I see that Hellraizer's posts are interesting as always,but there are two points that I want to point to here:
The Israeli nuclear program is clearly there and israel has a huge stock of nuclear devices which they claim are "deffensive" like any of their crimes,just say that they are deffensive and don't bother,according to the west and espatially the US,Israel is trustworthy to get the exclusive right of having nuclear power, a trust that Israel always prooved to merit.But Iranians do not care about the americans,they are not slaves to them,and one thing about Israel is trying to direct every world event to its benefit,Israel had clear information about the 09/11 and I mean not the foggy information the US had,Israel didn't cooperate,simply to use a wave of rage and panic in the US to fulfill some of their dreams:classifying Lebanese and Palestinian resistance groups as trrorist groups, classifying the ambitious republic of Iran as an evil country,which will serve two of their goals:having a support to the Israeli nuclear program"because they live in a hostile environment" and preventing Iran to have nuclear energy even if it's peaceful,Israel should still be the only country in the middle east htat have this power..something in which Israelis use "the war on terror" as a cover as well as the very influencing and blinding lobby inside the US.

@ Black Winter - I 100% agree with you on the Israeli lobby in the United States. It is too powerful and has led to our country blindly following Israel without second guessing them. I do have a question about your views on Iran though. You seem to be pretty confident that Iran is pursuing nuclear technology for only peaceful purposes, yet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad keeps spewing out rhetoric pertaining to the destruction of Israel. I find it hard to let this man develop his nuclear capabilities while he continues this talk. I don't think we should bomb him, but it seems some sort of action needs to be taken by the world community.

Winter Death, Ahmadinejad talks usually in a wrong way,he talks about destroying Israel without thinking,but still he didn't say that he will NUKE Israel coz it's obviously impossble,Israel is too little in a way that he can't nuke it without harming arabs and palestinians,also, I know that the religious background of Iranians is totally against mass distruction,plus Iran offered cooperation with the The International Nuclear Energy Agency but those wanted Iran to fully stop their program(under the known influence),witch led to the conflict,I want Iran to have nuclear energy so it doesn't stay an Israeli exclusivity in the middle east,but I also want Iran to compromise more with the Nuclear Energy Agency,and stop meaningless threats.

Say for a second that Ahmadinejad actually cares about the Arabs around and in Israel, would it be unreasonable to assume that he might pass some nukes to some of the terrorist groups that his country supports? Those people would probably have fewer qualms about killing civilians, whether they be Arab or Israeli. Or the nukes could be used in Europe, Asia, North America, or anywhere. These scenarios don't seem too far fetched do they? And sadly, I don't think we can be dismissive when Ahmadinejad talks in a "wrong way." He is a leader on the world stage in a country that may eventually have the ability to build nukes. The world can't afford to be wrong on this issue, one way or another.

Written by [user id=16136] on 14.09.2007 at 03:56

Say for a second that Ahmadinejad actually cares about the Arabs around and in Israel, would it be unreasonable to assume that he might pass some nukes to some of the terrorist groups that his country supports? Those people would probably have fewer qualms about killing civilians, whether they be Arab or Israeli. Or the nukes could be used in Europe, Asia, North America, or anywhere. These scenarios don't seem too far fetched do they? And sadly, I don't think we can be dismissive when Ahmadinejad talks in a "wrong way." He is a leader on the world stage in a country that may eventually have the ability to build nukes. The world can't afford to be wrong on this issue, one way or another.

