UK government accused in court today of knowingly assisting Israeli "acts of terrorism"

by Flynn - agrescon@agrescon.nl Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:45 agrescon at agrescon dot nl 0031102102055

Yes Ian a Dreadful, Buisiness the 8 Soldiers killed, Unfortunately the Laws of Life and Death are exactly the same as yours, as Geronimo, as Ho Chi Min as, Sitting Bull, as the Zulu warriors, as in a Thousand instances throughout history, There is no weapon ever invented designed to fire one way ,as in the sad conflict in N.Ireland. My commiserations, Focus on what this is all about in the first place, and I G.D.Flynn will help you along with thousands of others to have it brought into Check. These things happen because the Wise men are not active, and the active men are not Wise, we have realised this in Eire and are adressing the Problem. I remain yours Respectfully G.d. Flynn.

by Ben Wed Aug 23, 2006 14:17

And what exactly would the UK organisations be doing walking into a UK court complaining about Hisbollah attacking Israeli soldiers?. Are you claiming that Hisbollah was aided and abetted by the UK government?
The UK has only helped one side in this bloodletting, and rightly so, it is being called into account as the US should be. Likewise, Iran should be called into account for it's arming of Hisbollah. To condemn Iran for arming Hisbollah, and remain silent on US & UK arming of Israel shows the disregard you have for innocent Arabs.

Your islamofascist-under-the-bed scaremongering is nothing but scaremongering. A bunch of high profile arrests. There have been a spate of these in the US and Canada over the past year, including alerts on the subway which turn out to be nothing more than manipulation of public opinion. Big headline arrests, and low profile admissions and dropping of charges.

As for the "would be plane bombers" - I take it you mean the people with NO PLANE TICKETS, NO BOMB MAKING EQUIPMENT or EXPLOSIVE CHEMICALS (unless you count hair dye or household bleach - low concentrate Hydrogen Peroxide and Chlorides) half of whom didn't even have passports, and who are now subject to hyped up media reports from anonymous sources.
By the way, the media, while instant experts on the plot, thanks to being spoon fed by their security services handlers, omit to mention that to make the TATP explosive in the way alleged, it would take hours of freezing after mixing the liquids. How exactly would that be done on a transatlantic flight? Excuse me, stewardess, I'm going to the toilet for about six hours, could you give me a huge bucket of ice, and a plastic spatula?

Of course, before these men are charged, there is no restriction on reporting/parrotting the 'security sources' without question. Never mind that these are the same people who shot Jean Charles Menezes, the same liars who fixed up the Dodgy dossier, and have years of experience of fitting up people for crimes they didn't commit, but political suits the government to convict them. (Birmingham Six for example).

I won't be giving much credibility to this or the next Government claim of terrorism amongst us. It's orchestrated for one purpose and one purpose only... to get us to blindly support the war and surrender our democratic rights... You tell me, who hates our freedoms more? The young child in Lebanon, or Fallujah, who is not affected by our freedoms and would probably enjoy sharing them, or the MP- sponsoring Arms Dealers who resent our interference in their supply of weapons to places like Indonesia and Israel where they are used to kill men, women and children?

by itssowrong Wed Aug 23, 2006 14:32

To condemn Iran for arming Hisbollah, and remain silent on US & UK arming of Israel shows the disregard you have for innocent Arabs.

Last time i looked an independant state is allowed to buy weapons from other independant states, however an independant state selling them to a terrorist organisation as you have correctly pointed out deserves criticism. well done

If you are trying to say that countries that sell arms are immoral, you are including over 50% of the world, thats your call but why stop at US and UK.

try the saudis, kuwaitis, egyptians in fact the entire middle east, those Chinese rockets screaming into Israel aka katushyas

i guess you would prefer dodgy terrorist organisations controlling the weapons trade? if not what was your point? err yeh i thought you were a blowhole

Your statement shows your ignorance of international law and your bias and ignorance

Good luck now, educate yourself

by Ben Wed Aug 23, 2006 15:26

Itssowrong writes:
"Last time i looked an independant state is allowed to buy weapons from other independant states, however an independant state selling them to a terrorist organisation as you have correctly pointed out deserves criticism. well done"

When did you last look? They do have things like laws about this (fairly easily side-stepped and poorly enforced) Embargos on countries that act as terrorist states. Israel for example is terrorist state, one need only look at what it does to the children of it's neighbours. But of course the embargoes tend not to be applied to allies of superpowers, so Israel continues to get supplied. The British eventually shyed away from selling to Indonesia after the public exposure of the use of British jets to bomb East Timor, killing innocent people.

