her style there.

A letter in our latest WA Sunday Times, points out how the US has used its veto 81 times since its inception near the end of WW2, and you can bet your life, that most of the US vetoes were to do with Middle East political problems.

Though in retirement, we are part of a group who has been studying historical philosophy for the last 13 years, going right back to the early Greeks where the idea of democracy first came from.

The trouble with America since the end of the Cold War, rather than working more pacifically through the UN, she has been too much like the Roman Empire, believing that peace can only be kept by the strong arm, not so much with the level head.

Malcom Fraser and Tim Fisher in fact, in the future might be termed those of the level heads, rather than John Howard, who could be now rightly termed as having the political knack at close quarters, but not enough knack to benefit from the lessons of history.

Part Two

Future world historians will be not far wrong to call our period that of the American Empire, including the fact of both Tony Blair and John Howard foolishly tagging along, to call it part of the intriguing 300 year period of the English speaking Anglophilic Empire.

Shorbe, you talk about the West, including the Israelies getting out and leaving the Middle-East to drown in their own problems, but you forget that just to the east of Iran, is the edge of an ancient area with a whole new concept of largely Western ideas, they can improve upon. India and China, for example, both nuclear powers, with Russia possibly on side as well.

Returning to the UN, maybe in the future the US will be forced to have need of the United Nations she has scorned so much by means of the veto, enabling her to carry out unlawful preemptive strikes as on Cambodia and more recently on Iraq. From now on it is up to the UN members to gain a bit of guts and have vetos dropped into the rubbish bins where they belong, allowing the UN to perform the sterling task it was originally designed to do at the behest of Franklin Roosevelt, and Konrad Adenuear et al.

bushbred: Okay, so America has had dreams of empire of late (actually, it goes a lot further back). So, who doesn't or hasn't? Civilisations have spent millenia not living in peace with each other and trying to expand at each other's expense. They're not going to change their tune just because Europe is now on the decline and is having a big sulk.

As elsewhere, you haven't actually addressed my grievances with the U.N. Firstly, I never got to elect Kofi Annan. How could a fourth, even more distant level of government actually be more accountable and representative of anyone, anywhere?

Secondly, here's where I think you really miss the point. America isn't perfect (and I certainly don't like its hegemony), but by removing its veto (and presumably those of China, Russia, Britain and France), what you're saying is that America should be on a level footing with every two-bit third-world dictatorship. It's desirable that every uncivilised hellhole on earth should be able to hold the west over a barrel?

More importantly though, removing America's veto would actually hasten the demise of the U.N., so it would be counter-productive to your goals anyway. How long do you think America would remain in the U.N. sans veto? Once it left, how long do you think it would be before China and a whole bunch of other nations followed? Would anyone important actually remain in the U.N.? (Don't mention any European nation because no one anywhere actually takes them seriously.)

Then you bring in the red herring of China, India and Russia. Aside from the irrelevance of them concerning the Middle East post-oil, it's highly unlikely they'll ever form a bloc in the medium to long term. China and India still have unresolved borders, which is just the tip of the iceberg between those two. Russia could only gain from China in the short term as ultimately, it would be a minor partner or else it would lose influence (and possibly land) in both central Asia and Siberia.

Spare me the anti-American rhetoric without thinking about a viable replacement to American hegemony.

Marilyn

You accuse the US and Israel of telling lies. Is no one else, perhaps Hezbollah telling lies? Or is lying all one sided. And rightly you are concerned with the killing of children. Does this also include Israeli children killed by Hexbollah and Hamas rockets and suicide bombs? Are they also not innocent of their parents quarrel?

If so why not declare it. That would make us feel better about you. I too hate the killing of Arab children.

And in Iraq you consider that it is not terrorism for locals to kill Americans. Perhaps you have a point there. But what about Shi'ites who I understand have been killed by Sunnis and vice versa. Is this not terrorism, or is this just a set of lies and never happened?

And in Aghanistan were Afghan people not involved in the destruction of the Taliban? And what was Saddam doing before the Americans arrived?

