I abhor many of Galloway's views, but that is no reason not to listen.
Overt bigotry and hate speech has a legitimate place in public discourse and must be considered???? Do you hear what you are saying?
Galloway does indeed cross the line at times. But the rest of the time, he actually expresses a view that we must deal with if we are ever to understand what is happening in the Middle East. And we won't deal with it by ignoring it or just shouting louder than the other guys.
UK Skins Fan wrote: And we won't deal with it by ignoring it or just shouting louder than the other guys.
Listening to views that you oppose and trying to deal with the differences in opinions was destroyed during the Y2K change over.
Re-read some of this thread and you can tell who is listening/reading before replying and those who just beating their own drum and calling it debating a issuse.
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....
UK Skins Fan wrote: And we won't deal with it by ignoring it or just shouting louder than the other guys.
Listening to views that you oppose and trying to deal with the differences in opinions was destroyed during the Y2K change over.
Re-read some of this thread and you can tell who is listening/reading before replying and those who just beating their own drum and calling it debating a issuse.
But the rest of the time, he actually expresses a view that we must deal with if we are ever to understand what is happening in the Middle East. And we won't deal with it by ignoring it or just shouting louder than the other guys.
I understand your point. I just don't see venemous demagoguery as the valid presentation of a point of view. Those on extremes... (over here, it could be Cynthia McKenny, or David Duke... they are opposite sides of the same coin; one is really no different than the other) have nothing to contribute to the conversation other than the voice of ill intentions.
"That's a clown question, bro" - - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman "But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man That he didn't, didn't already have" - - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
But the rest of the time, he actually expresses a view that we must deal with if we are ever to understand what is happening in the Middle East. And we won't deal with it by ignoring it or just shouting louder than the other guys.
I understand your point. I just don't see venemous demagoguery as the valid presentation of a point of view. Those on extremes... (over here, it could be Cynthia McKenny, or David Duke... they are opposite sides of the same coin; one is really no different than the other) have nothing to contribute to the conversation other than the voice of ill intentions.
There is a difference. When Duke ran for gov of LA, the Republican Party actively supported his Democratic oponent. I don't recall Dems ever doing that when 1 of their extremist bigots (like McKinney) ran.
Skins fan since '55
"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln
You are certainly correct in this case, however, that is unrelated to the point I was trying to make, which is that radical demagogues rarely have anything of true value to contribute to a democratic debate. Their purpose is to obfuscate and obstruct. Their interest is in domination, not information.
"That's a clown question, bro" - - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman "But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man That he didn't, didn't already have" - - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
I must say...this has surely kept me entertained during the off season. Somehow I predict this thread will die in about 1 days worth now that the season is upon us.
Israeli commandos raided a Hezbollah stronghold deep inside Lebanon Saturday, sparking a fierce clash with militants that killed one Israeli. Lebanon called the raid a "flagrant violation" of the U.N.-brokered cease-fire. Witnesses said Israeli missiles also destroyed a bridge during the raid in what would be the first such airstrike since the cease-fire took effect Monday, ending 34 days of warfare between the two sides. LINK HERE
This is the first sign that the ceasefire will most likey NOT hold. For the most part ALL peace agreements in the Middle East get sabatoged in this manner. You have more raids, more missle strikes, more bridges damaged then when Lebannon/Hezbollah have to defend themselves from the aggression they are the ones who get blamed for the escalation.
Israeli commandos raided a Hezbollah stronghold deep inside Lebanon Saturday, sparking a fierce clash with militants that killed one Israeli. Lebanon called the raid a "flagrant violation" of the U.N.-brokered cease-fire. Witnesses said Israeli missiles also destroyed a bridge during the raid in what would be the first such airstrike since the cease-fire took effect Monday, ending 34 days of warfare between the two sides. LINK HERE
This is the first sign that the ceasefire will most likey NOT hold. For the most part ALL peace agreements in the Middle East get sabatoged in this manner. You have more raids, more missle strikes, more bridges damaged then when Lebannon/Hezbollah have to defend themselves from the aggression they are the ones who get blamed for the escalation.
The raid ws for the purpose of stopping weapons smugling.
Skins fan since '55
"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln
Israeli commandos raided a Hezbollah stronghold deep inside Lebanon Saturday, sparking a fierce clash with militants that killed one Israeli. Lebanon called the raid a "flagrant violation" of the U.N.-brokered cease-fire. Witnesses said Israeli missiles also destroyed a bridge during the raid in what would be the first such airstrike since the cease-fire took effect Monday, ending 34 days of warfare between the two sides. LINK HERE
This is the first sign that the ceasefire will most likey NOT hold. For the most part ALL peace agreements in the Middle East get sabatoged in this manner. You have more raids, more missle strikes, more bridges damaged then when Lebannon/Hezbollah have to defend themselves from the aggression they are the ones who get blamed for the escalation.
The raid ws for the purpose of stopping weapons smugling.
So your point is:
Israel broke the cease-fire to prevent Hezbollah from being able to break the cease-fire at some future time?
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
According to 1701, Hisbollah is suposed to DISARM, not rearm. By bringing in more weapons, Hisbollah is violating the resolution. 1701 is not a simple ceasefire.
Skins fan since '55
"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln
yupchagee wrote:According to 1701, Hisbollah is suposed to DISARM, not rearm. By bringing in more weapons, Hisbollah is violating the resolution. 1701 is not a simple ceasefire.
If this is true then yes Hezbollah is breaking part of the ceasefire agreement. But there is no proof of this happening. The only proof...and I use that word lightly is hearsay from the Israeli government and that is not a very credible source.
