UN authorizes `all necessary measures' in Libya

[SlowwHand]

He'll shove an AK-47 up your ass.

[Serb]

I'll PM you, if I'll ever get visa to the states.

I realize I'm a ruin, but on the other hand, I'm not that old as JCVD. And some isults just needs to be apologized personaly. Ahhh... who am I trying to fool? We'll never meet.

[Serb]

He'll shove an AK-47 up your ass.

AK-47 is obsolete actualy. Its mass-production in USSR was canceled in 1959.

[SlowwHand]

So you're going to use something newer? On Al? Why?

[Serb]

I don't know.
I guess for this exact purpose 5.45 is more humane calibre than 7.62. In any case, that was your idea, not mine.

[Zevico]

ah yes, i remember that thread. you got totally destroyed and all you could do was to call me a racist before running away with your tail between your legs.

First, to dismiss a person's opinion because they are an Israeli or a Jew is racist. It is nonsense and prejudice to say that an Israeli or a Jew cannot think rationally about anything (whether it be the Egyptian conflict or something else) merely by reason of their identity or ethnicity.

Second, you failed and are still failing to do anything other than ignore all of MB's beliefs. I set them out for you,and I am quite willing to provide the evidence for them (as I did before in the previous thread). I am willing to do so again if you wish. You never responded to them. Or a correction: you said "but they hold the NDP to account in Parliament" as suggestive of their democratic bona fides. Mind, this was your only response to reams of commentary and translated texts suggesting them to be vile totalitarians who think Jews are demons. Hardly a stunning display of analytical thinking on your part. I should hardly think it necessary, Cockney, but I should point out that the relevant question is not what the MB is opposed to (the NDP) but what they are in favour of. On that score you have given no response.

Third, proclaiming that I stopped posting or responding to you in a previous thread hardly demonstrates that you have succeeded in demonstrating anything. My definition of 'winning' here is to see you provide a substantive response to this issue. At the very least it will provide some insight into your reasoning.

[SlowwHand]

I don't know.
I guess for this exact purpose 5.45 is more humane calibre than 7.62. In any case, that was your idea, not mine.

Just give it to me and I'll do it myself. That's the only way this is going to be taken care of. You're counting on talking him to death. I don't have that kind of time.

[C0ckney]

First, to dismiss a person's opinion because they are an Israeli or a Jew is racist. It is nonsense and prejudice to say that an Israeli or a Jew cannot think rationally about anything (whether it be the Egyptian conflict or something else) merely by reason of their identity or ethnicity.

so calling a jewish person a jew is racist now. well take that you australian! yeah i said it, what are you gonna do. idiot.

seriously, my problem with his analysis was also pointed out in the post and indeed in subsequent posts, but i guess you were too busy running away to notice.

Second, you failed and are still failing to do anything other than ignore all of MB's beliefs. I set them out for you,and I am quite willing to provide the evidence for them (as I did before in the previous thread). I am willing to do so again if you wish. You never responded to them. Or a correction: you said "but they hold the NDP to account in Parliament" as suggestive of their democratic bona fides. Mind, this was your only response to reams of commentary and translated texts suggesting them to be vile totalitarians who think Jews are demons. Hardly a stunning display of analytical thinking on your part. I should hardly think it necessary, Cockney, but I should point out that the relevant question is not what the MB is opposed to (the NDP) but what they are in favour of. On that score you have given no response.

you sure talk a lot but you have nothing to say. you posted a load of quotes to which someone else responded with a load of similar quotes from the israeli foreign minister! you then tried to claim that the deputy pm and foreign minister are not important roles ( ) and so his racist and inflammatory comments can be ignored ( ). why would i respond further to your bull**** when someone else had already totally destroyed you. in any case your argument was so good that you ran away.

the point i was making was that you need to look at what the muslim brotherhood has actually done. as i have explained main times they appear to be a moderate organisation and if you at their actions in recent times the evidence supports this view.

Third, proclaiming that I stopped posting or responding to you in a previous thread hardly demonstrates that you have succeeded in demonstrating anything. My definition of 'winning' here is to see you provide a substantive response to this issue. At the very least it will provide some insight into your reasoning.

it demonstrates that you're a little ***** who calls people names and then runs away. you made these self same arguments in that other thread, got destroyed and ran away. do you think that this bull**** is better the second time around or something?

[KrazyHorse]

Back to Libya:

"The aim is to push our armored forces city by city. This is the objective of the coalition now. It is not to protect civilians," Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim said Saturday.

Yes. Welcome to reality, soon-to-be-ex-foreign minister Kaim

[KrazyHorse]

I wish we'd given air cover to the rebels 3-4 weeks ago when they were first pushing toward Tripoli...

