US accuse Iran of supplying bombs to Shiite militants in Iraq.

InFront

Where are you getting this from? Somneone suggested FOX, I actually wouldn't be surprised. Here's another one from the BBC

Hezbollah now serves as an inspiration to Palestinian factions fighting to liberate occupied territory....
Hezbollah has embraced the Palestinian cause.
The party, in turn, has embraced the Palestinian cause and has said publicly that it is ready to open a second front against Israel in support of the intifada.

And I can't see the problem with Iran urging Hizbollah to support the Palestinians. Why not? The USA support Israel, Palestine should take help from whoever offers it, and who better than Hizbollah?

It wan't a case of Disraeli deploying Jews to Palestine,they allowed immigration to occur

Actually what I should have said was Balfour. Read up on the Balfour Declaration and then come back and tell us what it says about a home for the Zionists in this territory. And explain what right they had to it and why.

AbusesToilets

I think that Hezbollah started the last conflict because it was urged to do so by Iran,not out of solidarity with the Palestinians.
I also like how in the previous post slamming Israel for it's actions during the war,none of you has responded to my point about Hezbollah starting the war and how this runs contrary to it's supposed position of looking out for the Lebanese people.

Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.

Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour

The Balfour declaration seems like it was a typical piece of British trouble making, ,but i don't think it was the a case that the British were trying to import Jews to wipe out Arabs.Zionism was on the rise on in Europe at the time and the increased opportunities or immigration naturally allowed their numbers to increase.

InFront

AbusesToilets wrote:

I think that Hezbollah started the last conflict because it was urged to do so by Iran,not out of solidarity with the Palestinians.

Alright, but do substantiate it... what evidence?

I also like how in the previous post slamming Israel for it's actions during the war,none of you has responded to my point about Hezbollah starting the war

A lot of posters have already said why we think Israel started the war on Lebanon (i.e. the thousands of prisoners in Israeli jails, failure to get off of Lebanese land, declaration of war on Lebanon). What you haven't explained, actually, is why the two (later one) Israeli soldier was more important than all of the kidnapped resistance soldiers in Israeli custody?

Zionism was on the rise on in Europe at the time and the increased opportunities or immigration naturally allowed their numbers to increase.

So?? Go and install them in a foreign state when they had no business being there? I'll ask again - what right did the Zionists have to a state in the Palestinian territory?

KerranJast

Poblachtach wrote:

Specifically targetting ambulances, several ambulances were bombed right in the middle of the red cross

The Israeli military may have been incompetent during the recent Lebanon conflict, but are you so indoctrinated against them that you believe they would deliberately target medical vehicles? If you are thinking of that infamous picture of the Red Cross vehicle with the perfect hole in the centre of the cross, it was later found to be a Hezbollah PR stunt.

InFront

Link to proof?

KerranJast

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/
http://newsbusters.org/node/6574

The first one is pretty comprehensive. The second link details how sophisticated Hezbollah were in managing the news output from the war zone.

AbusesToilets

They had a right based on force of arms,same way most ethnic groups gain a dominance in a territory.Do i think it was a good thing?**** no,but it happened .They overcame the Arabs in the civil war that followed the withdrawl of Britain and the Arab rejection of the UN 2 state proposal.

As for evidence of Iranian urging to start the last war,well based on their funding of Hezbollah plus the political events at the time,specifically the situation regarding their nuclear research, would lead me to believe they called for the the attack.I don't have hard evidence of it,but then neither do you have hard evidence of your position.It's what i feel on the matter.The importance of the Israeli prisoners isn't really any issue with me but it's fairly well established that Israel will go all out to look after it's own.This is something that Hezbollah know and they exploited it,looking for the reaction from Israel.

InFront

Oh come on! I'm sorry but if you want to prove it to us, try harder than "Newsbusters - Exposing Liberal Media Bias" (linked to FOX) and "Zombietime" complete with depictions of Muhammad p.:rolleyes:

Where is your credible evidence?

InFront

AbusesToilets wrote:

They had a right based on force of arms,same way most ethnic groups gain a dominance in a territory.

Exactly! Enter Hizbollah.

I take it that is an admission on your part that Zionism was the problem to begin with?

the Israeli prisoners isn't really any issue with me but it's fairly well established that Israel will go all out to look after it's own.This is something that Hezbollah know and they exploited it,looking for the reaction from Israel.