Look I know the international community concerns but the thing is that they don't do anything serious to solve this issue, saying that Iran should stop completely its program is way far from being reasonnable,coz In the previous Iranian presedent period, Iran did stop its program to negeciate,but there were no real nogotiation,it just made them lose time,so, the new leadership decided that they won't stop their program even if they negociate about it,but the international community made stopping it a first condition to negociate,Iran let the Nuclear Energy Agency do its checkings and visits,but,again,under the known influence, the agency said that Iran should cooperate more,the US took it like "Iran is not cooperating at all",all Iranians want is nuclear energy,they keep running to europe to meetings to soften things up but the US point did not change a bit,Iran should stop its program.This fear from Iran is reasonable but not true,just like the fear from saddam's nuclear power,Iran CAN NOT cooperate with terrorist groups like AlQaeda for the simple reason that AlQaeda thinks Iranians are blasphmers.
that's is my opinion,I wish to know about yours,how do you think the Iranian nuclear issue would be solved?

@ Black Winter - I have no idea how to solve this problem. I wish I did, but there doesn't seem to be any good solution. Military force might solve problems in the short term, but for America to start a third war in the past 6 years would be insane. I just can't see that working. It would only enrage the world more. On the other hand, diplomacy doesn't seem to do much good these days either. Does this mean we should just leave Iran alone? I have no idea. It seems like an impossible situation to solve.

Black Winter, you say that "Iran can not cooperate with terrorist groups," but they already do. It's fairly common knowledge that Iran actively and openly supports Hamas and Hezbollah, which are both labeled as terrorist organizations.

Written by [user id=16136] on 15.09.2007 at 04:04

@ Black Winter - I have no idea how to solve this problem. I wish I did, but there doesn't seem to be any good solution. Military force might solve problems in the short term, but for America to start a third war in the past 6 years would be insane. I just can't see that working. It would only enrage the world more. On the other hand, diplomacy doesn't seem to do much good these days either. Does this mean we should just leave Iran alone? I have no idea. It seems like an impossible situation to solve.

Black Winter, you say that "Iran can not cooperate with terrorist groups," but they already do. It's fairly common knowledge that Iran actively and openly supports Hamas and Hezbollah, which are both labeled as terrorist organizations.

Actually, Iran doesn't support Hamas actively with military aid, they're giving only financial aid. Sure, a bunch of that money is going towards getting weapons, but hey, if you were in their shoes, I'm sure you'd do the same. Hezbollah definitely gets a lot of Iranian support, because it's a Shi'ite organisation. While I can see why the West would label these groups as terrorist organisations, from their point of view the West are the terrorists. Remember, they've been shat on from a great height for years, and in their view it's all the fault of 19th and 20th century imperialism, so in a way they are justified in their aggression.

The fact remains the same: Iran is still supporting these groups in one way or another. We can try to un-stress that point all we want, but it is still happening. I am also curious about the statement, "they are justified in their aggression." These people undoubtedly have their grievances and it is not hard to understand why they want to lash out, but saying that groups who want to destroy Israel completely are justified is a little hard to swallow. The world as a whole should strive to understand why these groups do what they do, but that doesn't mean they are justified and it doesn't mean we shouldn't stop them.

Well, I don't know why Iran wants to destroy Israel, because they've not directly affected them whatsoever. However, Hezbollah, based in Southern Lebanon, has had their homeland invaded by Israel on the basis of 'preemptive strikes' against the PLO during the 1980s. They've had to deal with all the crap that arose from the formation of Israel, and they've had enough. Don't get me wrong, I am totally against their violent methods, but their motives are logical.

Hezbollah began inside Iran as a political movement. Once Israel invaded Lebanon in the early 80's, they moved into the Bekaa Valley in southern Lebanon to fight the Israelis. So to say that their homeland was invaded is not accurate. This group relocated hundreds of miles for the sole purpose of fighting Israel. People can debate all the want whether Israeli foreign policy is justified or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that this group (and others) wants Israel gone. And this brings us back to Iran's nukes...

