Well now the Israelis can't complain of suicide bomber attacks. Hezbollah threatened to target Tel Aviv if the Israelis attack Beirut. This is going to get nasty. Really nasty.

No no, they are still terrorist now because they are launching rockets.

No matter what they do they will be called terrorists.

They are fighting for their rightfull land, for economic freedom, for economic equality without Israeli control.

The big bully is picking on the 3rd grader and the 3rd grader is giving em a go for the money.

America must stop these dastardly attempts by Saddam HezzbalQaedaBearPig to rule the world!!!

Only the combined might of the Republifundies, Israel, and renegade superhero The LieberMan can save the world from certain doom!!!

It isn't just a continuation to the same people killing the same other people which has been happening in the middle east for over 50 years: it's a global struggle against violent extremism!!! Really, you guys, I'm super super serial!

The big bully is picking on the 3rd grader and the 3rd grader is giving em a go for the money.

Posted by Crassus


They fire 400 rockets in a weekend, and kill 3 people and you make it sound like they are mounting a counter offensive... what a douche.

I love it! Hezbollah is no longer a terrorist org in your eyes. Please all of the DNC run with this idea! Before Al Qaeda, The Terrorist orgainization in the world was Hezbollah, but now because they are fighting Jews they are Freedom Fighters. Nice message Democrats... side with the orgazization that killed over 100 American Soldiers back in the 80s (Yes I know, Reagan was president... he made a stupid decision pulling out... that doesn't make Hezbollah less of a terrorist group).

Saddam HezzbalQaedaBearPig

Stolen from South Park... I'm everywhere JustSomeDouche.

The foreign anti-Juden crowd are marginalizing the Drudge Retort!

Since they are anonymous, they can spread their anti-"Zionist" propaganda and give the appearance of being American leftists, US Democrats. Of course, their dislike of the US isn't subversive, per se, but then the real US leftist/Democrats jump in to agree with their bigotted sentiments and prejudicial viewpoints . . . because it has the appearance of being anti-Bush . . .

What a bunch (gang) of running-yellow-dog-democrats you are . . . joining anti-"Zionist" European/Canadian/MEastern hate mongers in support of Hezbollah (Your newly renamed freedom fighters!) and Islamic fascist hopes for the genocide of Israel!!!

Scum sucking vermin!

I'm everywhere JustSomeDouche.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2006-08-06 11:15 PM

You might want to lose some weight then, fatso.

I'll call the Conservative Waaaaaaaahmbulance for you. Maybe when they start treating your shrill, puling whine, they can discuss getting you a stomach staple operation.

"Scum sucking vermin!"

Tadley is nothing if not consistent.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2006-08-06 11:15 PM

You might want to lose some weight then, fatso.

You should keep stealing lines from TV shows and Liberal Bloggers. I thought that was sad, until I saw this first attempt at originality. I'm embarassed for you.

"Scum sucking vermin!
Posted by tadowe"

Another failed attempt to raise the rhetorical bar.

Better luck next time.

It will be interesting to see what Israel does with "Assured mutual destruction." It's noteworthy that it kept the US and USSR from blowing each other off the face of the earth.

It will be interesting to see what Israel does with "Assured mutual destruction.

Wha?
Assured destruction?
What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Crappus,
Tell me that story about how Hezboolah wears uniforms and how they are partnered with the Lebanese Military for the defense of Lebanon. I love that story.

Blake,
If Hezbollah, Syria, or Iran had nukes would there be an Israel?

"If Hezbollah, Syria, or Iran had nukes would there be an Israel?"

Maybe not..... but there wouldn't be a Hezbollah, Syria, or Iran, either.

MAD was good enough for Russia, China and the USA.

Perhaps nuking Cindy Sheehan would make everyone feel better?

Lighten up on the tension, you know?

"Assured destruction?
What on earth is that supposed to mean?"

I said "Assured mutual destruction". The mutual part is what it is all about.

GZLIVES hasn't lived very long. Better check your history books or maybe you can Google it.

Or are you just playing stupid?

Let's hope so.

Corky,
It is assumed that Israel has boomers. If they didn't, and Iran, Syria, or Hezbollah did we have a pretty good idea of what would have already happened.