What we do have proof about is that Israel once again went into a soverign state and attacked them without provacation.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called the operation a violation of the 6-day-old cease-fire brokered by the United Nations. LINK HERE
yupchagee wrote:According to 1701, Hisbollah is suposed to DISARM, not rearm. By bringing in more weapons, Hisbollah is violating the resolution. 1701 is not a simple ceasefire.
If this is true then yes Hezbollah is breaking part of the ceasefire agreement. But there is no proof of this happening. The only proof...and I use that word lightly is hearsay from the Israeli government and that is not a very credible source.
What we do have proof about is that Israel once again went into a soverign state and attacked them without provacation.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called the operation a violation of the 6-day-old cease-fire brokered by the United Nations. LINK HERE
Are you saying that Annan is a credible source? He & his office have shown themselves to lack integrity, competance & neutrality. Israel would not be putting its soldiers at risk without cause. Are you saying that Israel must wait for permission from Annan to defend themselves?
Skins fan since '55
"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln
JSPB22 wrote:Defend themselves by breaking the cease-fire? That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?
Hisbollah is in violation of 1701 by rearming. Lebanon is in violation by not disarming Hisbollah. The UN is in violation of its own resolution by making no effort to disarm Hisbollah.
Skins fan since '55
"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln
yupchagee wrote:Hisbollah is in violation of 1701 by rearming. Lebanon is in violation by not disarming Hisbollah. The UN is in violation of its own resolution by making no effort to disarm Hisbollah.
Just because Israel says so does not mean it is true. Where is the proof that Hezbollah broke the ceasefire. It's all speculation. But that bridge that Israel bombed IS proof of breaking the ceasefire.
Read what I wrote. It's not just a ceasefire. Hisbollah is suposed to disarm. The Lebanese army is suposed to disarm them, UNIFIL is suposed to disarm them. None of these have happenned, & all 3 have said that they won't.
Skins fan since '55
"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln
yupchagee wrote:Hisbollah is in violation of 1701 by rearming. Lebanon is in violation by not disarming Hisbollah. The UN is in violation of its own resolution by making no effort to disarm Hisbollah.
Wow...so everyone is to blame EXCEPT Israel. Well according to John Bolton (U.S. Ambassador) that is not the case.
Bolton said, "As we've always contemplated, the disarming of Hezbollah, which was not specifically addressed in 1701, would have to be addressed, and that should be coming shortly." LINK HERE
yupchagee wrote:Hisbollah is in violation of 1701 by rearming. Lebanon is in violation by not disarming Hisbollah. The UN is in violation of its own resolution by making no effort to disarm Hisbollah.
Wow...so everyone is to blame EXCEPT Israel. Well according to John Bolton (U.S. Ambassador) that is not the case.
Bolton said, "As we've always contemplated, the disarming of Hezbollah, which was not specifically addressed in 1701, would have to be addressed, and that should be coming shortly." LINK HERE
1551 called for Hezbolla to be disarmed over a decade ago just because the UN needed a new resolution to appear to be doing something doesn't mean previous resolutions go out the window.
If Isreal was indeed doing what they said they were doing they had every right, wasn't very smart but they had every right to do so (if they were doing what they say they were doing).
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....
Underscoring the fragility of the week-old Mideast truce, Israeli troops on Monday shot two Hezbollah guerrillas....With concern mounting over the fragile truce, Israel sent warplanes over the coastal city of Tripoli, some 35 miles north of Beirut, and over Baalbek, scene of an Israeli commando raid two days ago which Israel said was to disrupt weapons shipments for Hezbollah from Syria.
Lebanon considers overflights a violation of the U.N. resolution that ended 34 days of fighting last week. LINK HERE
1niksder wrote:If Isreal was indeed doing what they said they were doing they had every right, wasn't very smart but they had every right to do so (ifthey were doing what they say they were doing).
If this is the case...then yes I agree. Israel has a right do defend itself. However, there is no proof of this and I do not believe a word that one side says over the other. Remember the...WMD in Iraq?
Underscoring the fragility of the week-old Mideast truce, Israeli troops on Monday shot two Hezbollah guerrillas....With concern mounting over the fragile truce, Israel sent warplanes over the coastal city of Tripoli, some 35 miles north of Beirut, and over Baalbek, scene of an Israeli commando raid two days ago which Israel said was to disrupt weapons shipments for Hezbollah from Syria.
Lebanon considers overflights a violation of the U.N. resolution that ended 34 days of fighting last week. LINK HERE
Like the disarmerment of Hezbollah, Lebanon's air space wasn't covered...
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....
1niksder wrote:If Isreal was indeed doing what they said they were doing they had every right, wasn't very smart but they had every right to do so (ifthey were doing what they say they were doing).
If this is the case...then yes I agree. Israel has a right do defend itself. However, there is no proof of this and I do not believe a word that one side says over the other. Remember the...WMD in Iraq?
That's why I said IF, otherwise they were wrong, at the same time 1551 called for Lebanon to place the same troops on the border that 1701 does - there is no IF involved here they are not there, 1551 called for those same troops to dis-arm Hezbollah, they are still armed again no IF involved.
1551 was over a decade ago... here's a IF for ya.
IF you were Isreal what would you do
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....
yupchagee wrote:Hisbollah is in violation of 1701 by rearming. Lebanon is in violation by not disarming Hisbollah. The UN is in violation of its own resolution by making no effort to disarm Hisbollah.
Just because Israel says so does not mean it is true. Where is the proof that Hezbollah broke the ceasefire. It's all speculation. But that bridge that Israel bombed IS proof of breaking the ceasefire.
I didn't say they broke the ceasefire, I said they broke 1701 (& 1559 before that).
Skins fan since '55
"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln
IF you were Isreal what would you do 