Yes, Iran supports Hizbullah which is "labeled" as a terrorist organization,but if you say so,you put Hizbullah,Hamas,and AlQaeda in the same column,which is not right,Hizbullah and Hamas are both popular liberation organizations,do you think that if they were terrorist organization the US will wait till after 9/11 to label them? or that Hamas and Hizbullah leaders will meet european leaders with no problems,here I remind you that some people from hamas used to meet american presidents there inside the US and they,shake hands, you can just ask yourself what would you do if your country is invaded,another nation decided to create itself inside your land,they kick most of your people out,they give the rest very hard time,let's say that all you care about is to live,in the shadow in 'peace',would you keep this attitude if one of your relatives die,and believe me,each palestinian family have lost more than one of its members by Israeli war machine..
I don't know where you found the fact that Hizbullah started in Iran then moved to Lebanon,maybe there was an organization named Hizbullah in Iran(people can use any names they want) but it's still there,it doesn't make any sense because Hizbullah members are thousands and thousands and they are all lebanese,born and raised inside Lebanon.These groups don't want Israel necessary gone,they gave Israel some settlement proposals,to which they will stop any kind of attack on Israel,Israel refuses,so they say,that if Israel wont work for peace, we wont stand still and do nothing about it,we will work to end Israel,it is not realistic I know but what else can they do??

You said that i seem pretty sure that Iran wont create nukes while you seem pretty sure that Iran having nukes is pretty much done,how can you be so sure,here we are both 'guessing', the right thing to do is to let the nuclear energy agency do their job in peace,without bringing it to political conflicts.
Belive me,Israel is america's satan,Israel tells the US to stop Iran,I already explained that,where was this American concern when Israel formed it's nuclear project without signing any treaties and without any kind of supervision?at least Iran signed all of the nuclear treaties,where was this American concern until North Korea finished its program,and had nukes?

First post in here for a while, and there is a significant occurrence to warrant it too. I'm referring to the Emergency in Pakistan, a nuclear state that has seen major turmoil over the past week after its President and Chief of Army Staff, General Pervez Musharraf, declared a State of Emergency and suspended civil and press liberties. All opposition party leaders are under house arrest, gatherings and rallies are prohibited, and the army is the sole authority.

Now, this could rapidly spiral downwards, what with the lawlessness in the North West Frontier Province and Tribal Areas, and the growing militancy after the siege and storming of the Lal Masjid in Islamabad a few months ago. It's scary to think that if things really go pear-shaped, nuclear arms could be in the hands of some truly crazy and war-mongering people. But then, nuclear weapons are in the hands of George Bush, so it can't be all that bad really...

Jokes aside, this is pretty serious, because Musharraf has survived many assassination attempts already, and he's not getting any more popular these days. The Taliban are roaming through the Tribal Areas at will, and large parts of the North West Frontier Province are run by mullahs sympathetic to them. This could get ugly very fast, but on the other hand, Pakistan has never been a very stable nation, and there have been coups and assassinations and dictatorships and attempts at democracy throughout its 60 year history, without any real multinational strife.

Your thoughts on these developments?

I think the whole international community should come down hard on Pakistan, especially the United States. Of course I'm speaking diplomatically, but the world doesn't need another dictatorship who has nukes. It doesn't need another dictatorship period. In addition to this, the hypocritical U.S. administration has been pretty soft the government in Pakistan. They have been getting a little tougher as of late, but that doesn't change the fact that they are full of shit and wouldn't mind having Musharraf in power as long as there wasn't any backlash.

Maybe a way to deal with Musharraf, would be for the international community to drop him a million or so dollars behind closed doors to have his ass step-aside, end emergency rule, and hold free elections. He could then go and live the rest of his worthless life somewhere where he couldn't cause anymore harm. I know that is never going to happen, but man it would be great for Pakistan to get on track for a freer and more democratic society. What's happening over their is scary though.

just to ask, today is killed oposition leader in Pakisran Butho she was democratic leader in the country, and since pakistan is nuclear power, do u think this is dangours now, can there be more of violence or what.....

Written by EddieGunner on 28.12.2007 at 01:04

just to ask, today is killed oposition leader in Pakisran Butho she was democratic leader in the country, and since pakistan is nuclear power, do u think this is dangours now, can there be more of violence or what.....

