₦airaland Forum

nilla:
Thats why I'm asking what would you rather suggest?
If talking about peace is not going to help, what is?

Maybe na when I suggest make everybody use nuclear weapon kill everybody Afam go begin make sense, I am not sure some of us here know what to believe anyway, so clutching at anything no matter how irrelevant seems attractive to some of us.

It is not a good idea to use names to identify account holders as more than one person can have the same combination of names even with the same order.

I also believe that we can venture into ecommerce today with real results, only that very few understand how to do this and the few are not willing to do a long term plan, only short term ones with immediate returns.

Any digital wallet that can tie into any website at very affordable rates/charges is enough to bring real ecommerce to our doorsteps.

The main issue may be whether the potential buyers are ready to shop online and whether the potential sellers are ready to deliver goods/services paid for as promised.

If the 2 important end points are in tune with what is required then a good courier/postal agency will make the whole process work without problems.

But how many Nigerians will agree to pay for goods not seen even when you can buy something now, return it in 3 hours and the seller tells you he doesn't know what you are talking about?

:p :-x

Yes, Chxta knows you well and I guess that was why he pointed out to you that your statements do not follow since the post was not mine. Doesn't that tell you something? I may be a little man but I am certainly not stupid.

I see someone that will do anything to make a point including making false accusations, lies, robbery etc. I do not deal with desperate people. If you cannot own up to your mistake then dealing with dogs will be a much better idea.

If you had noticed well, you would have realised that I delibrately ignored your post after you found it difficult to accept your mistake when you credited someone else's post to me and went ahead to state nonsense, even after Chxta pointed out that I only reproduced someone's post.

Now, I certainly do not have time for people like you because what makes a man is his ability to accept responsibilities of his actions whether right or wrong.

As for Afam disappointing you, I am not here to impress anyone so it means nothing to me.

Why is my position important to you? I honestly disregard most of your views because they are full of bias and hatred masked with somewhat careless statements, so in essence what you state here do not mean anything to me, maybe until you are bold enough to accept your mistakes.

@To-chi,

No wahala. Take your time and take care.

Nigeria can start enjoying real ecommerce once the major players get their acts together.

What's this about EFCC registering online businesses? What has EFCC got to do with ecommerce?

@Kaecy5,

Have I stated anything wrong based on the statement?

If either party decides to start a new phase of crisis does it invalidate my statement that we can have peace if the players are fair?

I pray and hope for peace where all these senseless killings will stop.

If people must fight and kill then I pray that the leaders that send the soldiers out will lead by example by fighting alongside the soldiers as we used to have in the days of old.

Almost on daily basis we hear of police recovering tens of bodies killed and dumped in different locations in Iraq. We are talking about human beings here or maybe the deaths have become too common for us to take note.

Take care, I still believe that sustainable peace is very much within reach.

@Mariory,

Thanks for the correction.

The Taliban remains a faction that came out of the original resistance movement - the Mujahadins.

My mistake for stating that the West supported Taliban during the war.

I shall amend the statement to read the West supported the Mujahadins and supplied them with missiles during the Soviet - Afghanistan war and according to Pakistan president, the West contributed to the problem in both Afghanistan (the taliban refers) and Pakistan today.

Still on Taliban, @ http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,175372,00.html

Who are the Taliban and why are they sheltering Osama bin Laden?

The Taliban, who overran most of Afghanistan in 1996, are a militia driven by an extremely harsh Medieval interpretation of Sunni Islam. Backed by Pakistan and funded by Saudi Arabia, they promised to put an end to the factional warfare that had claimed thousands of lives in the years following the defeat of the country's Soviet puppet government in 1991. The Taliban imposed an extremely repressive, sectarian Islamic regime on the Afghan people, barring women from work and education and even killing Shiite Muslims of the Hazari minority.

Bin Laden had been a hero of the 'jihad' against the Soviet occupiers, and the Taliban welcomed him back to Afghanistan in 1996 after his expulsion from the Sudan. Bin Laden has reportedly cemented his ties to the Taliban leadership through his daughter's marriage to its leader, Mullah Omar. But more importantly, his "Arab Afghan" fighters have played a leading role in the Taliban's ongoing military campaign against its opponents. The Taliban's elite brigade were trained in Bin Laden's camps, and are believed to be loyal to the Saudi terrorist's "Al Qaida" movement.

Is the Taliban the recognized government of Afghanistan? Do they have domestic opposition?

Only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's government, and international recognition as a legitimate government remains the movement's most important foreign policy objective. The country's seat at the United Nations is still held by representatives of the government overthrown by the Taliban in 1996, to which the opposition Northern Alliance remains loyal. The Northern Alliance is a loose anti-Taliban coalition that includes remnants of the former Soviet-backed regime, and a number of ethnic minority-based groups fiercely opposed to the Taliban's harsh rule — and also to the principle of being ruled by a government composed only of ethnic Pashtuns. The key component of these forces are the ethnic Tajiks who control the strategically important Pansjir valley. The Taliban have failed to dislodge them despite launching massive annual offensives — but they did strike a body blow last week by assassinating the Northern Alliance's key military leader, Ahmed Shah Masood, the "Lion of the Pansjir." The Northern Alliance forces only control five percent of the country, but the Taliban's harsh regime has provoked growing resentment, even among Afghans who initially welcomed their takeover.

Is it possible that the Taliban would hand over Bin Laden for trial?