The following website is by a Christian from Lebanon who was most unhappy with the siruation.

http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/columbia-university-speech.html

And there have been others. I realise this is from an American University site so perhaps it must be all lies of Israel and the West?

Please I am interested.

For those dreaming about replacing the only Jewish state in the world - it will never happen. Do not play with fire and under-estimate Israel's determination: I agree that it is probably the beginning of the end for America, but if indeed this is the beginning of the end for Israel as well, then the only possible outcome is the whole middle-east becoming a radioactive waste-land, no oil at all from that region and an enormous amount of cancerous gases and poisoned water significantly shortening the life-span and life-quality of the rest of the world. Those cheering for terrorist success - you will reap what you sew.

Israel is indeed losing because its ability to explain to the world what it's doing and why it's justified, does not match the capabilities of its air-force, navy and army. If article after article like this are published here, as in the rest of the world, full of and based on factual lies that demonize Israel for every evil under the sun which they never committed, and so many readers take it for granted to be true, including even Anth who in principle supports israel, then despite all success on the battlefield, Israel has lost the overall war. Myself, I am now tired of repeatedly pointing out how all those libelious claims are false - only to see them repeated in the next article. Then, what's the point discussing anything based on incorrect facts?

However, I do not see the end coming, but a bright future for Israel once it is relieved of its crippling dependency on the failing USA. For starters, it will no longer receive the mis-directed hate of the world against America (caused by totally unrelated issues).

There will eventually be a fair two-state solution based on the pre-1967 borders and every one will be happy except the terrorists and their supporters. How long it will take, depends on each and every one of us committing to fight fundamentalist extremism on both sides rather than the innocent people caught in between that only try to defend themselves.

Shorbe,
Russia and China are actually very relevant to what is happening in the Middle East. Russia is the world’s biggest producer of natural gas and a significant oil producer. The pipelines coming from Russian go through the Middle East and this is the background to most of the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and (soon) Iran. These pipelines had to be completed to supply China’s growing demands, otherwise contracts could not be met and the global oil price would rise.

Likewise, China had energy supply agreements with Albania and these played a more significant part in the Bosnia/Serbia conflict than many people realise.

Kofi Annan? It’s interesting that he is married to a member of the Rothschild dynasty – one of the prime movers in establishing centralised banking systems in each country as they are invaded by the West. There are only about 5 countries left, including Iran, Libya and North Korea. I sometimes wonder where his loyalties really lie. Nevertheless, I prefer a strong independent UN to a rogue State policing the world for it's own domestic agenda.

Saddam and WMD? He had a “beware of the dog” sign but didn’t have the dog to back it up. He also had Iraq’s oil tied to the Euro, rather than the US dollar - another reason for him to go.

Israeli influence on the West? This site has a lot of interesting resources.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

Marilyn will get a lot of justification for her comments here – many others may feel a little uncomfortable. Of course, some will suspect that it's all propaganda but,unlike many other sites like it, the links all seem to go to reputable independent sources.

Actually, Marilyn, I don't support the war on Iraq. Interesting that your attempts to argue by analogy actually involve setting up straw men.

I know none of this will budge you an iota, but I'll have a shot at explaining myself more simply. Tell me if this remains too complex.

Hamas are terrorists. They are terrorists because they send young men and women laden down with bombs to blow up civilian targets. That is called terrorism. (Arguing that the military of Israel, or Australia, or anyone else is also terrosist is actually irrelevant, insofar as classifying Hamas goes)

Democratic elections are about determining, as a polity, the nature of those who represent you. Palestine, as a Polity, has chosen to be represented by Hamas.

Consequently, the Palestinians have chosen to be led and represented by a terrorist organisation.

If you can tell me where the logic is wrong here, I will listen.

Anth

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE180072006

Good for you Yuyu, now here is the initial amnesty International report on the scale of destruction against Lebanon this time around.

While Israel whine about 41 civilians being killed (which is terrible) and a few thousand mickey mouse Katushyas actually hitting something ocassionally try looking at what Israel did to Lebanon.