Pervez Musharraf is still in control. There won't be any problems.

yeah, i see that now, but day after Buthos assasination wasn't so good, but yeah now is everything ok, i think

It's pretty funny to get the perspective of Pakistani people on all the strife in their country. I privately tutor some Pakistani kids, and I asked their parents if their family is all OK in Pakistan, and they're totally unfazed by it all. Their view is that stuff like this has been happening in Pakistan for the last 40 years, it's just that the world has decided to take notice of it now. Assassinations, coups, militancy... All in a day's work for these chaps. "Lahore, Islamabad, Karachi, Peshawar, these are all dangerous big cities. Our family lives in the countryside, so no-one takes any notice of them. If a terrorist attack happened in Multan, people would laugh, because the organisation would really be scraping the bottom of the suicide barrel by sending anyone there!"

Well I believed if they are members of either the UN or EU they should first consider what the other countries views are upon it. Um no, I don't think a nation which has voiced openly about destroying another nation should have access to Nuclear weapons. In fact I don't Believe any nation should have Nuclear weapons, but thats not the reality of things. Nations do and always will just because the fear of being left defenseless or leaving their enemies with an advantage over them. its only a matter of time before a weapon of such proportions gets into the wrong hands and when one of those weapons goes off its just gonna release a chain reaction and then there's those countries like Russia who sell Uranium and Plutonium for wealth. Well I'm sure the US does too, but what pisses me off about the US is that our government is very hypocritical and deceiving. Other countries do wrong but openly and we do it trying to sneak around and fuck up anyone who tries to get in our way or messes with our interest. In reality the US is the biggest tyrant out there right now. What actions can be taken well I'm not in the position to decide or do I have a credible response for that, but something must be decided by The UN and EU. Hypocrisy Of Course, as i just commented the main reason why countries like Iran and Korea in my opinion want these weapons are to protect themselves from Countries like mine and Israel. As long as one country has them, that country cant be telling another you cant have them. Thats what makes the other countries feel threatened. Well Self Defense is what the US claims to have them for and in reality made it for but nevertheless I don't believe it was necessary to defeat Japan. Cause when these weapons go off they dont discriminate between militants and none militants they kill everyone and even harm the environment, and when unleashed they usually tend to be aimed at a city that for the most part is inhabited by Civilians people who didn't even make these decisions or committed the offense. Nowadays we don't need to worry as much about Nuclear weapons as much as Fusion or Hydrogen weapons which are 100 times stronger than nuclear weapons., but these are my thoughts on the matter. Nevertheless the people who matter wont listen to us cause we dont have enough influence which is a real shame.

Written by Nighthowls on 05.05.2008 at 03:24

Well I believed if they are members of either the UN or EU they should first consider what the other countries views are upon it. Um no, I don't think a nation which has voiced openly about destroying another nation should have access to Nuclear weapons. In fact I don't Believe any nation should have Nuclear weapons, but thats not the reality of things. Nations do and always will just because the fear of being left defenseless or leaving their enemies with an advantage over them. its only a matter of time before a weapon of such proportions gets into the wrong hands and when one of those weapons goes off its just gonna release a chain reaction and then there's those countries like Russia who sell Uranium and Plutonium for wealth. Well I'm sure the US does too, but what pisses me off about the US is that our government is very hypocritical and deceiving. Other countries do wrong but openly and we do it trying to sneak around and fuck up anyone who tries to get in our way or messes with our interest. In reality the US is the biggest tyrant out there right now. What actions can be taken well I'm not in the position to decide or do I have a credible response for that, but something must be decided by The UN and EU. Hypocrisy Of Course, as i just commented the main reason why countries like Iran and Korea in my opinion want these weapons are to protect themselves from Countries like mine and Israel. As long as one country has them, that country cant be telling another you cant have them. Thats what makes the other countries feel threatened. Well Self Defense is what the US claims to have them for and in reality made it for but nevertheless I don't believe it was necessary to defeat Japan. Cause when these weapons go off they dont discriminate between militants and none militants they kill everyone and even harm the environment, and when unleashed they usually tend to be aimed at a city that for the most part is inhabited by Civilians people who didn't even make these decisions or committed the offense. Nowadays we don't need to worry as much about Nuclear weapons as much as Fusion or Hydrogen weapons which are 100 times stronger than nuclear weapons., but these are my thoughts on the matter. Nevertheless the people who matter wont listen to us cause we dont have enough influence which is a real shame.