Let's not compare Russia, the USA, and China with Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah. Despite what the rabid fringe lefties want to believe, there aren't any religious fanatics in charge of Russia, China, or the USA looking to wipe one another off of a map. They also are not 3rd world shitheaps that think strapping explosives to a vest and walking into a crowded market is a good time.

Why do so many lefties go to such extremes to avoid the reality that Israel is not akin to Syria, Lebanon, or Iran? They hold the power over the mentioned 3...They could obliterate them in a number of ways, yet they haven't. The same can not be said for the others.

Chair,

It is assumed that Israel has several hundred nukes.

Prey tell, what significant difference is there between countries controlled by religious fanatics or by Godless commies looking to wipe countries off the map?

They seemed like a significant threat at the time.

"They are fighting for their rightfull land, for economic freedom, for economic equality without Israeli control."

Huh? Israel wasn't in Lebannon or hampering its economic development before this latest mess started. The only reason Israel ever bothered Lebannon at all in recent years was in response to rocket attacks. Hezbollah chose to pick a fight instead of focusing on the economic stuff because they are pieces of shit who could care less about their human shields.

It doesn't surprise me that in your pretentious efforts to sympathize with Hezbollah, you must distort reality.

Prey tell, what significant difference is there between countries controlled by religious fanatics or by Godless commies looking to wipe countries off the map?

They seemed like a significant threat at the time.




Posted by Corky at 2006-08-07 10:32 AM | Reply


Did I miss the leaders of China and Russia claiming we need to be wiped off of the map? Not just once, twice, or 3 times? Did they actually speak to a World Body such as the UN and make a claim like Iran did?
Why are you trying to stick with your arguement when it's not even close to reality?
I'd rather deal with "godless" and sane than "religious" and insane. When you live amongst dirt, sand, camel feces, and women wearing masks you have nothing to lose. The Russia, China, and USA scenario doesn't fit because they had everything to lose.

TURNLEFT,

Yes indeed, I lived through the Nixon years however mutually assured destruction was all about two powers of equal value creating the stalemate ... back then it was the USSR and the US

Now in this situation, I'm trying to understand who those two powers be that assure eachother's destruction ?

Can you enlighten me TURNLEFT ?

Its fantastic watching the new Left embrace fascism as they certainly are when they support Iran and Hizb'allah and worse equate them with Israel who's attacked and is damned when they respond.

Unreal ...

"Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!"

- Nikita Khrushchev

(though my fav Big K quote by far is...

"The main difference for the history of the world if I had been shot rather than Kennedy is that Onassis probably wouldn't have married Mrs Khrushchev."

- Nikita Khrushchev )

Whether one lives among sand and camels, on the Russian steppes or the American plains, it is all that they have to lose.

Of course, in this zealous, fanatic time, one cannot suggest any parallels without being a terrorist lover.

Not that Israel hasn't been into Lebanon 5 times since '76..... this time is the Apocalypse, lmao!

"Onassis probably wouldn't have married Mrs Khrushchev."


ROFL

So Nicky had a sense of humor!!

Of course, in this zealous, fanatic time, one cannot suggest any parallels without being a terrorist lover.

Not that Israel hasn't been into Lebanon 5 times since '76..... this time is the Apocalypse, lmao!



Posted by Corky at 2006-08-07 10:55 AM | Reply


Nobody but you likened yourself to a terror lover.
What I said was comparing the USA, Russia, and China to any Middle Eastern country is ridiculous.

I know it's difficult for you to admit, but I am confident that you can do it...Just repeat after me "Iran, Syria, or Hezbollah would have more than likely wiped Israel off of the map if they could." "Israel can wipe those 3 off of the map, but haven't".

101.


You get a 100.


Now move on to teach Dorky 102.

Man, it feels like it is 103 here.

And I am listening to FM 104.

Whoa there, Nellie.

I was referring to GZ's post per the "terrorist lover".

"Iran, Syria, or Hezbollah would have more than likely wiped Israel off of the map if they could." "Israel can wipe those 3 off of the map, but haven't".

That's because the Muslims are sub-human and the Isrealis are good natured, cheerful types, eh?

BTW- I see Gnubsy still has a crush on you, even after all the honesty you imparted to her previously.

Some girls just cannot hear you when you say "No!".

BTW- Gnubsy the Cheerleader,

WWWJC?