It's unlikely, but it's not impossible. The Taliban's priorities are quite different from Bin Laden's — they want to build and consolidate an Islamic state in Afghanistan; he's waging a global jihad. And right now, those priorities are somewhat in conflict, because, as Pakistan has tried to warn its erstwhile protegees, standing with Bin Laden now will spark a confrontation that could see the Taliban overthrown. But the Taliban has become so dependent on Bin Laden's own forces and men loyal to him that they may struggle to rationalize giving him up without facing internal disintegration. They're likely to play for time, and try and fudge the issue, and it wouldn’t be surprising to hear Taliban spokesmen in the very near future proclaiming that Bin Laden has left Afghanistan, regardless of his actual whereabouts.

How have Afghanistan's neighbors responded to the Taliban?

Pakistan has been more than a friend to the Taliban — in many ways it has been mentor and tutor, too, and even, according to opposition groups, an active participant in its rise to power. In geopolitical terms, Pakistan needs to dominate Afghanistan to offset the discomfort of being wedged between hostile neighbors India and (to a lesser, but not insignificant extent) Iran — and the Taliban were to have been their vehicle. But the Bin Laden terror campaign has put Pakistan in a tight spot, where its all-important relations with the West are now dependent on standing against its Afghan progeny, a decision that raises considerable domestic difficulty for Pakistan's leaders.

China shares a small border with Afghanistan, and has been generally supportive of the U.S. call for action against terrorism. Bin Laden's group has trained Islamist fighting for secession in western China, and Beijing would be happy to see an end to the regime in Afghanistan that allows terrorist training camps to be maintained there. The Chinese have moved troops to the border recently, but are unlikely to support any direct U.S. military intervention in their neighborhood, much less allow their own territory to be used. Beijing's importance may lie in the fact that it is Pakistan's key military ally, particularly since that country's nuclear program forced the U.S. to maintain its distance for most of the past decade. China is certainly in a position to put the squeeze on Pakistan’s leadership, but much may depend on Beijing’s attitude to any direct U.S. intervention in Afghanistan.

Tajikistan, the former Soviet republic whose six million people share strong ethnic ties with Afghan Tajiks has long been engaged in Afghanistan, particularly as a key rear base of opposition activity. Wracked by internal conflict, it continues to allow a Russian military presence and has been the staging ground for Russian assistance to Afghan opposition groups. Tajikistan could be an important staging ground for any U.S. military action in Afghanistan — if Russia gives its approval, which remains an open question.

Uzbekistan, another former Soviet republic whose 25 million people share ethnic ties with an anti-Taliban section of the Afghan population, faces an Islamist insurgency of its own, and that intensifies its opposition to Afghanistan's ruling militia. It has served as a rear base for opposition forces based in the north, and could be another important base for U.S. action — once again, if its Russian patron is willing.

Turkmenistan, the third former Soviet republic bordering Afghanistan, is less engaged with events across the border. It appears reluctant to get involved, and like its neighboring "stans" won’t act without Moscow's say-so.

Iran is implacably hostile to the Taliban over that movement's extremist theology and over its killing of Afghan Shiite Muslims. In 1999, Iran almost went to war against the Taliban after its militia killed eight Iranian diplomats and a journalist after capturing a predominantly Shiite town, and has worked together with Russia to support anti-Taliban opposition forces. Despite the overtures between the reformist president Mohammed Khatami and the West on ways of cooperating against terrorism, hard-line spiritual leader Ayatollah Khameini insisted that while Iran condemned the terror strikes in the U.S., Tehran could not support U.S. military action against Afghanistan. Still, whether working directly with the U.S. or not, Iran remains a key regional player in the anti-Taliban alliance.

I will not engage someone that thinks he understands what he does not understand.

Who are the Mujahadins and who are the Talibans?

It is like you are here to attack every statement which is good anyway if you know what you are discussing.

Take your time and enjoy.

Interesting times lie ahead.

Britain
The once young and hansome Blair is getting old and wornout, he prefers to lecture his own people about al qaeda and terrorism, yet his people are not listening, they want him out. I guess his criminal support of any illegal war in Iraq paved the way for his political downfall.

Pakistan
The president rightly accused the West of supporting the Taliban during the time the fought the Soviets and maintained that the US foreign policy helped in encouraging the taliban to use Pakistan, his homeland. Though a general, I respect the man so much for standing on the side of truth. 2 years ago he stated that the world could work towards peace first by tackling the Palestinian problem.

Iran,
The PM of Iraq visited Iran (even after 8 years of bitter war) and may foster a healthy relationship that will see the US influence reduced to a very low level.

US
Wonders shall never end. The US praising Syria for handling an attack well. A country that was labelled an axis of evil and supporter of terrorists is being praised for protecting the US embassy.

Does this mean that if Syria decides to support the US regardless of US foreign policies, the US will no longer see Syria as a bad country? Is it all about selfish interests or what?

Bush seems to be a very bright man for stating though there was no link between Iraq and 911 that he was right in invading the country (actually he said it was war but we all know it was an illegal invasion).

Israel,
The PM has agreed to meet PLO president without conditions. Strange but true and of course remains the best route to finding lasting peace in the middle east.

Palestine
Same as the last comment with Abbas agreeing to meet with Olmert without conditions.

Lebanon
Report has it that a prisoner exchange deal is in the offing.

Who says that we can not have peace in the middle east if the players are fair to one another?

@Davidylan,

Do enjoy yourself on this forum, tell dem say you no see me.

If you do not understand anything, ask, ask and ask.

The following is your post

I'm sure those "many countries" you refer to do not include muslim countries including Nigeria where actuall celebrations took place!

And my response

On the countries that condemned the 911 attack I am sure that the FG sympathized with the US and condemned the attack.