7,000 air bombardments, 2,500 sea bombardments, cluster bombs and all sorts of other weapons, thousands of homes demolished and so on.

Now tell me how often Lebanon have built homes on Israeli land - do a graphic similar to the one for the Palestinians and we can all see for ourselves the determination to keep a Jewish state.

None of us argue with the right to do that. What we argue with is the non-right of Israel to constantly kill, bomb and persecute her neighbours. Have a look at the scale of horror inflicted on people in Lebanon in a war that Israel planned months earlier.

And the two soldiers who were supposed to have been kidnapped? Who knows except according to Haaretz Israel are now negotiating their release.

What a tragedy this has all been and Israel are the biggest losers no matter how clever they think they were.

Interestingly millions of Australians who once agreed with your position no longer do.

wobbles: I was talking about a world post-oil where alternative energy sources (eg. biodiesel or ethanol) were used. The Middle East would be quite irrelevant in such a scenario, and so what China, India or Russia (or anyone else) did or didn't do in the Middle East would be irrelevant because without oil, the Middle East would be a pretty insignificant region. Fertile regions would be jostled over for fuel, and many western nations (eg. U.S., Canada, Australia, Brazil) would probably be self-sufficient for fuel.

(Actually, pipelines from Russia don't go through the Middle East. They can go into the Black or Caspian Seas, Iran or central Asia. None of these is in the Middle East).

What exactly would an independent U.N. look like? In order to get any of the major players on board, they have to have some sort of special rights above and beyond everyone else or they won't be in it. So it's a case of whether they're officially sanctioned rogue states or not, and let's not forget that whilst the U.S. certainly does see itself to some extent as the world policeman, a lot who complain about that (ie. Europe) are the first to demand the U.S. step in to solve problems they can't or won't (ie. WW1, WW2, The Cold War, Yugoslavia). The whole situation is very complex.

Anyhow, the reason there used to be some sort of check on the U.S.A. had nothing much to do with the U.N., but more to do with the fact that there was another superpower in the U.S.S.R. One day, America may be checked (or eclipsed) by China for instance, but the U.N. is, and always will be, irrelevant at best (and quite possibly just a major pain in the backside to everyone concerned.

“Terrorism is the systematic use or threatened use of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious, or ideological change.[1][2] Acts of terrorism are not intended to merely victimize or eliminate those who are killed, injured, or taken hostage, but rather to intimidate and influence the societies to which they belong.” Wikipedia.
Anth, how does this differ from what Israel, the USA and other religiously driven countries are doing around the world. Being an apologies for any monotheistic faction, doesn't alter the facts your all one and the same. Psychological, Social, moral, cultural, physical and spiritual terrorists.

Israel's establishment was by terrorist acts, nothing has changed. Kidnapping elected members of the government of any other nation, is the act of terrorists. Israel's current invasion was nothing less than an act of terror,. “Terror is a pronounced state of fear, an overwhelming sense of imminent danger “. You don't believe the people of Beirut, Gaza, or greater Lebanon have not felt terrorised, when occupying zionists invade, kill people, destroy buildings and kidnap, isn't a act of terror.

But of course they believe in the wrong god, and the infantile righteous, I want and I'll kill to get it mob, carry on with heads held high as they grovel in the slaughter they are committing around the world in the name of Yahweh..

Anth, this is the beginning of the end for the followers of Yahweh, clutch to the straw man god, and you'll sink with it into a more depraved state and outcomes.

I don’t think the problem has to be solved with deterrence. The instigators are on many levels, Israel and the US. Both want a reason to get their way into the Middle East, and what better reason to destroy the Hezbollah and rid the world of extremists. The point raised in some posts before that bombing Lebanon, and killing some terrorists, makes way for a civilian to become another terrorist is quite true, and unnecessary forms of conflict will raise risks of extremism in other countries, even the West. There is an image we do not see often is it, the western terrorist. Seems a bit farfetched doesn’t it? Well it is quite possible, if people are drawn to their limits worldwide. This conflict may escalate or it may not, but it certainly has potential to bring global conflict and war. Death that is not needed and can be avoided. My point of argument is this; we focus on the wrong areas to stop this problem of extremist and terrorism

Boaz David

Did you read the election manifesto of Hamas?