wow..thank you sir
we only gonna see a post like this in the next 100 years
cos here in metalstorm we have so many really just stupid & (hypocritical ppl) low life fuckers and will never speak the truth also cos they dont even care

So, Hezbollah seems to be stirring shit up in Lebanon. It's a wonder how during the last lebanon conflict, everyone praised that terrorist organization as heroes for standing up to the Israeli pigs, but look at what they're doing now in that country. They really have its citizens by the balls, not such a nice organization, IS IT?

come on sweethearts now lets love one another

Written by [user id=6782] on 10.06.2008 at 06:45

come on sweethearts now lets love one another

Oh baby.

Written by Sunioj on 09.06.2008 at 18:16

So, Hezbollah seems to be stirring shit up in Lebanon. It's a wonder how during the last lebanon conflict, everyone praised that terrorist organization as heroes for standing up to the Israeli pigs, but look at what they're doing now in that country. They really have its citizens by the balls, not such a nice organization, IS IT?

Actually it's the opposition not Hizbullah only,those were sad events but good they were controlled quickly and led finally to the new political stability,but anyway,you care about lebanese citizens welfare now lol ..

Written by Black Winter on 10.06.2008 at 23:29

Written by Sunioj on 09.06.2008 at 18:16

So, Hezbollah seems to be stirring shit up in Lebanon. It's a wonder how during the last lebanon conflict, everyone praised that terrorist organization as heroes for standing up to the Israeli pigs, but look at what they're doing now in that country. They really have its citizens by the balls, not such a nice organization, IS IT?

Actually it's the opposition not Hizbullah only,those were sad events but good they were controlled quickly and led finally to the new political stability,but anyway,you care about lebanese citizens welfare now lol ..

I actually do. Would that be hard believe? Don't stereotype me as some war-mongering zionist zealout, trust me, I'm not. Political stability in the same context as middle eastern politics is an oxymoron.

Written by Sunioj on 11.06.2008 at 17:45

Written by Black Winter on 10.06.2008 at 23:29

Written by Sunioj on 09.06.2008 at 18:16

So, Hezbollah seems to be stirring shit up in Lebanon. It's a wonder how during the last lebanon conflict, everyone praised that terrorist organization as heroes for standing up to the Israeli pigs, but look at what they're doing now in that country. They really have its citizens by the balls, not such a nice organization, IS IT?

Actually it's the opposition not Hizbullah only,those were sad events but good they were controlled quickly and led finally to the new political stability,but anyway,you care about lebanese citizens welfare now lol ..

I actually do. Would that be hard believe? Don't stereotype me as some war-mongering zionist zealout, trust me, I'm not. Political stability in the same context as middle eastern politics is an oxymoron.

Actually I hope you are not but,Were you or were you not for the war against Lebanon ? Are you for releasing all the lebanese prisoners of war from your prisons? Are you for giving back the complete land of Lebanon to Lebanon?
Not to say that it should be so,but unfortunatly in every political unstability in the middle east you could track down the presence of Israel.

Written by Black Winter on 11.06.2008 at 23:03

Written by Sunioj on 11.06.2008 at 17:45

Written by Black Winter on 10.06.2008 at 23:29

Written by Sunioj on 09.06.2008 at 18:16

So, Hezbollah seems to be stirring shit up in Lebanon. It's a wonder how during the last lebanon conflict, everyone praised that terrorist organization as heroes for standing up to the Israeli pigs, but look at what they're doing now in that country. They really have its citizens by the balls, not such a nice organization, IS IT?