If however, you conclude that some people in Nigeria celebrated the attack to mean that Nigeria supported it then I am sorry to state this, joining issues with you is a huge waste of time because I am aware of a lot of people that condemned the attack, at least I did and I am a Nigerian, that invalidates whatever wrong conclusion you may have reached on Nigeria supporting the 911 attacks.

How you arrived at the following beats my imagination silly

You have just confirmed my worst fears and those of many that you simply reply to posts without digesting the contents.
Where did i tell you that Nigeria AS A NATION supported 9-11 based on the acts of the radical muslim north? At least i and my family iin Nigerian then did not!

So, what were you saying about Nigeria? As a nation, as an individual? What?

I wish you the very best in all your endeavours, so long.

@Davidylan,

I am replying this post with the hope that you don't understand my post genuinely.

As regards Al jazeera, I don't watch that channel so wouldn't know what their contribution was torwards criminal silence. It is also not for you to demand for media houses to react in certain ways based on what is happening.

Just a crazy question anyway - does it make sense that Syria was an unwanted occupier for 29 years and yet remains a strong supporter of Lebanon even if through Hezbollah?

On the countries that condemned the 911 attack I am sure that the FG sympathized with the US and condemned the attack.

If however, you conclude that some people in Nigeria celebrated the attack to mean that Nigeria supported it then I am sorry to state this, joining issues with you is a huge waste of time because I am aware of a lot of people that condemned the attack, at least I did and I am a Nigerian, that invalidates whatever wrong conclusion you may have reached on Nigeria supporting the 911 attacks.

@Davidlylan & Mariory,

If Mr A occupies country B and the people of country B decides not to complain, it's their choice (referencing the 29yrs occupation stated).

Now, the people of country be have the right to complain if Mr C occupies their land.

As to why the whole world is complaining when IDF kills innocent ones, it is because it is wrong, just as many countries of the world complained and condemned 911 attacks.

I guess the issues stated above are clear enough unless we have other agendas on this thread.

I will not bother to restate my position about the killing of innocent ones because I am sure it has been stated over 6 times on this same thread so questions that tend to imply that I complain about the deaths of a particular people will be kept where they belong - trash can.

@Mariory,

I believe in clear, open and direct communication. Telling me I know what I meant is childish, if you believe I hold a particular view, point it out and I will either accept or deny it, I don't have the time for all the games where you always try to divert attention to other issues so we cannot discuss what needs to be discussed.

Talk about corner, what corner? If you cannot make clear statements then you can continue to list links for those that have time to follow them.

Lucifer:
The way some of you doubt everything, I wonder how you come to believe that you are alive!

I share the sentiments above. It seems to some of us, anything we don't like or approve of don't exist even if it does while anything we like do exist even if it does not.

I think we need a leadership that is "deaf" because the rate at which people comment on issues regardless of the facts on ground will make the best leader give up in Nigeria.

Is it really impossible for us to praise what is worth praising and condemn what is worth condemning?

Must we take the either you are with us or you are against us approach?

Kaecy5,

There are a whole lot of theories and positions on the middle east so we have an endless source of links that either support or oppose a particular position, however, the reality on ground is enough for people to see things the way they are.

On the first page (1 of 4), the 3 major headings have explanations that are not in tune with reality and hence I didn't bother reading through the rest.

Think Again: Middle East Democracy

The heading above is about middle east democracy and not the problem in the middle east and there is a whole world of difference between the two.

For starters, the illegal war in Iraq today had nothing to do with democracy.

The Palestinian - Israeli issue has nothing to do with democracy, infact late Arafat was democratically elected but the Bush administration refused to deal with him, claiming he was not a partner for peace. Then they had a very free and fair election in Palestine that saw Hamas win a landslide, yet US and some other countries say the group is a terrorist organisation. Is the US looking for a democracy that will do all they want or what?

Democratic election in Iran brought in the current hardline president that is calling for the destruction of Israel.

Even in Lebanon, democracy brought in some Hezbollah ministers.

On the contrary, in Saudi Arabia today, if you introduce democracy you will see a people that will not want to see the US in their land (most likely) and that is why the US is backing the present leadership in Saudi Arabia even though they are not democratically elected and the US is really not interested in pushing for democracy in Saudi Arabia.

Do not forget that 15 out of the suspected 19 hijackers on 911 were from Saudi Arabia.

What of Pakistan that is being ruled by a full general that came into power via a military coup while ariborne when he was sacked by the president?

Is it Afghanistan where the president does not have control of the most part of the country?


Maybe it will be better for you to state countries in the middle east and we will collectively see what democracy has done or has not done.

Maybe the rest of the article discussed that, I wouldn't know because the first page clearly showed that the writers were discussing democracy which in reality does not favour their positions thus far on the first page.

Still on Bush, even when investigations and inquiries carried out by US have come out with the not too surprising conclusion for those of us that saw through the lies from day 1 that Iraq or Saddam had nothing to do with 911, Al qaeda, Osama etc.

Yet he continues to justify lies that led to a situation where deaths are just seen as mere statistics. Is this right? Must people reduce human life to this game as if one is playing chess?

Rather than make amends he keeps trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Below is an article from yahoo.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bush uses 9/11 to argue for Iraq war

WASHINGTON - President Bush is invoking the memory of the Sept. 11 victims killed five years ago to argue for a continued military campaign in Iraq before a skeptical American public, drawing protests from Democrats who say he has politicized a national day of mourning.

ADVERTISEMENT

In a prime-time speech broadcast on Monday's anniversary of the terror attacks, the president described a brutal enemy still determined to kill Americans, perhaps with weapons of mass destruction if they get the chance.