"If you are trying to say that countries that sell arms are immoral, you are including over 50% of the world, thats your call but why stop at US and UK. "
Not 50% of the world, amigo. We don't all associate ourselves so closely with our governments. I am saying that over 50% of GOVERNMENTS are immoral... I don't think I'm out on a limb there...

"try the saudis, kuwaitis, egyptians in fact the entire middle east, those Chinese rockets screaming into Israel aka katushyas."

Yup, and we could name a lot more, if we wanted to. I was being brief, but I in no way suggested that the US. UK and Israel were the only ones at this, so you're not contradicting me there... they do happen to be the ones subject to the story above (US missiles, through the UK to Israel remembers?)

"i guess you would prefer dodgy terrorist organisations controlling the weapons trade? if not what was your point? err yeh i thought you were a blowhole"

Pretty pi$$ poor guess given that I said it was right to condemn Iran for arming Hisbollah... and I do consider the US government and UK government to be the biggest arms traders and the biggest terrorists...
My point is that a non-state group killing innocent people is a terrorist group... a state killing innocent people is a terrorist state, and NEITHER should be supported. I think I can easily defend this point of view.
If you prefer, you can 'Guess' that I have some ridiculous point of view, that's easy for you to argue against e.g. that I somehow think Bin Laden should be the central authority for arms control.

"Your statement shows your ignorance of international law and your bias and ignorance"

Ah, no... there is a raft of international law about not targetting civilians in conflict, about not destroying the infrastructure necessary to maintain life, about allowing aid convoys in, about proportionality of response. I think if I quoted them, you would ignore them as you have done with other points you seem not to like...

"Good luck now, educate yourself"

Already a good bit down that path... now, instead of calling me a blowhole, how about you explain a few things.

How come the UN posts don't complain about Hisbollah setting up rockets at UN posts to their positions? Is it because the UN tolerates this? Or because it's an Israeli govt lie, used to justify the 'accidental' murder of the international observers inside the warzone. Just about as credible as the excuse for killing civilians.

We sent them text messages, and warnings to leave, (although we blew up the bridges) and then shot up fleeing convoys.... (why they then chose to stay in their civilian houses is hard to say ??? ) and of course, there must have been a Hisbollah HQ under those apartments... cos the Israeli airforce or artillery units wouldn't hit it otherwise.

Hisbollah, set up in response to Israeli invasions of Lebanon, which showed the Lebanese army to be useless, (and which didn't fire rockets into Israel until Israel attacked Lebanon) has not been killing Israeli citizens at the same rate as the Israeli Military has been killing Lebanese civilians. So, can you explain to me how only one of these groups fits the definition of terrorist?

If you can't then perhaps I can dig out a diagram to help you...
It would seem that the Israeli military do need one, after some other 'errors' such as ... air attacks on a US ship, killing 34 sailors. Attacks on UN Convoys in the Sinai desert as the UN were leaving the battlefield and the Israelis were pouring in to attack Egypt.
Not a whole lot of restraint on their targetting by all accounts.

by Ben Wed Aug 23, 2006 15:33

In further reply to Ian Whitten's 'threat living amongst us'

from the Guardian :

Carried out over the past weekend, following the series of terror arrests, the poll shows voters do not believe the government is giving an honest account of the threat facing Britain. Only 20% of all voters, and 26% of Labour voters, say they think the government is telling the truth about the threat, while 21% of voters think the government has actively exaggerated the danger.
A majority, 51%, say the government is not giving the full truth and may be telling less than it knows. That finding comes despite a newly introduced system of public information warnings that saw the home secretary downgrade the threat level from critical to severe."