I think you are missing the point that Hizbollah and their friends in Palestine will look after "their own", and they have that right. Especially since they're reacting to an invasion of what you seem to accept is artificially occupied land.

KerranJast

Meh. They were the first two I found on Google. The stuff was also reported on BBC and Reuters AFAIR when the war was on but it's late and I can't be bothered trawling those sites to find it. The point I'm making is not to blindly believe propaganda from either side.

AbusesToilets

I think the British actions in back in the day are largely responsible for the current predictement and yes,hardline elements in both camps Israel and Palestinian are responsible for a lot of todays trouble.However,i feel that Israel has as much right to exist as any other country and i also support the Palestinian right to have a land of their own.But as you and everyone else knows,the situation is complicated.
Now,with regards Hezbollah and Lebanon,that is different.Hezbollah chose to start the last war,whatever their reasons.You know what i believe there and i know what you believe.Lets just leave it at that eh?

InFront

Fine, we'll agree to disagree. If nothing else, it's off topic:)

AbusesToilets

Yeah for the last what? 4-5 pages lol

Manic Moran

InFront wrote:

Oh come on! I'm sorry but if you want to prove it to us, try harder than "Newsbusters - Exposing Liberal Media Bias" (linked to FOX) and "Zombietime" complete with depictions of Muhammad p.:rolleyes:

Where is your credible evidence?

I started a thread on that sort of thing a while back. Along the lines of "If the Israelis really did bomb an ambulance, but Hezbullah displayed a different one for whatever reason, is it still good journalism to show the 'displayed' one as fact?"

Unfortunately, nobody was interested in debating media philosophy.

Without reference to the rest of Zombietime or the text accompanying, you have to admit the photographs are pretty conclusive of damage inconsistent with any delivered weapon system. Israel may very well have bombed an ambulance, deliberately or accidently. It wasn't that one.

NTM

marco murphy

AbusesToilets wrote:

Here's the link but i think you need a subscription to view it: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2006/0720/1152913471349.html


Do still deny that Hezbollah initiated the conflict?I'm not talking about the morals of the conflict or the historical issues surrounding it.I'm specifically referring to the start of the last conflict,i thought i had already made that clear.
Do you have any evidence to back up your figures of 100,000+ cluster bombs etc?I haven't made any claims of innocence of behalf of Israel.I've simply said that between the 2 parties involved in the conflict,Israel was the one making more of an effort to avoid civilian casualties.I'm not trying to excuse the deaths of civilians that Israel was responsible for,but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Hezbollahs attacks into Israel were made using imprecise rockets aimed to land in built up urban areas.

Go back to the bit you ignored on the timetable of events. At most a week before, Israel bombs a beach killing innocent children.

Israel did infact drop 100,000+ cluster bombs. I do not come up with these statistics from cloud cukoo land.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/310806leavesbehind.htm
Thats ONE site that has the same view as myself.

joebhoy1916

AbusesToilets wrote:

First off you're wrong about Hezbollah not starting the conflict,they did.They attacked Israeli positions and kidnapped a soldier(s?),looking to provoke a response.Lebanon isn't Palestine,it's a seperate state and your continued intertwining of the 2 is diversionary.Hezbollah is concerned primarily with Lebanon,not with the Palestinians and their cause.I think you're letting your dislike of Israel lead you into the realm of fantasy with a statement like this

So do you believe that Hezbollah just said what the hell we will kidnap two soliders and kill three other's for a laugh? So If Israel kidnapped lets say the Palestine ministers would that give them the right to kill hundfreds of people.

There has been a heated debate on the internet about whether the two Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hizbullah that day were captured in Israel or in Lebanon, but it now seems pretty clear that they were seized in Israel. This is what the UN says, and even Hizbullah seems to have forgotten that they were supposed to have been found sneaking around the outskirts of the Lebanese village of Aita al-Shaab. Now it simply states that "the Islamic resistance captured two Israeli soldiers at the border with occupied Palestine". Three other Israeli soldiers were killed by the militants. There is also some dispute about when, on July 12, Hizbullah first fired its rockets; but Unifil makes it clear that the firing took place at the same time as the raid - 9am. Its purpose seems to have been to create a diversion. No one was hit

A "senior Israeli official" told the Washington Post that the raid by Hizbullah provided Israel with a "unique moment" for wiping out the organisation. The New Statesman's editor, John Kampfner, says he was told by more than one official source that the US government knew in advance of Israel's intention to take military action in Lebanon. The Bush administration told the British government.