"If we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons," Bush said. "We are in a war that will set the course for this new century and determine the destiny of millions across the world."

His address came at the end of a day in which he visited New York, Pennsylvania and the Pentagon to honor victims of the attacks that rocked his presidency and thrust the United States into a costly and unfinished war against terror.

Bush began with a two-minute tribute to the "nearly 3,000" victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, but most of his 17-minute speech was devoted to justifying his foreign policy since that day. With his party's control of Congress at stake in elections less than two months away, Bush suggested that political opponents who are calling for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq would be giving victory to the terrorists.

"Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone," Bush said from the Oval Office, with a photo of his twin daughters and the American flag behind him. "They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad."

While Democrats have been using public opposition to the Iraq war to argue for a change of leadership in Congress, Bush's prime-time address showed how he has been able to use the power of incumbency to command public attention and make his points. Democrats objected to the tone.

"The president should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning to commandeer the airwaves to give a speech that was designed not to unite the country and commemorate the fallen but to seek support for a war in Iraq that he has admitted had nothing to do with 9/11," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., said in a statement. "There will be time to debate this president's policies in Iraq. September 11th is not that time."

Earlier Monday, dozens of lawmakers from both parties put aside the campaigning and joined on the steps of the Capitol to remember the attacks. Together they sang "God Bless America" as they had five years ago.

"Partisanship would have been the one casualty the American people would have accepted following 9/11, but it remains the one thing the president refuses to give up," Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Democratic effort to win control of the House, said after the president's speech.

Bush said Iraq is part of the United States' post-Sept. 11 approach to threats abroad. Going on offense against enemies before they could harm Americans meant removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, pursuing members of al-Qaida and seeking regime change in Iraq, Bush said. At least 2,670 U.S. servicemen and women have died in Iraq.

"I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Bush said. "The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat.

"America did not ask for this war, and every American wishes it were over. So do I," Bush said. "But the war is not over, and it will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious."

Although his administration has been criticized for trying to link Osama bin Laden to Baghdad, Bush made further comparisons between the al-Qaida leader and Iraq. The president quoted bin Laden as saying the battle in Iraq is the "Third World War" that could bring America's "defeat and disgrace forever."

"If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden," Bush said, "our enemies will be emboldened, they will gain a new safe haven, and they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement. We will not allow this to happen."

Bush delivered a message to bin Laden and other terrorists who are still on the run. "No matter how long it takes, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice," Bush said.

@Mariory,

And your point is?

Did you miss the following statement when you read my post?

Maybe diverting the real issues has become a chosen path by some of us since the situation on ground is now supporting our views that the killing of innocent ones by a group or country is wrong regardless of where the killing is taking place.

The killing of innocent people is wrong, whether the killing is carried out by Hezbollah, US, Isreal, Hamas, Al qaeda etc, it remains a wrong thing.

It seems you are at a loss as to what my post was all about. Yes, I think about all the innocent people that are murdered in cold blood regardless of the country or people concerned. Can you honestly say the same about you? I very much doubt it.

@Kaecy5,

I only stated the lies of Bush as something that is recent and soemthing a lot of us are aware of and its attendant consequences in Iraq today, a country that never witnessed a single suicide attack is now a training and recruiting ground for suicide bombing.

It is very possible for people to use religion to hide their hatred. But again, the best we can do is not give them the reason to carry out the hate filled actions (assuming that is a fact).

If you ask Osama today, he refers to Palestine and the muslim lands occupied by "infidels", the president of Iran refers to Palestine, most of the problems in the middle east have their arrow heads talking about Palestine and even if they don't like Palestine they are using that as a good excuse and that is my point. Do not provide the necessary ingredients for the hatred to grow or for people to carry out actions that blame the issue of Palestine on.

Who does not know that Palestinian question is one that must be solved for one to start talking about lasting peace in the middle east.

Just yesterday, both the PM of Israel and PLO president agreed to meet face to face without any conditions and that is good news, even Hamas has agreed in principle to form a unity government and that will invariably remove the non recognition of Israel as its main policy statement.

Those who want peace to reign are happy and those that will lose out including the powerful nations that sell arms to these people will certainly not be happy because to them it is bad for business.

Ordinarily, christains, muslims etc can live togther in people and many have been living together in peace.

@Texazzpete,

You see why I find it difficult to communicate with people like you when you cannot make simple deductions from posts.

Because of your mindset, you concluded the reproduced post was mine. Even when Chxta pointed out the post was someone else's you simply ignored it and never bothered to correct your mistake.

Well, continue to make what I term blind arguements. But to engag someone that cannot make simple deductions? Lai lai, I don't have such time.

@Kaecy5,

I am surprised that you do not know of any US foreign policy that is contributing to the problems in the middle east, yet you know that religion is responsible for all the problems in the middle east.

Someone (can't remember the person now) stated on this forum that islam is the cause at the same time maintained that the only muslims that don't go round killing people are those from the SW Nigeria.

If the above statement is true then it follows that either the muslims in the South Western Nigeria are bad muslims or that the assumption that all muslims are directed to kill non muslims is flat wrong.

@Topic,

It is a shame that some of us have taken the position of either you are with US & Isreal or you are against them, such simplistic positions is not only based on weak understanding but also on very wrong mindset.

As far as Afam is concerned, Afam is an infidel according to what I have come across as regards portions of the quran. And why would I support a people or a religion that calls me an infidel?

The answer is simple - I do not support islam because I am a christian without any intention of ever abandoning my faith.

But again, being a christian does not mean that I will be blinded to injustices against a people that are not christains.