So, Ian, the 'huge threat' is for the gullible and weak minded.
Just like the Irish in the 70's were the threat, now it's the Muslims.
It's nice to see so many people realising that the UK government is trying to pull the wool over our eyes, and distract us from the murder that they themselves have done in Iraq and elsewhere.

3,000 in New York were victims of terror.
150,000 in Iraq were 'unfortunate' ?

by drivel Wed Aug 23, 2006 15:52

How come the UN posts don't complain about Hisbollah setting up rockets at UN posts to their positions?

They did complain...check out UNIFIL daily releases, they specifically say hezbollah were crawling all over their positions and in fact hezbollah built massive bunkers very close to the UN position in particular--this iswell known documented fact by UNIFIL itself

yeh hezbollah are you seriously saying that they did not TRY to kill civilians, lol not their fault they have dodgy chinese rockets but it was certainly not for lack of trying to kill civilians, in fact they stated quite proudly that that was their main aim, where as Israel if they wanted to kill civilians could have wiped out the entire population

you regard a state(Israel) which has a terrorist organisation embedded as a state within a state which has acquired 14,000 odd OFFENSIVE rockets on the others(Israel) borders a terrorist state because it goes in to defend itself against what essentially was an act of war? more fool you

Israel for example is terrorist state, one need only look at what it does to the children of it's neighbours.
LOL so basically any country which has went to war is in your narrow view a terrorist state?
get real

by Ali H. Wed Aug 23, 2006 16:07

"An independant state selling weapons to a terrorist organisation deserves criticism"

Well you can start by criticising Israel then as it founded armed and trained the facist South Lebanese Army responsible for killings 100s of UN peace-keepers including 47 Irish and killing thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian citizens including those murdered on Sharons orders in Shabra and Shatilla!

by Ben Wed Aug 23, 2006 16:13

"yeh hezbollah are you seriously saying that they did not TRY to kill civilians"

Where did I say that? Hisbollah killed Israeli civilians and they don't seem very bothered by it, which is normal for terrorists.

"where as Israel if they wanted to kill civilians could have wiped out the entire population"

Ah, and the fact that they chose not to, makes them worthy of a nobel prize does it ? The Israeli government, through its military wiped out defenceless people, and they are not one bit bothered by it, which is normal for terrorists... to my mind the only difference between Hisbollah and the Israeli government is that the Israeli's are better funded and better armed.

"you regard a state(Israel) which has a terrorist organisation embedded as a state within a state which has acquired 14,000 odd OFFENSIVE rockets on the others(Israel) borders a terrorist state because it goes in to defend itself against what essentially was an act of war? more fool you"

Of course, Israel only defends itself... It never attacks anyone and anyone who says different is a liar. Israel took thousands of prisoners when it invaded Lebanon 24 years ago (killing large numbers of civilians - in self defense) , it still holds them (in self defence) Hisbollah captures and kills a handful of Israeli soldiers who may or may not have been on the Israeli side of the border, and the Israelis blow up bridges, apartments blocks, and delay aid workers ... all in self defence...
The Israelis have killed far more civilians than they have killed Hisbollah fighters. Being kind to them, one might consider this 'careless' but they claim great care and precision... so I guess they're not being careless, they just don't care in the cabinet. Unlike some of the frontline Israelis who refused to be part of the slaughter of innocents.

"so basically any country which has went to war is in your narrow view a terrorist state?
get real"

It is real. Burying a child killed by a bomb is a reality for many people around the world, be they in Tel Aviv, Beiruit , Colombia, London, Sudan, Afghanistan, or anywhere else you care to name.
Having a deliberate policy of targetting the civilian population is terrorism.
Firebombing Dresden was terrorism,
German Blitzkrieg was terrorism.
Nazi shelling of Warsaw ghettos was terrorism.
Marines shelling Fallujah is terrorism.
Hamas blowing up Israeli cafes is terrorism. hisbollah rocketing Israeli citizens is terrorism.
Israeli warplanes bombing apartment blocks is terrorism.