Israel's assault, then, was premeditated: it was simply waiting for an appropriate excuse. It was also unnecessary. It is true that Hizbullah had been building up munitions close to the border, as its current rocket attacks show. But so had Israel. Just as Israel could assert that it was seeking to deter incursions by Hizbullah, Hizbullah could claim - also with justification - that it was trying to deter incursions by Israel. The Lebanese army is certainly incapable of doing so. Yes, Hizbullah should have been pulled back from the Israeli border by the Lebanese government and disarmed. Yes, the raid and the rocket attack on July 12 were unjustified, stupid and provocative, like just about everything that has taken place around the border for the past six years. But the suggestion that Hizbullah could launch an invasion of Israel or that it constitutes an existential threat to the state is preposterous. Since the occupation ended, all its acts of war have been minor ones, and nearly all of them reactive.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1839280,00.html


If you read first paragraph alot different from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict where they say

At around 9:00 AM local time (06:00 UTC) on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah launched diversionary rocket attacks toward Israeli military positions near the coast and near the border village of Zar'it[41] as well as on the Israeli town of Shlomi and other villages.[42] At the same time, a Hezbollah ground contingent crossed the border into Israeli territory and attacked two Israeli armoured Humvees patrolling on the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border, near Zar'it, killing three, injuring two, and capturing two Israeli soldiers (Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev).[41][43] Five more Israeli soldiers were killed later on the Lebanese side of the border during an unsuccessful attempt to rescue the two kidnapped soldiers

Guess Its just who you believe.



Here Is another link for cluster bombs http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5299938.stm


And for people who think Israel won here is a quote from prime minister.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert could only say that "we are not ready to have more casualties among the Israeli soldiers in order to regain two soldiers."

Poblachtach wrote:

Go back to the bit you ignored on the timetable of events. At most a week before, Israel bombs a beach killing innocent children.

The Ghalia family only one family member left, eight killed.

InFront

Manic Moran wrote:

Without reference to the rest of Zombietime or the text accompanying, you have to admit the photographs are pretty conclusive of damage inconsistent with any delivered weapon system. Israel may very well have bombed an ambulance, deliberately or accidently. It wasn't that one.

Actually it was two ambulances
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1828142,00.html

I have about as much interest in weapons delivery as a hole in the ground but I simply haven't seen or heard of any weapons expert anywhere to suggest that it was a hoax. The burden of proof lies with those who claim so. HRW, who have no reason to lie about this, are pretty adament it's not a hoaxhttp://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/qana1206/index.htm
If you can't substantiate the claim with proof by a report of similar repute, then your allegation isn't really anything more than a conspiracy theory.

If I suggested that some credible Palestinian atrocities on Israel were a hoax, or Iraqi attacks on the US Army were a hoax, I'd probably be asked to take it to the conspiracy theories subforum, and rightly so.

Manic Moran

I have about as much interest in weapons delivery as a hole in the ground but I simply haven't seen or heard of any weapons expert anywhere to suggest that it was a hoax. The burden of proof lies with those who claim so. HRW, who have no reason to lie about this, are pretty adament it's not a hoax

I submit that HRW also have about as much interest in weapons delivery as a hole in the ground. Indeed, I've had to examine holes in the ground to figure out what weapon made the hole and what direction it came from. I have a little bit more interest than that, and I cannot think of a single munition, delivered by air, artillery, or direct fire that would result in the damage displayed in the photographs.

I am not arguing that the report of ambulances being attacked is a hoax. The HRW commentary linked to does not address whether or not the ambulances displayed are the ambulances which were attacked beyond a single somewhat inconclusive paragraph. Our positions are not mutually exclusive. I make no comment as to whether or not Israeli units attacked any ambulances, or whether such attacks were deliberate or not. I do comment that the ambulances displayed cannot be ones which were struck by air.

NTM

InFront

I find that a bit pointless. It's nothing but a conspiracy theory. Can you just actually post up some worthwhile evidence from an investigation of more or equal repute or credibility than HRW.

Manic Moran

InFront wrote:

I find that a bit pointless. It's nothing but a conspiracy theory. Can you just actually post up some worthwhile evidence from an investigation of more or equal repute or credibility than HRW.