Actually it's the opposition not Hizbullah only,those were sad events but good they were controlled quickly and led finally to the new political stability,but anyway,you care about lebanese citizens welfare now lol ..

I actually do. Would that be hard believe? Don't stereotype me as some war-mongering zionist zealout, trust me, I'm not. Political stability in the same context as middle eastern politics is an oxymoron.

Actually I hope you are not but,Were you or were you not for the war against Lebanon ? Are you for releasing all the lebanese prisoners of war from your prisons? Are you for giving back the complete land of Lebanon to Lebanon?

Not to say that it should be so,but unfortunatly in every political unstability in the middle east you could track down the presence of Israel.

Was I against the War in Lebanon? Yes. But you have to understand that also at the same time, countries do have the right and the obligation for its citizens to protect itself. In the case of Lebanon, both sides where at a fault because:

A). Israel committed massive damage to Lebanese citizens and cities

B). Israel used outdated and banned weapons such as sulphuric acid in Cannon shells, outdated, and very innaccurate air-surface missiles

C). The Hezbollah are the ones who initially started the attacks, and have for a long time been poking and running small times missions against the Israelis (also civilian population) for years until that war. At this point, Lebanon was a time bomb ready to go off. Any country wouldn't take kind of abuse, having its soldiers kidnapped, missile attacks on cities far, far away that has nothing to do with the lebanese border.

At this point Black Winter, when Hezbollah missiles started hitting civilian houses, did Israel have the obligation to protect its citizens. Was the result morally just? I think not.

D). Hezbollah's neglegance and the lack of responsibility organizations like these take for the destruction and sufferring caused when the opposition decides to make strikes against targets that placed in civilian areas. Same thing in Gaza, many terrorist organizations do this, infact.

As many problems revolve around the existance of Israel, there are also innumerable amounts of Middle East problems that can also be tracked down to the presence of Terrorist organizations.

People talk as if releasing the prisoners will do any good for political stability when nothing changes. If we are talking about prisoners that have blood on their hands, then fuck no, let them rot, but I leave that up to the government to decide, its their responsibility, though they can do better then the level that the Israeli government is sinking in. Olmert is already talking about giving land by the way.

Written by Sunioj on 12.06.2008 at 17:52

Written by Black Winter on 11.06.2008 at 23:03

Written by Sunioj on 11.06.2008 at 17:45

Written by Black Winter on 10.06.2008 at 23:29

Written by Sunioj on 09.06.2008 at 18:16

So, Hezbollah seems to be stirring shit up in Lebanon. It's a wonder how during the last lebanon conflict, everyone praised that terrorist organization as heroes for standing up to the Israeli pigs, but look at what they're doing now in that country. They really have its citizens by the balls, not such a nice organization, IS IT?

Actually it's the opposition not Hizbullah only,those were sad events but good they were controlled quickly and led finally to the new political stability,but anyway,you care about lebanese citizens welfare now lol ..

I actually do. Would that be hard believe? Don't stereotype me as some war-mongering zionist zealout, trust me, I'm not. Political stability in the same context as middle eastern politics is an oxymoron.

Actually I hope you are not but,Were you or were you not for the war against Lebanon ? Are you for releasing all the lebanese prisoners of war from your prisons? Are you for giving back the complete land of Lebanon to Lebanon?

Not to say that it should be so,but unfortunatly in every political unstability in the middle east you could track down the presence of Israel.

Was I against the War in Lebanon? Yes. But you have to understand that also at the same time, countries do have the right and the obligation for its citizens to protect itself. In the case of Lebanon, both sides where at a fault because:

A). Israel committed massive damage to Lebanese citizens and cities

B). Israel used outdated and banned weapons such as sulphuric acid in Cannon shells, outdated, and very innaccurate air-surface missiles

C). The Hezbollah are the ones who initially started the attacks, and have for a long time been poking and running small times missions against the Israelis (also civilian population) for years until that war. At this point, Lebanon was a time bomb ready to go off. Any country wouldn't take kind of abuse, having its soldiers kidnapped, missile attacks on cities far, far away that has nothing to do with the lebanese border.