You seem to have a blind spot about the last one.

by more Wed Aug 23, 2006 16:19

including those murdered on Sharons orders in Shabra and Shatilla!

loL I presume you can prove that baseless allegation(that sharon ordered a slaughter)??

and while we are on that subject --werent they fighting the PLO in lebanon, the same PLO that worked with Syria to slaughter maim rape and plunder 40,000 lebanese and led to a civil war which killed 150,000 more?

also the SLA soldiers were actually paid by the lebonese government so how exactly did Israel found them? they were a breakaway from the Official Lebonese army

get your facts right and stop spewing rubbish

by Ali H. Thu Aug 24, 2006 08:19

Wrong again bonehead. Israel set up a puppet government with puppet SLA who terrorised the population of southern Lebanon. They tarined them how to torture and armed them. Hardly surprising the people of south Lebanon hate ZioNazis.

"After 1979, the militia operated under the authority of the internationally unrecognized government of Free Lebanon. It was supported by Israel during the Israeli military invasion of South Lebanon."

"The Israeli incursion into Lebanon in 1978 allowed the Free Lebanon Army to gain control over a much wider area in southern Lebanon. On April 18 1979, Haddad proclaimed the area controlled by his force "Independent Free Lebanon". The following day, he was officially dismissed from the Lebanese Army. The Free Lebanon Army was renamed the South Lebanon Army (SLA) in May 1980. Following Haddad's death due to cancer in 1984, he was replaced as leader by Antoine Lahad (a retired lieutenant general). The SLA was composed of Christians, Shiites and Druzes from the areas that it controlled but the officers were mostly Christian. Having a common enemy in the PLO, the SLA and Israel quickly formed an alliance."

"The SLA was closely allied with Israel. It supported the Israelis by combatting the PLO in the strip of Southern Lebanon until the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. After that, SLA support for the Israelis was mainly by fighting against other Lebanese guerilla forces led by Hezbollah until 2000 in the Security Zone, the area of the South kept under occupation after the partial Israeli withdrawal in 1985. In return, Israel supplied the organisation with arms, uniforms, and other logistical equipment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Lebanon_Army

"In 1985 the SLA opened a detention center in Khiam. It was widely reported that torture occurred on a large scale in Khiam. Israel rejects any involvement, and claims that Khiam was the sole responsibility of the SLA: this has been contested by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International [1]. The SLA also applied a mandatory military service program where males over 18 living in the Security Zone were forced to serve a whole year as a military recruit.[2] The SLA received funding, weapons and logistics from Israel during its entire existance."

"Robert Fisk, a British journalist, describes what he saw at Khiam during a visit days after its liberation:

The torturers had just left but the horror remained. There was the whipping pole and the window grilles where prisoners were tied naked for days, freezing water thrown over them at night. Then there were the electric leads for the little dynamo - the machine mercifully taken off to Israel by the interrogators - which had the inmates shrieking with pain when the electrodes touched their fingers or penises. And there were the handcuffs which an ex-prisoner handed to me yesterday afternoon."

"Do you remember seeing Israeli officers present while electric shock treatment was being administered or while people were on the pole?

They weren't just present; they themselves hung people on the pole and electrocuted them. The Lebanese interrogators imitated the Israelis because they were in charge. The Israelis were present less often but as for torture they were even worse."

http://www.inminds.co.uk/khiam-prison.html

by omg Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:15

Israel set up a puppet government with puppet SLA who terrorised the population of southern Lebanon. They tarined them how to torture and armed them. Hardly surprising the people of south Lebanon hate ZioNazis.