I have been unable to find it but it did drop the requirement for the desrtruction of the State of Israel.

I found this report from a UK paper.

'Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Thursday January 12, 2006
The Guardian

Hamas has dropped its call for the destruction of Israel from its manifesto for the Palestinian parliamentary election in a fortnight...'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1684472,00.html

From this your rant about the Hamas charter might be correct but the policy presented, in it's election manifesto, to the Palestinian people contradicts your allegation.

In democracies candidates are elected on their policy not their party manifesto. Hamas would be answerable to the electorate at the next election had they not adhered to their manifesto. They are not answerable for their Party Charter.

You like all Israeli mouthpieces and the Western Media overlooked this basic tenet of democracy. You've all attacked the Palestinians for electing Hamas. A modicum of understanding of true democracy and decency would have seen the acceptance of the Palestinians choice. Hamas would have changed just as the PLO had under the corrupt arafat.

The Israeli's cannot afford to have peace with Palestine or their neighbours. That would limit their expansion.

It was also reported Hamas was leaning to or had accepted the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002.

It called for the following;

'...for the state of Israel to withdraw its forces from all the Occupied Territories, including the Golan Heights, to recognize "an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital" in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as a "just solution" for the Palestinian refugees. In exchange the Arab states affirmed that they would recognize the state of Israel, consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over and establish "normal relations" with Israel.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative

That propasal hasn 't been accepted by Israel.

Why not?

That is exactly what occurred between Jordan, Egypt and Israel. Hamas originally was a branch of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, that still exists in Egypt today.

You might read this but your's and Israel's ears are closed to truth.

Part One

Shorbe, thanks for the interesting answer to my reply Post.

However, there is much more historical back-up needed to prove my point about the use of the veto by strong nations - such as the veto weakening the original intended democratic status of the UN.

During the Cold War to keep out the slow learners, as you might say, were suggestions about regional representation to balance against major powers. It was suggested that Western Europe, for instance, should only have a small delegation, with one leader representing the whole area. An intensive study went into it at the time, but it fell through , leaving the big powers holding vetos which certainly has put the UN at their mercy. There has also been accusations that why the elected heads of the UN like Kofi Annan, have been usually from the less important nations, is to give appearance of fairer global representation.

Anyhow, Shorbe, your point of view that America is quite capable of running the whole global show sounds somewhat too simplistic. It goes along with the same wornout argument that is still used to support the British Empire as having achieved more democracy in her colonial world than there would have been without the empire.

Using the modern American Empire in the same way in our troubled world, historians might argue that the only difference really today is the change from British gunboat diplomacy in the colonial times, to US missile diplomacy in our own times as well as very likely well into the future. Let us only pray that those American missiles will never be fitted with nuclear warheads.

Part One

One of the worries about the present rulership of America, according to Dr Denis Kenny, an Australian political scientist formerly teaching at Harvard in the US, is the growing tendency towards religous fundamentalism, which he calls an extremism which can too easily be induced to turn militant to support a cause.

Even in Mandurah here, we have a charismatic group from our Anglican Church who have links with the American religous right declaring that they have received spiritual messages about Heaven having forgiven the Jews for the Crucifixion with a brand new Jesus all ready for a Second Coming with Israel in sound position.

Going by the paragraph above, maybe it might be better that we forget about faith in these bad times and stick more to reason.

Shorbe,
The pipelines I was referring to are the ones coming from the Caspian sea area that do go through the Middle East, particularly the one through Iran to the Persian Gulf and the more recent one via Iraq. The Caspian is landlocked and the cheapest way of getting the sheer volume out is overland by pipe and the narrow Bosporus can't cope with the number of Oil tankers required to transport it via the Egean Sea.