At this point Black Winter, when Hezbollah missiles started hitting civilian houses, did Israel have the obligation to protect its citizens. Was the result morally just? I think not.

D). Hezbollah's neglegance and the lack of responsibility organizations like these take for the destruction and sufferring caused when the opposition decides to make strikes against targets that placed in civilian areas. Same thing in Gaza, many terrorist organizations do this, infact.

As many problems revolve around the existance of Israel, there are also innumerable amounts of Middle East problems that can also be tracked down to the presence of Terrorist organizations.

People talk as if releasing the prisoners will do any good for political stability when nothing changes. If we are talking about prisoners that have blood on their hands, then fuck no, let them rot, but I leave that up to the government to decide, its their responsibility, though they can do better then the level that the Israeli government is sinking in. Olmert is already talking about giving land by the way.

If Israel,when left south Lebanon in 2000,made a clean and a complete task,including giving the full occupied Lebanese territories,releasing prisoners of war,because according to international law, once a war is over,and order to create peace,all the prisonners of war should be released,because it was war,both sides would consider the opposite fighters as criminals,but I think the reason why Israel does not care a lot about that point,is because they have no prisonners of war in Lebanon,that's why it's necessary for Hizbullah to kidnap some from a time to time,to desperatly keep a minimum balance.If Israel did a complete task,then Hizbullah would have not have any good point targetting Israel,there is already pression on Hizbullah to give up his military aspect from lebanese parties themselves,but the reason why Hizbullah keeps his army,is because the war is not over until it is actually over.
Believe me Israel's pretext to kill civilians because there are 'terrorist' targets in civilian areas is out of date now,because when using the kind of weapons you already mentionned,you could not possibly have specific target,its effect is not well limited,plus we all saw alittle example of unjustified strikes when Israel targetted a palestinian family on Gaza's beach,there was nobody there exept the family,so don't tell me it's a mistake.
About what Olmert is talking about lately,you know nobody is fan of war,if it is not necessary,if those syrian/israeli talks get somewhere,it would be just great.God bless Turkey

Written by Black Winter on 12.06.2008 at 19:48

Written by Sunioj on 12.06.2008 at 17:52

Written by Black Winter on 11.06.2008 at 23:03

Written by Sunioj on 11.06.2008 at 17:45

Written by Black Winter on 10.06.2008 at 23:29

Written by Sunioj on 09.06.2008 at 18:16

So, Hezbollah seems to be stirring shit up in Lebanon. It's a wonder how during the last lebanon conflict, everyone praised that terrorist organization as heroes for standing up to the Israeli pigs, but look at what they're doing now in that country. They really have its citizens by the balls, not such a nice organization, IS IT?

Actually it's the opposition not Hizbullah only,those were sad events but good they were controlled quickly and led finally to the new political stability,but anyway,you care about lebanese citizens welfare now lol ..

I actually do. Would that be hard believe? Don't stereotype me as some war-mongering zionist zealout, trust me, I'm not. Political stability in the same context as middle eastern politics is an oxymoron.

Actually I hope you are not but,Were you or were you not for the war against Lebanon ? Are you for releasing all the lebanese prisoners of war from your prisons? Are you for giving back the complete land of Lebanon to Lebanon?

Not to say that it should be so,but unfortunatly in every political unstability in the middle east you could track down the presence of Israel.