LOL dont take it for granted coz you read/copy it on wikopedia kid!!!

the only major enemy of the people of Lebanon are the PLO as they slaughered 40,000 of them and caused a civil war and of course hezbollah who with the help of their syrian masters tried to establish a state within a state

Stop referring to south lebanon as if its a seperate state, it is not although thats not for lack of trying by the PLO and then hizbollah

as a PLO supporter perhaps you can tell me what the PLO were doing slaughtering/maiming lebonese by the thousands

by Ali H. Thu Aug 24, 2006 14:30

Firstly Amnesty International and a variety of other credible independent sources assert that Israel was responsible for establishing and arming the SLA and for torture, murder and abduction of Lebanese and Palestinians.

Secondly 100,000 people are estimated as having been killed in the Lebanese civil war which lasted for 16 years and saw a range of different factions engaged.

I'd like to see a credible source, ie independent non-ZioNazi, source for your claim the PLO killed 40,000 Lebanese?

by omg Thu Aug 24, 2006 15:19

strange ali h you provide no links for your facts, infact your only link you ever provide is the palistinian dodgy one...

http://www.country-data.com/frd/cs/lbtoc.html#lb0161

http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/hobeika_damour/hobe....html

by omg Thu Aug 24, 2006 15:52

nope not the same person but perhaps you can ask the good man tom why UNIFIL watched hizbollah build massive bunkers under their noses, some infact adjacent to their own bases, he will most likely say that they were there to observe, observe rocket launchers being moved observing massive bunkers being built , observing minefields being laid
shame they did not actually do anything for 25 years apart from observe

by redjade Thu Aug 24, 2006 16:18

omg if you really wished to contribute to the discussion here you might do a little research into UNIFIL to find out what their mandate has been.

Stopping arms and disarmament were not within their mandate.

btw, funny to watch Bush complain about UNIFIL and UN when he has not offered a single soldier on the ground to help the Lebanon mission. remember he wanted the French to be placed between Hezballah and the Israelis even while the shooting war was still going on.

• omg's homework assaignment for teh day....
United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIFIL#Mandate

by omg Thu Aug 24, 2006 16:41

restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, the Force to be composed of personnel drawn from Member States;

Redjade perhaps you can explain what the above actually means then. I would say that means disarming all militias in the south of lebanon and returning the territory to the lebanese govt.

so perhaps instead of trying to be a smug likkle fellow, you might like to have some humbling pie

thx

by redjade Thu Aug 24, 2006 17:05

omg: "I would say that means disarming all militias in the south of lebanon"

obviously you are illiterate.

the wikipedia link you provide says no such thing.

by omg Thu Aug 24, 2006 17:11

I pointed that out for the simple fact of your smugness. However of course the real reason 425 was not implemented was that the war raged on and on far past 78(when 425 came into effect), My point remains though that the origional formatted resolution was robust enough and called for UNIFIL to help Lebanese govt. achieve sovereignty in the south--exactly the same as today

the parties involved and the worlds resolve at that time however were much much weaker

UNIFIL makes excuses for its lack of teeth, and i would say in 10 years, i would not be surprised if they say the same old thing

by omg Thu Aug 24, 2006 17:16

The resolution text
"The Security Council,
Taking note of the letters from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon and from the Permanent Representative of Israel, Having heard the statement of the Permanent Representatives of Lebanon and Israel, Gravely concerned at the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East and its consequences to the maintenance of international peace, Convinced that the present situation impedes the achievement of a just peace in the Middle East,
1. Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries;
2. Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory;
*******************************
3. Decides, in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon, to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, the Force to be composed of personnel drawn from Member States;
**************************************
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within twenty-four hours on the implementation of the present resolution."

by redjade Thu Aug 24, 2006 17:20

'UNIFIL makes excuses for its lack of teeth'

UNIFIL and the UN is nothing more than the sum of its parts - and its leadership (the security council)

Before the recent conflict, when did the US/K propose in the UN to give UNIFIL the teeth?

And when did the US/K propose to give the UN teeth to enforce all those other resolutions that Israel has violated over the years.

and don't try to smear me with Hezbollah, they aint no friends of mine

by redjade Thu Aug 24, 2006 17:30

the text you copied and pasted still does not say that.