Iran (which, although not an Arab State, was still in the Middle East last time I looked) is strategically important to oil supplies. Iran is also planning new pipelines to India and Pakistan which are being resisted by the US for their own commercial reasons.

The US invasion of Afghanistan was already planned for November 2001 - well before the events of 911 occurred. This link alone suggests what they had in mind as far back as 1998.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html

Likewise, here's the Israel / Iraq oil situation in 2003 as a background to the invasion which had only just begun.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED04Ak01.html

These articles alone suggest that oil played a significant part in both wars.


Considering that Oil Politics has quietly been in the background of almost every major political event for the last 100 years, I don't believe that oil will be willingly supplanted as our main energy source for some time. As I mentioned elsewhere, every US President for about the last 38 years has come from an Oil background or from an Oil State, except for Jimmy Carter - whose contribution to oil was to effectively shut down the US nuclear power industry.

The US has historically always acted only in its own best interests and can't be relied upon to be an impartial referee for all world affairs.

I think it would be better to find a way to make the UN work more effectively than go just back to the law of the jungle.

Keith,

In principle I like the Saudi proposal and so does Israel.
It will work perfectly in an ideal world.

But the devil is in the details,
and in the ability to trust that agreements will be kept.
While the paper is wonderful, what happens if it is not kept?
what happens if it is just an exercise in "Hodna": a seemingly peace-agreement, which Mohammed kept only as long as it he was weak, but when he became stronger he broke the agreement and massacred the other tribe.

bushbred: Again though, having some sort of equal regional representation (or worse, relative to population) would mean that the west could very easily be dictated to by despotic regions in the world. Besides which, how exactly would it work? For instance, east Asia (China, Japan, the two Koreas) is a region where none of the countries particularly like each other, so whose interests would a representative from such a region represent?

I'm not saying America is capable of running the show. I agree with many of its criticisms that you and others point out. However, I think the alternatives would be far worse. I think the rest of the west often has the luxury of being incredibly pious because America does its dirty work for it or picks up its military tab. I'd like to see that everyone in the world could just leave each other alone, but that's never going to happen.

Also, I agree that the trend towards Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. is worrying. However, there are strong secular traditions in the U.S. that may reverse the trend. A lot of Americans are really sick of the Christian right.

wobbles: I wouldn't have considered Iran part of the Middle East, but maybe our definitions are different.

I'm not disagreeing with you over the U.S. acting in its own interests, but so does any nation, and that would be (and has been) the same in any organisation. I don't think there will ever be an impartial referee.

As for oil being so dominant, it doesn't have to be. Brazil has taken the lead in using alternative fuels, and Australia could do likewise. A lot of places could, and as oil becomes increasingly expensive it will happen. It's a matter of economics, and it's a matter of politics too. ie. that a lot of people are sick of the nonsense that goes on over oil.

Dear Keith

I looked up the issue of "Hamas accepts" the Arab Peace Initiative but can only find as follows:

"Hamas is willing to 'consider' the initiative but only if Israel accepts it first." (in other words, when pigs fly)

On the issue of the election platform, I accept your correction/addition there, and would have to say that the Palestinians who voted for them cannot be held responsible for more than they were informed about during the election.

I would just say, that the bigger problem is the Charter, and any divergence from it would more likely be 'Medinan' deception/delaying rather than abandoning of the principles.

If you read it closely, you will see what I mean.

"From the days of conquest to the resurrection"..... thats what they really stand for. It would only be a matter of time and strategic position. Then the 'Meccan' phase would begin. They would find some way of justifying the breaking of the treaty, like MOhammed did with the treaty of Hudabaya (with Mecca) and it would be on for young and old.

Hamas has tried to separate the issue of its Charter from its current Political posture, but they have never denied its validity, they just appear to be presenting that as a separate entity.(But just as dangerous)

I appreciate your compassionate approach, but I think you need to dig deeper into the motivating forces of such people as Hamas. (quite different from the PLO or Fatah) Some reading of the history of the expansion of Islam would be helpful also.