What if I posted up the same pictures of the vehicles from Reuters or BBC? The pictures -are- the evidence. To be asked to prove that no weapon made such damage is being asked to prove a negative. The better challenge is to suggest a weapon that -could- have done it, and I submit that no such exists, because anything I can think of which would leave some of the damage such as the punch through the roof would not have created some of the other damage such as the fragmentation pattern -on- the roof. This includes shaped charges, EFPs, solid muntions/duds, cluster munitions, missiles, rockets, artillery rounds of various types (HE, ICM, SADARM), DIME, FAE, or nukes.

To a fair extent, you are correct. It is pointless. It's kindof like re-arranging deck chairs on RMS Titanic since arguing over the veracity of the claim that 'these are the ambulances that were attacked' has no bearing to a claim such as 'this is the driver of the ambulance that was attacked' or even 'Israel attacked ambulances.' My issue is more the blind acceptance of what is presented.

NTM

lostexpectation

did you already note that one of the former US commanders of Iraq pointed out yesterday that far more Russian made weaponary is being seized or used by the insurgents????

( and if Kuwait, Syria and Saudi Arabia and any other neighbouring country make there own weapons im sure there plenty of that in their too IMO)

KerranJast

The Russians supplied/supply a lot of military tech to Iran so that maybe another little sign that factions inside Iran are helping supply Shiite militias in Iraq. They certainly were doing so in Lebanon. They denied so of course until the Russians complained that a missile fragment found in Israel, launched by Hezbollah, had been sold by them to the Iranian military.

Tea drinker

Us is supplying arms to Iran! Here is the irrefutable proof!:D

I guess they have serial numbers too... and as usual, if US does it it's OK! If someone else does it, well, they are just bad people

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16648850/

Manic Moran

Well, if you want to get picky about it, those aren't arms.

They're unrestricted components. Much like I bought 90% of my FAL on the open market, that 90% can't kill anyone without that last important bit which is restricted.

NTM

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

Well, if you want to get picky about it, those aren't arms.

They're unrestricted components. Much like I bought 90% of my FAL on the open market, that 90% can't kill anyone without that last important bit which is restricted.

NTM

you're really showing your bias in this post. you are willing to make bizzare leaps of semantics to support the U.S arms trade, but you would never accept those kinds of distinctions if they were claimed by the other side.

missile parts are missile parts. in order to work, weapons need to be maintained.

it's the same bankrupt logic that people like you use to claim the logistics flights through shannon are inconsequential to the war effort as long as they aren't carrying actual bombs to iraq.

Manic Moran

DRMO sells anything that isn't restricted, from old photocopiers through jeeps. (And, if you have the appropriate permit, weapons, aircraft and armoured vehicles, eg to police forces). Believe it or not, there is a civilian market for things like P&W F101 engine parts. The whole 'Egads, Iran can buy these things' is political brouhaha over not very much. Without avionics, it's pretty useless, and Iran has already figured out how to reverse-engineer pretty much the majority of the aircraft.

If I may illustrate my example, here are the various components to an armament.

http://www.clubi.ie/exalted/images/army/Ireland/parts.JPG

I was able to purchase every single part over the Internet with no restrictions, except for the bit at bottom left. The arm is defined by that bit. Everything else is useless without it, and even buying that component on its own (as I did) is still subject to the same restrictions and procedures as purchasing an intact weapon.

NTM

lostexpectation

KerranJast wrote:

The Russians supplied/supply a lot of military tech to Iran so that maybe another little sign that factions inside Iran are helping supply Shiite militias in Iraq. They certainly were doing so in Lebanon. They denied so of course until the Russians complained that a missile fragment found in Israel, launched by Hezbollah, had been sold by them to the Iranian military.

yeah yeah, and they also sold alot to saddam and iraq but you can't kill saddam or invade iraq twice

are the US going to bomb ireland this angle was revealed last year but they feel a need to repeat it

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/ulster/article320004.ece

Tea drinker

And Dothery ould Rumsfeld was on the Board of that company that sold the Nuclear reactor to N Korea.
What's the cost to the American taxpayer in this instance? How can this be spun as having been correct at the time?
Incorrect decisions are not being investigated in a clear and open manner in the US. This is not good for the American economy or for it's stability. The semi-state media with their passive acceptance of all the benign goverment offers them makes the whole show resemble a communist regime. Or at least what they told us a communist regime was!!!:)