The last two lines are for those that find it difficult to understand that one can indeed take a stand based on principles, principles that have to do with fairness, equity, justice & peace.

Maybe diverting the real issues has become a chosen path by some of us since the situation on ground is now supporting our views that the killing of innocent ones by a group or country is wrong regardless of where the killing is taking place.

CNN was full of news concerning the 5th anniversary of 911 and some of the victims families were shown on TV, but I ask, who remembers the thousands of people that have been killed in Iraq since the illegal invasion of that country based on lies by Bush (Kaecy5, you may take this to be one of those bad foreign policies of the US)?

Who takes time to even give some of these people decent burials let alone doing memorial service for them?

Are the people in the middle east not human beings that every single innocent death should be condemned?

For those that have conscience, we may begin now to search it and let the grandstanding give way to common sense and let us be bold to condemn what is condemnable while commending what is commendable.

Kaecy5,

If you do not know of US policies (foreign) that are causing problems in the middle east, take time to ask some decent Americans that oppose such policies, it is not for Afam to tell you.

You are wondering why bin Laden has not carried out a suicide attack, maybe it's because Bush has not bothered to join the troops in Iraq or Afghanistan in the war zone.

Truth be told, the issues are clear unless we are out to promote certain agendas here, I thought this was a discussion forum.

Reproduced from another discussion forum, a response to post on 63% of Israelis wanting their PM out.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

During one of Israel's many wars, Golda Meir offered this famous – and tragic – observation: "The Arabs can fight, and lose, and return to fight another day. Israel can only lose once." Golda's assessment became a truism of the Middle East up until now. And the jury is still out as to whether her assessment remains true to this day.

In the strange and surreal world that is the Middle East, Israel lost its war with Hezbollah. And while it remains intact at the moment, her enemies no longer view the Jewish state as invincible. Those calling for Olmert's head are simply miffed by this fact.
History tells us that means the current cease-fire is a temporary condition at best, and that next time, Israel will be facing a lot more than an outlaw terrorist organization like Hezbollah.

Israel will likely face a lot more formidable enemy than just Hezbollah next time. And make no mistake – there will be a "next time."

Israel, for the first time in its history, failed to meet a single one of its war objectives. It meekly accepted a substandard, U.N.-imposed cease-fire, leaving Hezbollah largely intact, Hassan Nasrallah unscathed; it failed to eliminate Hezbollah's arsenal of rockets; and, worst of all, it came home without the two hostages kidnapped by Hezbollah that prompted the war in the first place. Under the circumstances, I do not expect patriotic Isrealis to hail Olmert. Hezbollah can more comfortably claiim to have won the war. Believe that!

Until now, it had been an unshakeable article of faith that Israel was capable of imposing whatever outcome it deemed necessary against any Arab force. And, until now, Israel continued to press its military advantage until it had attained its stated goals.

That is no longer the case. After a month-long war, Israeli forces limped home as Hezbollah, Syria and Iran all claimed victory against the Jewish state.

It was defeated by a newly invented international “law of proportional response.” (Is Afam listening?)This is the new inept idea of the U.S. ‘liberal establishment’ and the vast majority of ‘America-haters’ in the U.N.

It dictates that no nation, especially America and Israel, can achieve a greater victory against its enemies than its enemies are capable of inflicting upon them.

Of course, such a ridiculous law could only be imposed against Israel. The United States did not use “proportional” force against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan in 2002. Did they?

Osama bin Laden used three commercial airplanes against the United States. The United States used every weapon in its formidable arsenal, with the exception of nuclear weapons, to bomb Afghanistan further into the Stone Age than it had already been.

Were the United States to subject itself to the law of proportional response, we would have sent 19 guys with armed with box knives to exact revenge for Sept. 11. Of course this is beyond stupidity. But it evidently didn't sound as stupid when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signed on to the idea and surrendered to the U.N. in demanding a cease-fire.

This Cease-Fire agreement leaves Hezbollah fully armed, remaining in place, their formidably fortified bunkers with world class electronics in tact and in possession of thousands of rockets and missiles that are still hidden.

Worse, it places the useless Lebanese and U.N. troops between Israel and Hezbollah. This enables Hezbollah to use them as a shield while they re-arm, regroup and prepare for the next attack. Oh, Secretary Rice spoke great, swelling words about not maintaining the status quo, but when it got down to it, she folded up like a cheap lawn chair .

The “status quo” before Israel attacked Hezbollah had the armed terror group ensconced along Israel’s borders, raiding Israeli territory at will, and killing and kidnapping any Israeli soldier within reach of its infiltrating forces, without fear of interference from the incompetent and unsympathetic UNIFIL forces ostensibly stationed there to ensure Israel’s border security.

Following Israel’s month-long war, Hezbollah remains intact, armed with long-range rockets, capable of attacking Israel at will without fear of interference from the UNIFIL forces still stationed there. The only difference is that Lebanon is dispatching a military force that it openly admits has no intention of either disarming Hezbollah or engaging it militarily if it decides to resume its previous infiltration or kidnapping tactics.

The U.N. has yet to put together a credible military deterrent, and so far, the only nations willing to contribute troops are overwhelmingly sympathetic to Hezbollah and Lebanon. The biggest contributor so far is France. Lebanon is a former French colony.

Hezbollah acquired new Russian made anti-tank weapons from Iran via Syria that decimated Israeli armor. Israel’s vaunted Merkava battle tank had no electronic defenses or armor that protected it against this new anti-tank missile. Israel lost between 55 to 60 tanks in the month-long war.

Syria and Iran have both since claimed joint victory against Israel, along with Hezbollah, and have pledged to continue the conflict until Israel has been wiped from the map.