I do believe Israel wants to take as much of the West Bank as possible, and I see this as the unfolding of history, similar to the settlement of Australia, which did not result in all sides exactly rejoicing.

All peace is based on war.
Every peace, contains the seeds of the next war.

cheers

Marilyn

No one disputes that Israel has killed more people than Hezbollah. But why has Hezbollah killed so few people with thousands of rockets?

Did they use only "Mickey Mouse Rockets" so that they would kill fewer people? That does not make sense. If they fired thousands of rockets they meant to kill someone, presumably they would have prefered to use better rockets if they had them. Also Israel had bomb shelters to protect their population. When we do occasionally get a report of Israeli buildings it is obvious that they also suffered extreme damage.

More questions for you to avoid answering.

Why did Hezbollah a peaceful organisation have thousands of rockets to deploy?

For whom were these rockets intended.

If they intended to fire missiles did they not expect a return in the form of bombs etc.

Why did they not provide protection for their own people as Israel did?

And don´t bring up again the red herring that they are too poor. If they could afford rockets they could afford shelters. According to many reports they had dug tunnels under their villages. Could they not have used them as shelters?

Logic
I most definitely see your point of argument. But you cannot deny Israel has plenty more resources than the Hezbollah or Lebanon. I mean, the Hezbollah isn't a fully funded army here, they would already be stretching every resource they could get, I suppose the fact they are not better organized and structured lead them to believe missiles are more important than shelter. They are also there for the protection of their people, so even though they may use actions that do not picture them as a peaceful organization, which they are most definitely not, their actions are the only thing saving Lebanon. Israel wouldn’t stop even if the Hezbollah did, until Lebanon paid reparations or bombed to the ground.

Epithemeos

I am not so sure that Hezbollah is entirely lacking in resources. If it is true that they are backed up by oil rich Iran they may be well off.

I peronally think that Israel would stop if Hezbollah did, and not demand that Lebanon paid reparations. Certainly as far as I know they did not expect reparations from Egypt or Jordan. Then they were happy with a peace treaty.

Remember Israel whatever you think of it, does have a Westminster style government and and English Magna Carta based legal system together with a free press just like we do. It would be difficult for an Israeli government to escape criticisms from its own electorate if it became too greedy and unnecesarily risked the lives of its soldiers. That is much of the reason why Israeli losses are low.

It seems a real unfair match to compare the Hezbollah to Israel in terms of resources. I mean, they ‘could’ be rich in oil, but what they lack is that resource to be spent on something more productive. I don’t think I made myself clear, what I am trying to say is that a country like Israel or US have money and know how to spend it, which is why they surpass many nations with money, military and their strategies. If you believe Israel would stop, and have an example to back it up, then I can take this. Unfortunately I do not have a specific example such as yours which influences my opinion.
To say that Israel wouldn’t get greedy because of a western style government is a little naïve. I mean, the UN stands for international peace, and although pleading on many occasions with Israel to stop, they have point blank refused this system that helps conflict

Epithemeos

Sorry I did misunderstand. The advantage of the Forum is that we can explain ourselves and you have done so to my satisfaction.

I understand your doubts about Israeli intentions but the UN is not exactly a democracy, but more of a gerrymander with each state getting a vote irrespective of its population. Israel has found that the UN failed in its stated intentions such as protecting its border with Lebanon from attacks.

Also the Islamic nations often seem to gang up against them imposing conditions which it reasonably regards as dangerous to its security. In these cases it feels a need either to disregard the resolutions or to hope for a US veto. Neither option is what it wants.

Hopefully the present peace fire will hold. It is a test of both sides as well as the UN.

Completely my fault for the misunderstanding. My concern is that the UN is a body that represents peace through negotiation. All countries attend this, because they believe to some degree that their country is a peaceful one. Now there are revolutionist groups, extremist groups within these countries, but let’s not judge the whole nation on a minority. I just feel that if it was another nation doing these attacks than the UN would be taking more of an active method, with nation representatives from around the world and especially US were in favour, the actions would be stopped. I too hope this peace fire holds, but it is almost inevitable for it to start again for the roots that this conflict has.