[Zevico]

so calling a jewish person a jew is racist now. well take that you australian! yeah i said it, what are you gonna do. idiot.

seriously, my problem with his analysis was also pointed out in the post and indeed in subsequent posts, but i guess you were too busy running away to notice.

Your contention is that the MB is moderate. For this you provide no evidence, but you were are all too happy to dismiss the evidence against it without a second thought and without explaining why you think the MB is moderate, because the evidence is presented by a Jew.

you posted a load of quotes

Try reading the translated works of Hassan al Banna or Sayid Qutb, the two most important thinkers of the MB.

to which someone else responded with a load of similar quotes from the israeli foreign minister!

The quotes and commentary concerned the MB's ideology and goals; they presented a view of the MB as a totalitarian entity.
Two decades ago, the current Israeli foreign minister (then a nobody) made a series of statements denouncing Egypt and making brash, idiotic statements about war with Egypt. How is this equivalent to violent totalitarianism, I do not know.

you then tried to claim that the deputy pm and foreign minister are not important roles ( ) and so his racist and inflammatory comments can be ignored ( ).

First, they were not racist comments; they denounced the Egyptian government and its policies. The comments did not suggest that Egyptians were somehow a 'lesser' people, or intrinsically deserving of death (as the MB suggests of Jews). The foreign minister's comments were, quite simply, directed to Egyptian foreign policy.

Second, word symbolic is incorrect. However, the prime minister:
(i) belongs to a different political party;
(ii) makes policies inconsistent with (and openly disagrees with) the statements of the foreign minister on a regular basis. It may sound absurd to you (and it is certainly an absurd situation), but that is the present state of affairs in Israel. The PM and FM are making inconsistent statements; as the PM belongs to the bigger party in the coalition and he has the final say on matters of foreign policy. The FM uses his role as a bully pulpit to garner domestic support and differentiate himself in the PM--he is in constant election mode. The PM is making policy; the FM hampers him. This is the beauty of an Israeli coalition government.
(iii) This is probably only true in respect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and all other strategic relationships related to it (e.g. the US--Netanyahu sends his own envoys there, bypassing the FM entirely). Still I doubt they have strong disagreements on, say, Israel's relationship with China.

why would i respond further to your bull**** when someone else had already totally destroyed you. in any case your argument was so good that you ran away.

Responding to an argument in full is difficult from an iphone.

the point i was making was that you need to look at what the muslim brotherhood has actually done.

Assassinate a quasi-democratically elected Egyptian prime minister? Check.
Set up a covert terror group in the 1950's/40's to kill their political enemies? Check.
Preach hatred to the masses? Check.
Support attacks against Israelis, Americans, and Westerners generally? Check.
Praise the Iranian system of government and its President? Check.

as i have explained main times they appear to be a moderate organisation and if you at their actions in recent times the evidence supports this view.

I shan't ask you to repeat yourself. Instead, just link me to these helpful posts of yours. I recall many assertions by you that the MB is moderate, and one statement about their performance in the Parliament. I don't recall any analysis of their motives, policies, actions or statements. By the way, such an analysis must actually incorporate some reason explaining why all the terrible things the brotherhood has done are now to be waved away as insignificant.

Also by the way, I haven't seen anything in their recent actions to suggest moderation. They have opposed the NDP, true enough, and they want elections because they expect that they can win (some) power and influence via elections. (They're not tipped to win outright however). That doesn't make them liberal democrats. Praising Iran, preaching hate, calling for the imposition of blasphemy laws that abridge freedom of speech--all that's pretty recent.

[Zevico]

I wish we'd given air cover to the rebels 3-4 weeks ago when they were first pushing toward Tripoli...

That would have been more sensible, but "multilateralism" is more important than achieving coherent objectives, it seems.

[SpencerH]

Even if NATO provides close air support (and that hasnt been decided) it is unlikely that the rebels will be able to take Tripoli and dethrone Kaddafi. The rebels have very few heavy weapons, are virtually untrained, and any air support will not be used in the cities. If Kaddafi hunkers down in the western cities and his troops stay loyal (which is likely since they are commanded by his family), it will be months to years to get him out (if ever).

[Fake Boris]

Quick notice re: Serb's rants.

Do you realize Hitler used the "pacification" pretext every time he annexed new land leading to WW2? He certainly wasn't straightforward about his intentions.

You lose!

[C0ckney]

ok zevico.

these were the liberman quotes that geremous posted in the other thread.