What War Would Jesus Cheer?

Corky,
"That's because the Muslims are sub-human and the Isrealis are good natured, cheerful types, eh?"

Not the Muslims themselves, but their leaders that use nothing but propaganda and force to keep them in line, although I like the way you think.

Has Israel allowed agressor countries to exist?
Would those agreesors allow Israel to exist if they had the power to "wipe them off of the map"?

NOTE: It is painfully obvious you have yet to answer a direct question. Why is that?

As for the teflon Don (Niceville)...He may not appreciate my criticisms, but it is impossible for him or any other blogger to deny my brilliance...

deny my brilliance


.... I think I need shades!

Let's try a different tact then.

Everything that is being said about Israel and Iran, and Israel and Syria was being said about Israel and Egypt 30 years ago.

Those two former enemies have created and sustained a lasting peace. Why is that so impossible now?

Those two former enemies have created and sustained a lasting peace. Why is that so impossible now?





Posted by Corky at 2006-08-07 11:54 AM | Reply

I'll answer your direct question even though you have ignored mine on multiple occasions (which raises interesting questions)...
A. Because Jimmy Carter is out of office?
A. Because Israel hasn't taken the gloves off like they did in 67?

A. Because there aren't armed US troops in between them like there are in the Sinai?

Picky, picky picky....

"Has Israel allowed agressor countries to exist?"

Israel would be seen as an international pariah and lose all respect in the world (somehow that sounds familiar?) if they used nukes against non-nuke powers, so it's not much of an option ( or much of a question) is it?


Would those agreesors allow Israel to exist if they had the power to "wipe them off of the map"?

Those a-greasers would be nuked back even further into the stone age by the US (per Treaty), so that isn't much of an option for them either, really.

Sorta like MAD, already, isn't it?

A. Because Jimmy Carter is out of office?

Yur right, Bush is no Jimmy Carter Peace Prize.

Looks like they are talking about troops between Israel and Lebanon now.

I don't think that Iran would launch a nuclear strike if she had the means. The whole MAD thing and all.

I DO however believe that Iran would attempt to cladestinely arm some 'anonymous' terror group with a couple of nukes and have those groups act as her surrogate.

This is what makes terror groups such a dangerous cancer that needs to be removed from the earth. They are 'stateless'. Whom does a country retaliate against if a terror group successfully detonates a nuke within the country's borders?

101,
i'll give it shot:
israel fought defensive wars in the '60s and '70s. and so was justified. the international climate as exists today does not allow her to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes on iran.
syria has never said israel should be wiped off the map, at least not bashar al-assad. far as i know, they want the golan back. pretty simple really.
a'jad spoke about 'wiping israel off the map'. no different from friday sermons given by khomeni two decades before. the phrase was made at a 'worldwide conference on zionism' or some such similarly titled anti-semitic meeting of mental midgets. at the UN, he tried to encourage the conversation of non-muslims to the true faith and spoke of the moral and spiritual bankruptcy of democracy/the west and capitalistic societies. but he's a sham and iranians are wising up.
you once linked to nasrullah's memri article. i read it. he did'nt seem insane. he did'nt even mention any map wiping. there's a similar interview with syria's assad in al-hayat. again, no map wiping. jordan does'nt advocate map wiping. nor does egypt.
in fact the arabs put forward their peace plan in 2002, sponsored by the saudis(withdrawal from occupied terrirtories in exchange for normalisation of diplomatic ties. just think of the potential market for israeli security products!). wonder who rejected it?
religious fanatics? you'll find them amongst the settlers and fringe likudniks and national party in israel as much as the hambullah rejectionists. sharon pandered to them for years.
settlers vs nutters in iran.
ROUND 1!

jeffj,
bad idea by iran.
nuclear signature is unique. they'd be rumbled and turned into glass. besides, what gurantee do they have that they themselves won't become the target? people prepared to commit such an act are by definition mentally unstable.
israeli NSA said recently that he was worried about the iranian threat but he did'nt think them 'irresponsible'. if he ain't bothered, nor am i.

"They are 'stateless'. Whom does a country retaliate against if a terror group successfully detonates a nuke within the country's borders?"

Ah, grasshopper....