The writer comments about the complicated nature of the middle-east, but I don't see it that way.

It's really very simple.

The middle-east is the most bigoted region on the whole planet, while we have some rednecks, they're necks are blistering purple!

Hezbollah is a classic example, with the "southern rednecks" of Lebanon fully behind these cowards who fight from behind women & children, and hide weapons in hospitals.

The west is only not winning the war because we are civilised. We should use the same methods as the Islamists, as Islamic dictators use, to stop dissent.

If Muslims are so bigoted that, even though they have already overwhelmingly voted with their feet (as there are Muslim migrants continuosly flocking to live in the civilised west) they can't see that the way we live is far superior (not us in a genetic sense you leftist scavengers, our morals) even though they are here, then how do we ever win the propaganda war?

Why even try?

How disgusting it is to hear the writer ramble about the Palestinians.....please. Muslims don't care about them, otherwise there would be protests at the conditions they are held in in neighbouring countries such as Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, where Palestinians live in squalid camps, paid for by the west, because these "Muslim brothers" won't allow them to live in their societies as equals, the way western nations accept refugees.

No, sorry. Palestinians voted in Hamas, a brutal terrorist organisation that doesn't want Israeli's out of Palestine, it wants Israeli's out of Israel!

It also treats Christians in the classic Islamic way, as inferior beings according to the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.

The most bizarre of all is the extremist leftists like Bob Brown and his ilk cuddling up to radical Islamists who want homosexuals stoned to death, how does this alliance work?

A classic example of the sick bigotry in the Muslim world was the airing of the Simpsons at the end of last year for the first time. T

The characters Krusty the clown, a Jewish entertainer, the Christian Reverend Lovejoy, and the rip-off merchant who runs the Quick-e-Mart, the Hindu, Apu, were all removed from the series as the Muslim audience would be offended.

What vile people, who somehow, somehow, think themselves superior to the rest of us...

Do you honesestly believe that every single Muslim person believes they are better than others?

Epithemeos,

Of course not: most Muslims are decent people... but they do not set the tone. Due to violent and undemocratic traditions, the extremists remain in control while the decent moderates cower for dear life.

As a second thought, even those extremists, had they been truly confident that they are better, they would feel no need to show it.

True, the minority does not set the right tone.

Everybody has his or her own opinions!! Which I feel is great but how many of these opinions are based on the mainstream medias one-sided view of events?

Do you all honestly feel that the ridiculously politically correct final edits of articles we get here in Australia, be it radio, television or newspaper are the true story?

Its like Chinese whispers, we all used to play in primary school.

By the time articles hit ours shores they have been change to suit whichever political standpoint that firm/editor/politician/reporter has been pressured to report on from above.

You do not get any where in life if you piss the people at the top off!! Keep this in mind while reading the paper and you find yourself smirking quite often.

All who are interested in the isreal/usa v lebenon/palestien drama should really watch a documentary I watched yesterday called Peace, Propaganda and the promise land.

Here is a link to a torrent site if you use bit torrent or the like!!

Enjoy!!

http://snarf-it.org/viewTorrent/342469-Peace%2C+Propaganda+%26+The+Promised+Land+kiss.html

Flemmo

Flemmo: One might well ask how it's possible to tell if anyone, anywhere is telling the truth. It's not just those in the mainstream with an agenda to push. Just because one side has fewer resources, less of a voice or not as much popularity doesn't mean such a side is somehow more truthful.

I;ll be glade when someone finally takes down the US and Israeli.
What goes around comes around. Both countries have a lot coming back to them.

Whats the difference between a Jew and an Arab?

You can kill as many Arabs as you want because they are mainly Muslims and could be terrorists. No one really cares.

If you call a Jew a bad name lead alone kill a Jew. Its on the media the whole world cares because they arent terrorists they seem to cry the most so the whole world pays attention