Was I against the War in Lebanon? Yes. But you have to understand that also at the same time, countries do have the right and the obligation for its citizens to protect itself. In the case of Lebanon, both sides where at a fault because:

A). Israel committed massive damage to Lebanese citizens and cities

B). Israel used outdated and banned weapons such as sulphuric acid in Cannon shells, outdated, and very innaccurate air-surface missiles

C). The Hezbollah are the ones who initially started the attacks, and have for a long time been poking and running small times missions against the Israelis (also civilian population) for years until that war. At this point, Lebanon was a time bomb ready to go off. Any country wouldn't take kind of abuse, having its soldiers kidnapped, missile attacks on cities far, far away that has nothing to do with the lebanese border.

At this point Black Winter, when Hezbollah missiles started hitting civilian houses, did Israel have the obligation to protect its citizens. Was the result morally just? I think not.

D). Hezbollah's neglegance and the lack of responsibility organizations like these take for the destruction and sufferring caused when the opposition decides to make strikes against targets that placed in civilian areas. Same thing in Gaza, many terrorist organizations do this, infact.

As many problems revolve around the existance of Israel, there are also innumerable amounts of Middle East problems that can also be tracked down to the presence of Terrorist organizations.

People talk as if releasing the prisoners will do any good for political stability when nothing changes. If we are talking about prisoners that have blood on their hands, then fuck no, let them rot, but I leave that up to the government to decide, its their responsibility, though they can do better then the level that the Israeli government is sinking in. Olmert is already talking about giving land by the way.

If Israel,when left south Lebanon in 2000,made a clean and a complete task,including giving the full occupied Lebanese territories,releasing prisoners of war,because according to international law, once a war is over,and order to create peace,all the prisonners of war should be released,because it was war,both sides would consider the opposite fighters as criminals,but I think the reason why Israel does not care a lot about that point,is because they have no prisonners of war in Lebanon,that's why it's necessary for Hizbullah to kidnap some from a time to time,to desperatly keep a minimum balance.

If Israel did a complete task,then Hizbullah would have not have any good point targetting Israel,there is already pression on Hizbullah to give up his military aspect from lebanese parties themselves,but the reason why Hizbullah keeps his army,is because the war is not over until it is actually over.

Believe me Israel's pretext to kill civilians because there are 'terrorist' targets in civilian areas is out of date now,because when using the kind of weapons you already mentionned,you could not possibly have specific target,its effect is not well limited,plus we all saw alittle example of unjustified strikes when Israel targetted a palestinian family on Gaza's beach,there was nobody there exept the family,so don't tell me it's a mistake.

About what Olmert is talking about lately,you know nobody is fan of war,if it is not necessary,if those syrian/israeli talks get somewhere,it would be just great.God bless Turkey

So you're saying that Israel purposely lets Hizbullah to take a select few prisoners to be able to say that they have prisoners in Lebanon, or minimum balance? I think that's absurd, the reason that Hizbullah was able to kidnap those soldiers was because the security in the North is really, really bad. I know this because of statistics and tests done at the boarder. Trust me.

And that's another thing, you keep on saying that if Israel did a better task at things, then Hizbullah would not be able to get to good targetting positions. The only way I believe they can do that is if they were much aggressive, this would only cause more collateral IMO. Israel can't afford to send in troops into populated areas to take out missile trucks, its suicide.

But the part about the bombing and such about how indiscriminate some of the casualties come about, I agree with you. There really is no excuse for that, it doesn't work either way, because someone will just take their place and the indiscriminate bombing just builds more hatred.

I hope things go somewhere too.

i think nuclear weapons should be evenly distributed to all countries. a nuclear world makes everyone much more wary of their actions and the way politics are conducted. i would actually watch the news regularly if this were to happen.

Written by [user id=6782] on 09.06.2008 at 06:58

Written by Nighthowls on 05.05.2008 at 03:24

Well I believed if they are members of either the UN or EU ...

wow..thank you sir
we only gonna see a post like this in the next 100 years
cos here in metalstorm we have so many really just stupid & (hypocritical ppl) low life fuckers and will never speak the truth also cos they dont even care

LMAO, well Thank You I'm glad you liked it, Well as a former US Infantryman I got to see both perspectives