Isn't it just a bit ironic that Bush gave what, for all practical purposes, amounts to "statehood" to the terrorists who attacked us by declaring "war" on them?

Wouldn't it have been better to go after the perps in Talibanland and chase them over whatever borders necessary until we cut off Usama's snake-like head, instead of dragging every nutcase with a bomb into the payback for 911?

Iraq was a good excuse to run for re-election as a "War President", but it wasn't neccesary for killing off Al Quida.

"I was referring to GZ's post per the "terrorist lover"."

Well then you must have made it up since I don't remember having posted anything like that ...

Has the new Left embraced fascistic terror groups ... no question about it.
Oh sure they change the word "terror" to "resistance" or "freedom" fighters but from their uniforms down to their ideology they are fascistic racists organizations and the new LEFT HAS EMBRACED THEM.

And now that I've said that, no doubt some will actually try and defend it

Terror lovers .. no
Fools, naives and useful idiots rubes - yes

but don't put words in my mouth Corky ..

oohrah,
there's an interesting corollary to your q. why the intense scrutiny over every single report/photo/broadcast?
misery sells. misery and drama sells better.
but i think you're missing the central idea. whether the house is her's or not, the devestation is pretty extensive. perhaps she's nasrullah's auntie?

gz, the left has always supported terror groups. baader-meinhof gang, japanese red army, the shining path in peru, the FARC in colombia, PFLP-GC, carlos the jackal.
these were all hardcore marxist organisations.

Sorry GZ,

I was sure it was you that has been using that phrase recently, but I must be confusing you with some right-wing twit.

Yes GZ,

As Tunde points out, there are no such thing as right-wing terrorists or death squads.

and RIP to the victims of this rocket attack and this war, whether lebanese, israeli, palestinians or whomever.
it need'nt be like this at all. you go into a crisis with the politicians you have not what you'd want.

Liberal media:

"Good, that's 3 less fucking jews"

Cheers,
Walt

What a bunch (gang) of running-yellow-dog-democrats you are . . . joining anti-"Zionist" European/Canadian/MEastern hate mongers in support of Hezbollah (Your newly renamed freedom fighters!) and Islamic fascist hopes for the genocide of Israel!!!

Scum sucking vermin!


take your meds and relax, and ask some one to change your diapers.

Great comic this week in the Economist - describing the history of shields - ending up with the 'brave' Hezbollah fighter hiding behind women and children. These guys, who by the way, have been trained by Iran and supplied by Iran and Syria, are not defenders of their own soil - they are gutless thugs who drop missiles arbitrarily (i.e. on civilians), and who started a war on behalf of their Imperialist masters (Iran & Syria) to detract from the fact that Iran is led by raving nutjobs who are looking to build a nuclear bomb. Yes of course the usual "all Muslims are good, all Jews are bad" idiots are out (Crassus take note), spewing their half-thought drivel, but the fact of the matter is, they always avoid the fact that no matter how much they try to dress these thugs up as heros - they are just thugs. I hope the UN debate drags on for weeks so that Israel can bomb these motherfuckers back to dirt. Kill one Israeli - kill 10 or more Lebanese - that's the way to do it. Kill enough of them, and they will have lots of room. When Israel gets to having killed 1000, I am going to throw a party!!!

When Israel gets to having killed 1000, I am going to throw a party!!!

Wow!

the really interesting thing to note will be how hizb'allah avoid the traps set for them with the new UN resolutions proposal. i heard condi rice over the w/e say that accepting or rejecting the new resolution will establish who wants peace and who wants war. gw re-iterated the point and worked in his debunked 'democracy' canard. i know a fit-up when i see/hear one.
so, iirc, israel is allowed to stay in s. lebanon until an international force is in place (weeks? months? without hizb'allah's agreement? no chance); the IDF is allowed to conduct 'defensive' ops (is'nt the entire war defensive?); hizb'allah must disarm immediately;
wait.....it gets funnier.
hizb'allah must unconditionally return the abducted soldiers; resolution 1559 must be enacted. no shebaa farms, no discussion of lebanese prisoners in israeli jails, no respect of sovereignity issues etc.
the arab league has a counter proposal( the league of pampered poofters. just to prove how worthless their opinion was, immediately they boarded their personal learjets, the IAF blasted a block of flats 2 miles from where they had heard siniora blubbing).
dan gillerman on newsnight said, with a straight face, that even the arab league don't want a security vacuum in s. lebanon and that it is in the interests of the entire world, but especially lebanon, that hizb'allah be eliminated; so he could'nt see how israel would vacate s. lebanon. he also spoke about the syrian and iranian 'proxy' that hizb'allah was and that iran was hatching a future holocaust.
all in a 5 min interview, gillerman mentioned how civilisation itself was threatened by hizb'allah and terror, how iran would start a new holocaust, how hizb'allah was the first instrument of that policy, how the arab league counter proposal was meaningless and how lebanon stood to benefit from the conflict!
i was in awe of him.
but i also realised that we will get more qana's, nasariyah's, tiberias', haifas, tyres, sidon's etc.