Hezbollah has demonstrated that total Arab defeat is not inevitable – and with this demonstration, Israel has lost its tremendous psychological advantage.

If Hezbollah could hold the mighty Israeli juggernaut at bay, then the possibility that Israel could finally and decisively be wiped from the map of the Middle East by another pan-Arab army is once again,feasible.

Hezbollah has emerged as a massive political force. Syria, marginalized in recent years, has re-emerged as a regional player as Hezbollah's patron. Hezbollah's victory represents a victory for Iran and the Shia. Hezbollah, a Shiite force, has done what others could not do.

This will certainly result in both Jordan and Egypt rethinking their own assumptions about the viability of another war of annihilation against Israel. In a sense, the Arabs have little to lose by taking the risk.

If they win, they will have succeeded in reclaiming their lost honor in previous conflicts, with the added bonus of having rid the world of the Jews, And if they lose, they can once again count on the U.N. imposing a cease-fire in time for them to remain intact and viable.

The worst danger revealed in this war is the new majority attitude of the Israelis that is reflected in the government leaders under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
For the first time, Israeli leadership so restricted the military leadership, that they were not able to mobilize the size of ground force needed to defeat a well-trained and heavily fortified army. Because of concern about world opinion, they so restricted the general’s freedom of attack strategy that there was confusion in the ranks on the field. This is the deadliest revelation of this war. In all of Israel’s past wars, they have fought with tactical audacity and the immediate all-out commitment of manpower and weaponry against the enemy. They used the “blitzkrieg” or “lightening war” strategy.

In this war, they gradually committed troops, piecemeal, with a day-by-day revision of strategy. This ultimately resulted in strategic hesitation and confusion.
The worst possible consequence is that Hezbollah has claimed Israel is no longer invincible on the battlefield.

This is exactly the outcome that both Damascus and Tehran had been hoping for, although they certainly didn't expect it. But now that it is a reality, Golda's words echo with haunting clarity. "The Arabs can fight, and lose, and return to fight another day. Israel can only lose once."

Let us pray that Israel has learned a vital lesson before it is too late.Olmert should indeed be the most unpopular figure in Israel at this time.The present appeasement minded government has sacrificed Israel's myth on the altar of public opinion.Someone like Binyamin Netanyahu will be remembered with nostalgia, Oh! how Israel NEEDS his mettle at this time!!!

You need to ask yourself a honest question.  Why is it that the fertile recruiting ground for Osama and his guys is the mosque?  Why don't they go to the Church to recruit?

I think a perfect answer is that Osama is a muslim and does not go to church just as Bush did not base his lies on Islam neither did he visit a mosque to attend the memorial service of a muslim that was killed on 911.

Do we really have to look for ways to tie this whole thing around religion at all costs?

This reminds of of the Iraq debate before the illegal invasion and the current song of Bush on Iran today.

I have a feeling that somehow, we are being forced to concentrate on religion as if we are in a regulated environment where people manipulate others and guide them through a written script.

Religion has been used to fight a cause that injustice created and just like every other thing, something must be used to rally people round a cause and in this case the majority of the victims are muslims and it is natural for anyone to use religion to rally his/her people together.

As a matter of fact, when we say it is because they are muslims, then invariably we are agreeing that those that cause the problems are christians or non muslims and that includes the same writers that tend to generalize (wrongly so) that muslims are bad or muslims are terrorists.

Even when facts are stated as regards suicide attacks, we see justifications and explanantions why certain suicide attacks are better than others.

I see religious bigotry being masked with questions that may seem harmless and it is really bad (in my opinion).

@Abeem,

Thanks for the kind words. We really don't have a right to expect peace when we are bent on promoting injustice, inequality and hatred.

@Chidichris,

Why is it convenient for you to talk about Sunnis killing SHiites in Iraq when the right thing to talk about is Bush that lied and forced a crisis in another country?

If a muslim had caused the problem in Iraq, I wonder what the world would be saying today. A lie, based on greed is taking away innocent lives by the day and rather than blame the cause you are focusing on the effect.

@Davidylan,

Any detailed response to you will lend credence to your incoherent post.

Enjoy!

Hi TayoD,

Have you ever tried to beat a much smaller person? If yes, assuming the person is not your relation what do you usually experience if things get out of hand? If you had a car, you may leave the scene with a broken wind screen otherwise stones or bottles may follow.

I am not justifying the violent approach but in reality you may never be in a position to feel what most of the victims feel so the idea of trying to see how you would react to certain issues may not hold water.

Back to ways of reacting. I did state here that the Japanese carried out suicide attacks on the US at Pearl Harbour and Japan isn't an islamic nation.

Now, most of those that carry out suicide bombings today certainly do not have the money to acquire arms and fighter jets otherwise they would use those.

On CNN everyday, it is now common to hear that 2, 5, 40 or more people were killed today in an Israeli raid at the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Now, these people that get killed have friends and relations. Some of them are not "militants" yet they pay the supreme price just because they come from a particular area or because they live in a particular area.

Let me bring in something different for a change, do you know that at at 2 years ago just before the last presidential election in Iran that it was reported that over 75% of males in Iran were below 25 years.

Do you understand what that means? Basically, the majority of these men have lost their parents in the long drawn Iraq - Iran war and do not forget that the US fully backed Iraq (even under the same Saddam that they are fighting today).

The US never condemned the gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq nor the execution of about 142 people after a failed assasination of Saddam, why? Simply because in Saddam, the US saw a common enemy - Iran.