Im still waiting for the language that says disarming Hezbollah

Blaming UNIFIL for not doing what was not its job is a bit silly, no?

by omg im laughing so hard Thu Aug 24, 2006 17:53

***Although UNIFIL was prevented from fulfilling its mandate**, the Force used its best efforts to limit the conflict, contribute to stability in the region and protect the population of the area from the worst effects of the violence. Despite the impasse, the Security Council has repeatedly extended the mandate of UNIFIL at the request of the Government of Lebanon and on the recommendation of the Secretary-General.

FROM UNIFIL ITSELF

Now please go educate yourself,stop trying to be sooo smug, as you know damn well i was referring to 425, 425 point 3
3. Decides, in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon, to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, the Force to be composed of personnel drawn from Member States;

broken down just coz you dont get it:
restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area

by Ali H. Thu Aug 24, 2006 19:35

"restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area"

For one the Lebanese government has never had control over the south of the country, mainly due to the fact that Israel decided to ethnically cleanse 350,000 Palestinians from their homes in Palestine and into Lebanon.

Not content with that they have gone on to continually undermine the Lebanese government by waging 4 wars against them and even setting up a puppet-regieme and private army of Christian facists the SLA to cement their control of the south.

International peace and security when either Israel comes to its senses and negotiates a fair and lasting peace with all of its neighbours, or alternatley it is erased from the map by those same neighbours.

Israelis for some reason seem to be hell bent in some sort of collective Massada complex for the latter option.

by Michael Martin - HLF Fri Aug 25, 2006 00:56

Question to all members of Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other leftwing organizations:

Here at home you promote sexaual equality, rights for women, single mothers, gays and lesbians. Additional to this you support freedom of choice when it comes to abortion. Well, fair play to you for standing up for those rights.
But strangely enough, when it comes to the middle east you form alliances with and openly support fundamentalist Islamic fanatics who display nothing but utter contempt and disregard for the virtues and civil rights you claim to be fighting for here in Ireland and all over Europe.
Can you please explain this contradiction in your agenda to me?

by Arafat Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:19

For one the Lebanese government has never had control over the south of the country, mainly due to the fact that Israel decided to ethnically cleanse 350,000 Palestinians from their homes in Palestine and into Lebanon.

Indeed but thats twisting history, the PLO decided to obliterate lebanon and create strangely ,like hizbollah did a state within a state, and last i heard it was Jordan that swept the PLO and its friends into south lebanon after the PLO tried to do the same in Jordan(create a state within a state) and Jordan was not having a bar of it and kicked its arab troublemaker brother straight out. These palistinians have a nasty habit of trying to overthrow governments, why else could you explain the 40,000 that they slaughtered there and the 150k that they displaced or the countless that they maimed and then to top it all off they spark off a civil war which kills 150,000 more lebanese, you would think that the palistinians need a map as wtf lebanon had to do with them is anyones guess but it showed what they are like nicely

now thats the real story ali my friend, keep it real, less fiction more fact

by Ali H. Sat Aug 26, 2006 19:59

Is the ethnic cleansing by Israeli terrorists of 800,000 Palestinians from their homes in what is now called Israel.

No evidence has been provided to support the claim that the PLO "murdered" 40,000 Lebanese because I put to you that there is no such evidence.

Finally the PLO is a defunct organisation (mainly thanks to the Israelis who set up Hamas with this express purpose in mind) which has not been present in Lebanon for 24 years, ie since 1982.

What happened in the past quarter of a century, while you were presumably sleeping, is that Israel has destroyed Lebanon twice, killing thousands of Lebanese, and imprisoning and torturing many others, and set up a puppet government and private army in Southern Lebanon.

It is little wonder therefore to rational human beings that the people of Southern Lebanon hate your guts and support Hezbollah.

Your shameful war-crimes in the past 6 weeks have only added to this hate and having tasted blood and the effective defeat of the IDF they will be back for more unless you make a fair peace with them as well as paying reparations for the unwarranted destruction of their country.