oohrah,
totally agree; i saw an interview with the reuters photographer adnan hajj on newsnight; he blithely said he was merely 'cleaning up' the smoldering beirut picture.
it's like those WW1 photos of soldiers in trenches being actually being staged in england; or how some of churchill's speeches were delivered by an actor. it was totally unnecessary and did'nt distract from the emotional impact of the photo.
but this close scrutiny of this particular conflict's press coverage is indicative of something deeper; it's almost as if the legitimacy of future actions/deeds is being justified. i can't put my finger on it.......

The sad facts are nothing is going to change in the ME until people are more willing to honestly deal with the issues causing wars than they are in making bombastic statements painting their foes as unreasonable and subhuman. I don't need photos from Reuters when every news channel as on the scene correspondents committing each act of war to video. I truly don't care whether scenes of carnage are doctored or not, unless the people killed and maimed by these acts are just lying in the rubble until the cameras leave.

Day after day, the squawking masses refuse to recognize the use of asymetrical warfare tactics, which include the swaying of public opinion as a pillar in the fight. While the callous cheer for Israel to destroy every last "terrorist", thousands are seeking ways to take up arms against Israel's siege of both Lebanon and Gaza. The seeds for the next war will rise from the ashes of this one, and on and on, over and over again until the strongest stops acting from fear, and instead acts from the strength of being right, while ceasing to be cowered by the words of the undermanned and disposessed, fighting the fight any sane underdog would given the confrontation of superior forces and weaponry.

As the hubris and vitriole continue to dominate the airwaves, China is slowly showing just who actually controls the flow of weapons to Hezbollah, and the lemmings ignore this frightening escalation toward brinksmanship. Widening this ME conflagration further drains money from American's coffers as the price of oil continues to bounce with each rattled threat from this instability, and Iran takes more and more money to the bank to fund whatever terror they choose to export, or that which China lets them.

The bodies continue to stack higher, and the rockets continue to fall in this insane game of chicken in which all of us stand to lose more than we currently imagine.

I think he might mean to point out embellishments now, undermines credibility of future product that may recount even more vicious tactics used by the most powerful faction in this war. tunde, correct me if I'm wrong.

1. Arabia is the home of militant Islam, and is a brutal fascist dictatorship.

2. George Dubai Bush is dedicated to making sure Arabia does not have to account for their role in 9/11, because...

3. The Saudi royal family has invested AT LEAST $1 Billion USD with The Carlyle Group (the war profiteering front company run by the Bush Crime Family).

4. The Bin Laden family has invested AT LEAST $500 Million USD with The Carlyle Group, which was paid ON 9/11.

5. Iran and "Saudi" brand Arabia have a long history of animosity, and are rivals over influence in the middle east. Iran has no history of attacking the USA, unlike Saudi Arabia.

6. Bush wants Arabia to remain the dominant force in the Middle East, even though they are the home nation of violent Muslim extremism.

- So, anyone care to explain what country Bush is looking out for? It sure isn't the USA, and his "plans" sure won't make the Middle East more peaceful.

Can't people see this? Even Reuters pulled over 900 photos. Do you think they would have even bothered to check into it if bloggers hadn't done what the press USED to do? Weak, pathetic journalism.


Posted by OohRah at 2006-08-07 06:34 PM

I agree 100%, but I've been saying this about Reuters and the Associated Press for over ten years. Huge news reporting agencies and allowing megacorporations to own all the news reporting outlets have killed journalism.

Now all we get is propaganda.