Have you forgotten Afghanistan and Russia and how the US backed the same Taliban and Osama's Mujahadins simply because in Russia, both the US and Osama had a common enemy.

Do you remember the Belsan school massacre, Bush stated on TV that the Russian president should invite the leaders of those that planned and executed the attack (over 300 killed, mostly chiildren) and resolve their differences. As at that time one of the 2 leaders of the Chechnyan war loads was living in the US and the US never labelled them terrorists, the US stated they were freedom fighters.

Because it was Russia and because it was Putin, Putin retorted on TV and questioned why Bush had not invited Osama to the white house and ask him what the problem was so they can settle it.

On Belsan, we saw horrific attack that the US called freedom fighting because the Chechyans were fighting a common enemy with the US - Russia.

Did you hear of Abu Ghraib and the inhumane treatment metted out to Iraqis on Iraqi soil? Even a woman soldier was playing with naked Iraqi prisoners and you know how the muslims relate to women in terms of rights, priviledges, equality etc. You may not agree with what the quran says but you are bound to respect people for their beliefs.

Down in Nigeria, the Niger Delta is in want yet the wealth is being looted and used to develop other parts of the country. Today, the people are reacting and non Niger Deltans easily dismiss them as miscreants and militants.

I have lived and worked in the Niger Delta before and believe me if I had come from such an area, I would have long taken up arms, no question about that. The lands, air, waters are polluted while a generation of mothers are turned into prostitutes simply some people have money to spend and the indigenes find it difficult fight back.

Dem say na who wear shoe sabi where e dey pain am but it helps for us to one in a while try to empathise with others.

Sorry for the long story but I believe that bringing some of these sometimes unconnected issues will help in putting the whole problem into a somewhat holistic container for us to disagree or agree as to whether they are enough to push people to the zenith.

But remember, the US will not think of attacking countries like North Korea, China, Russia etc, why? They have the arms to defend and attack.

If you grant the people of Palestine independent state today you will stop hearing things like Israelis launching raids and killing people almost every other day in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This is why a group like Hamas depend on smuggled weapons because they cannot enter into direct arms trade with any nation wheras Israel can.

Unfortunately, the US is trying to make it seem that might is indeed right and that drives the demand for countries to develop all kinds of weapons just as India and Pakistan joined the nuclear race in a space of 2 weeks sometimes in 2000 and no one is trying these countries.

Enjoy and sorry again for the long post.

@TayoD,

Why do we question the way a person chooses to react rather than question why the person should be made to react?

Put differently, it is a case of action and reaction and while Mr A may smile if slapped, Mr B may return the slap while Mr C may pull a gun.

The point is, no two human beings are the same and there is certainly no standard for how people should react to issues.

The bible teches us to turn the other cheek is slapped, do you do so? Same with islam, some may choose to react mildly while others may choose to react violently.

If we must live together then we should try to avoid problems and should endeavour to respect one another.

@Davidylan,

I don't know why you are boiling with your sly remarks. Not that I care, but in all honestly, it seems to me that it will take you a long time before you begin to reason like a mature person. You find it difficult to make sense and yet you easily try to criticize others and even target them in your posts.

I would wan't to believe that you make your points based on what your brain can process, so it does not make any sense trying to make you see things as natural as they are.

We are not competing in an academic excercise and this is not about winning or losing the arguement.

With all due respect the only difference between you and a "terrorist" is in what you believe because the thought process is basically the same - disregarding everyone's opinion and forcing yours on people else they become enemies.

I do hope you see my post as sincere as I am not out to insult you but sometimes it saves everyone time and energy to say things the way they really are. If however, you feel insulted, I won't be surprised as I have read a lot of things from you to know how you arrive at conclusions.

Enjoy!

@TayoD,

There is no way you can distance religion from the crisis in the middle east, my position is that religion is not the root cause or even the main cause.

Injustices and deep wounds inflicted by either parties on the other side have taken so long to be redresssed or forgiven.

The question Do you believe that Islam is the final authority guiding the Middle-Eastern People? is still part of the problem.

Everyone in the middle east is not a muslim for heaven's sake. It is such stereotyping and racial profiling that is causing the disaffection, mistrust and hatred.

You have christians in Iraq, you have christian and jews in Lebanon, you have moslems in Israel.

Until we begin to be more specific and avoid the Bush approach where he has labelled a people based on their countries as axis of evil.

You are a yoruba person I believe, if I decide to say that all yorubas are idiots because some yoruba people did something bad to me, I am justified in doing so?

The bottomline is that we can create the future today and we can do so by either sowing love or hatred, the choice is ours.


@Mariory,

Devout moslem or ordinary moslem, the point has been made that in reality we we find in the bible or in the quran are not applied as written and we have a lot of real life examples to prove that.

@Mariory,

Please see the post before yours as regards Mrs Arafat as it does not make sense for someone to convert to islam and still attand mass and baptized the only daughter between herself and the leader of the PLO.

As regards Jesus Christ being revered in Islam, I am aware of that, but again what is the whole essence of christianity if not a people that agree to the teachings of Jesus Christ and are Christ-like in nature?

You may see why I insist that the basic problem is not religion but injustices that have created a gap that many would rather fill and some will easily play the religious game to fill that gap.

I hope that by the time we are done on this thread many of us will realise that all we can possibly live in peace with one another regardless of what the elites do or say.

@Chxta,

Thanks for pointing that out. I have attended at least 2 wedding ceremonies with the man a moslem and the wife a christian and one of them had a son that the man calls Ibrahim while the wife calls him Abraham.

@Mariory,

No sir, the statement is false because I have a friend that married a christain and the woman never converted and they are very happy with their marriage.