In November 2006, Lieberman, who described Arab members of the Knesset that meet with Hamas as "terror collaborators", called for their execution: "World War II ended with the Nuremburg Trials. The heads of the Nazi regime, along with their collaborators, were executed. I hope this will be the fate of the collaborators in [the Knesset]."

In 1998, news reports stated that Lieberman suggested the bombing of the Aswan Dam in retaliation for Egyptian support for Yasser Arafat.[76][77] In 2001, reports stated that he told a group of ambassadors from the Former Soviet Union that if Egypt and Israel were ever to face off militarily again, that Israel could bomb the Aswan Dam.

Following a series of terrorist attacks on Israelis perpetrated by Palestinian terrorists during a three-day period in March 2002, Lieberman proposed issuing an ultimatum to the Palestinian Authority to halt all terror activity or face wide-ranging attacks. He said, "if it were up to me I would notify the Palestinian Authority that tomorrow at ten in the morning we would bomb all their places of business in Ramallah, for example."

In July 2003, reacting to a commitment made by Ariel Sharon to the US, where amnesty could be given to approximately 350 Palestinian prisoners including members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Lieberman rejected a chance to participate in the related committee and said "It would be better to drown these prisoners in the Dead Sea if possible, since that's the lowest point in the world,"

FYI, this guy is currently the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister of Israel.

this is one of the guys at the highest level of government in israel, i think they're pretty outrageous myself and the fact he occupies an important position in the israeli government is a disgrace. you did describe his roles as symbolic, i can quote that too if you like. also, those statements are not 20 years+ old as you try to claim.

it's good that you've explained your position further now, but i'm afraid it still doesn't convince. you've got a guy who says a lot of outrageous things, and has a lot views that would be considered outrageous in any civilised country involved at the highest level of government. what is the FM receiving for this? nothing, no say on policy, maybe just a warm fuzzy feeling, you would have us believe. however, it's completely obvious that his party is receiving something for being part of the coalition i.e. ministerial positions and an influence on policy.

the muslim brotherhood have no official power as of yet. the charges you lay against them fall into the following categories, things in the far distant past (they assassinated people sixty years+ ago, so what?), the ridiculous (they're socialists, ooohh noes!), the unsubstantiated or the irrelevant.

lets looks at some of things that the brotherhood have been saying and doing recently, and how they see things going forward. this is what is important and relevant, which makes me wonder to you don't want to discuss it and instead prefer to talk about events so far in the past that everyone involved has long since died.

http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=28258

MB: We Are with the People's Will Regardless of the Referendum's Outcome

Media spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood Dr. Essam El-Erian has affirmed that the Egyptian people have the right to freely take their decision and the MB is committed to respect the results of the referendum, regardless of its outcome.

http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=28271

MB chairman launches initiative to engage in dialogue with Coptic youth

Following an amiable phone call between Pope Shenouda and the Muslim Brotherhood’s chairman Dr. Mohamed Badie where he thanked him for his telegraph Badie launched an initiative to engage in dialogue with Coptic youths.

http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=28295

El-Awa: We Want Egypt a Civil, not a Religious State, Copts Indispensable Part of Egypt's Social Fabric

We reject a religious state and no religious institution should interfere in political matters or bypass the role of the state.

it seems they are talking about building good relations with the coptic community and playing their part in constructive a democratic society. where's the hatred? where's the bile? they even have a section on the site called MB vs al queda, and articles about fighting extremism. all looks pretty moderate to me. obviously this is from MB themselves, but if you want to find some analysis that says the muslim brotherhood are moderates then google is your friend, you won't be disappointed.

now lets look at the real reason why we can see so much hostility towards the brotherhood and so many attempts to paint them as radical islamists. the fact that most of this comes from israelis, their apologists and the american right should give us a clue. The muslim brotherhood is openly hostile towards israeli actions, for example, they have called for the blockade of gaza to be lifted, they repeated this call recently to the new military government. they were very critical of mubarak's dealings with the israelis. their base is very hostile towards compromise with israel. it's clear that in future eygpt will be less friendly towards israel, it may well be that a new government ends the siege of gaza. there may be other changes too, although we will have to wait and see. the israelis liked the mubarak dictatorship and are very unhappy about the events unfolding in eygpt over which they have no control.

this is the real nub of it for our israeli apologists and this in my view is why they're going all out to demonise the MB. They have no control over what is happening in eygpt and in order to have some influence on events, they (and their useful idiots) are resorting to scaremongering. mubarak used the exact same tactic for years, the tunisian government always raised the spectre of islamism when people questioned their human rights abuses etc. gaddafi is doing the same thing at present. every dictator in the middle east will try to claim that islamic radicals will take over if they are removed. it's an age old tactic but the world is changing and people are starting to see through it.