@TayoD,

If you had noticed well, you would have realised that I responded to you in a bad way even when other responses have been devoid of bad words and the natural thing for anyone to do is try to find out why.

To avoid long grammar, I do not consider the following comments "I am beginnig to think you are on the pay-roll of these guys. While I do have my bias for Isreal, I can discern blind support when I see one friendly or mere compliments."

I personally do not have any problems with you or anyone for that matter and the only time you will see me use bad words is when I am only replying in kind.

My apologies for the words I used.

@Sijien,

While I don't have a right to question your belief, you should realise that others have their own too.

Put differently, do you expect non christians to be bound by what the bible stated? I believe you are a christain and will never agree to be bound by what the quran says.

That is the beginning point, we must find a way to live in peace with one another because if it boils down to religion and faith then nothing will come out of it as everyone will stick to what his/her holy book told him/her.

What we need is mutual respect for one another regardless of age, gender, race or religion.

I discuss and disagree with many moslem friends but in doing so I still respect their faiths just as they respect mine.

@Mariory,

Well, I guess it is not a bad idea to try the search engines once in a while.

I googled Mrs Arafat and came across an article that states that she baptized her son and still attends mass (which a muslim shouldn't be doing)

Mrs. Arafat converted to Islam shortly before her marriage, but it did not go unnoticed that she had trouble letting go of deep-seated Catholic beliefs. She still attended mass and had her daughter baptised. Muslims in Gaza complained that this supposedly Muslim woman failed to cover her hair on visits to refugee camps.

The link to the full article is at http://www.hindu.com/2004/11/11/stories/2004111103791000.htm

@Mariory,

Thanks for pointing that out but in reality I hardly ever use the search engine to find information as most of my statements come from information that have come my way by way of Tv, books, news.

The issue of Mrs Arafat come to the fore when late Arafat was hospitalized and a CNN program did a profile on the PLO leader, that was when I even knew Arafat had a christain wife (the report/documentary never said anything about converting to islam).

Even the post you pasted only stated that she married Arafat and converted to islam and yet on the same article we are told that her home was decorated with pictures of Jesus Christ and Pope.

So, why would a muslim decorate her homes with such pictures.

On the same documentary, Arafat's sitting room had pictures of Jesus Christ.

My point is that even if we attempt to look at the issues as coming from pure religion what would a PLO leader be doing with pictures of Jesus Christ in his sitting room?

I hope you understand that I am not here to win debate at all cost so will ever remain open to corrections when they are indeed corrections.

On a lighter note, did you travel? As you never contributed anything when we decided to make progress by asking simple yet valid questions but suddenly surfaced to inform us that she converted to isalm, just wondering.

Again, I have read the article you referenced and will try to compare notes with one or more sources just to be certain I am not following a wrong direction on this.

@Davidylan,

So, it is not entirely correct to state that the quran teaches muslims to kill christains or jews, generally speaking infidels (non believers), or is it?

Late Arafat's wife never denounced christianity and remained a catholic while married to the symbol of Palestinian struggle.

The point I am trying to make here is that taking a simplistic or rather blanket appraoch to anything may backfire as what we see in reality sometimes make nonsense of known principles or instructions.

In anycase, why did the muslims allow Arafat to marry a christian in the first place and even when she did not convert to Islam she was not killed, or is it that Arafat was a bad muslim?

I also referenced Iraq why Azeez was Saddam's vice president even though he was a christian and the christains in Iraq constitutes no more than 3%.

I have muslim friends, even when playing soccer, sometimes I am asked to pray before playing a match and they all join in the prayer, they recite the Lord's prayer and the Grace and I have been asked to pray over and over again.

The only problem is that I cannot understand what they say when they pray because it is arabic and not english.

The world is a whole lot bigger than the few that will rather spread hatred than love, peace and justice.

At least, based on our question and answer sessions we are getting close to the real issues while denouncing the notion that all muslims are instructed to kill christains or jews.

By the way, someone stated something about muslims forcing others to convert to Islam, I believe it is on record that the christains once embarked on such a crusade in the time past so we should have a holisitc view of whatever we choose to discuss and more importantly we should be open minded on issues while accepting what makes sense and doing away with what don't.

Do have a great day.

@TayoD,

If you cannot decipher why I responded to you the way I did based on the posts you reproduced then it is equally a waste of time trying to make you understand any other thing here.

Ask yourself why Kaecy5 even opined that you started it, do you think you can force people to think the way you do? It is not about what you think is right, it is about what is right and in the world I live in I don't give a damn about personal standards, I care about universal ones where wrong is wrong and right is right.

You can continue to deny the obvious but in reality what it shows is that either you lie through your teeth or you simply do not undertand the meaning of the words you use.

@Chxta,

My dear, we all know the truth but a lot of us think we are doing God a favour by blinding supporting bad things, we can decieve man but we cannot decieve God.

@Davidylan,

If the quran teaches muslims to marry christains or jews then where lies the validity of the same instruction in the quran that tells muslims to kill all non muslims?

Until we begin to be realistic in our discussions here we will continue to go round and round.

Standing by the truth is a virtue, condemning anything that is bad is good, maybe we may forget about trying to win the debate and focus on trying to be factual with the ultimate hope of seeing a better tomorrow, not this spreading of hatred.

@Kaecy5,

Stating that christianity tolerates the infidels is reducing this discussion to a nursery school style of discussion.

Again, I call on us to discuss the main issues leading to the problems and stop trying to force religion as the root of the crisis.

Eradulo,

Thanks a lot for the kind words. Yes that is my site, will sure get in touch.