What makes this interesting to me is that I toured the area, except for Israel, prior to the '67 War. We stayed in the King David hotel in Jerusalem (made famous in part by former Israeli Prime Minister Begin helping to blow it up), toured the old part of the city, all the sites holy to the different sects of Christianity, went to Bethlehem to see the birthplace of Christ (I was an agnostic, and the place had a feeling of power you wouldn't believe. kinda freaked me out... Max, if you haven't been there, bro, you simply have to. as a Christian, it would make you weep), went to Jericho and the Dead Sea. We had absolutely no problem, whatsoever, with the Jordanian police or military, who were not very much in evidence, as you might have expected them to be. Heck, I assumed they would be all over the place. Not so, not where we went, anyway. It was very enjoyable. Because of that trip, I've always felt a bit conflicted about how the '67 war changed the boundaries, as well as the criticism aimed at the Jordanian government for their actions at different times since then. Sure, my conflicted feelings are based on my experiences as a tourist, which is, as we all know, (or should) completely different from actually living in a place. I will add that we looked across the border at Israel, and it was green. You could tell that they were doing something right with the land. Now, a large part of the reason for that, no doubt, was Israeli ingenuity, but I couldn't help thinking at the time, as well, that they had far more in the way of monetary resources than the Jordanians had. Just throwing a bit of the perspective of (god help me!) 40 years ago, before the war that changed everything. Now, that was 40 years ago, and only now are we hearing reports of a willingness of one of the most radical political/terrorist groups, Hamas, to possibly accept Israel if there were a return to pre-'67 War borders. That's progress?? Glaciers ain't in it, people. They move faster than that. Keep D&D Civil.
w**** of Babylon is supremely evil and powerful lets say we all agree with you that hezbollah is supremely evil, do you think they're supremely powerful? what do you think of this?
Funny that you say that because far more people have died at the hands of the American/Israeli junta than by the "Islamic fascists."
This is evidence of the same basis of my original wording...: "Wording fortells the "w****" can be anyone and Babylon can be anywhere... " An aspect to keep in mind: The title of "Babylonian w****" has been bestowed upon most if not all of the dominant and exploitative powers throughout history. ...In addition to the reasoning I clearly showed on why I characterize Hezbolla as the "w****", is because I feel the acts of terror by these Islamic Fascists exploit the innocent lebanese people...
How many suicide operations has HAMAS undertaken ever since being democratically elected to power in Palestine? Also, how many innocent Palestinians have been killed by Israel since HAMAS came to power?
"w**** of Bablyon". Is Roxran going all Christian on us? I suspect that he considers himself one, somehow. Meanwhile , he docilely surenders his Constitutional rights to his hero, Dubya, sits at home stroking his guns and fantasizing about twising big knives into the bodies of Muslims.
what if terror is being used by those who are "good" which is more powerful? kidnapping a couple of SOLDIERS OR bombing CIVILIAN homes
No, just pointing out that you're being blind to one side of the story, since you brought up 'UN Resolutions'...
Not sure why you quoted my post. Has Hamas denounced violence or accepted the idea of a two state solution? Do you?
yeah get dem muslim women, children, and babies.. u must be feeling somekind of high knowing that there will be less muslims in the world..
Sorry to have started this thread and bailed but I've been swamped with work and have to admit that I find this whole situation very frustrating. Some interesting responses on this thread and I don't have time to respond but I did want to respond Roxran's posts. Roxran; Previously I've disagreed with you respectfully and have generally tried to understand your POV even while if I don't share it. Unfortunately I find your rhetoric and thought process on this issue very disturbing. It is one thing to support Israel because you believe they are fighting terrorism and feel as a largly secular democracy they are worthy of support but what I'm getting out of your posts on this subject is both a vicarious bloodthirtiness combined with frankly what I would consider a bizzare apocalyptic vision. I found your use of calling Lebanon a "w****" offensive because I read it as a sexist insult directed at Lebanon but now I see its beyond that and that it is instead a Biblical reference and you're looking at this through the lens of a quasi-religious view. Personally for me I find that very troubling and in my opinion the intersection of religious fervor with nationalism is what has made the various conflicts in the Middle East so intractable. The problem I see with your views is that in many ways they mirror the views of those you who you oppose. Your claims of might makes right, religious rhetoric and your desire to see peace acheived through the most violent of means and the wholesale destruction of one side bear a striking similarity to the rhetoric of Hamas and Hezbollah with the names of the subjects changed. It is those very kinds of beliefs that lead to the ability, even willingness, to dehumanize one's opponents and engage in acts of barbarity. While I believe that violence is at times needed and that there is such a thing as "just war" I just can't understand the viciousness and vitriol on this issue particularly since this isn't an issue where the US is a principle actor and our involvement has only caused us more problems than it has solved.
It is bizzare. It is one thing to fight a war and kill because it is necessary, it is another thing to take joy in it. It somehow is seems reprehensible when someone takes a vicarious joy in it.
Mischaracterizing me and parading this mischaracterized issue the way you did in another thread (which you were blatantly ignorant of) shows me no RESPECT at all!...I gave my reasoning and my wording DOES NOT imply I am a religious zealot...It was simply a title (w**** of BABYLON) I recalled from prior knowledge (as explained) which seemed to have significance on characterizing: Hezbollah. The significance is established from the definite clash of religion, locality, the plight against the Jewish people, and inherent evil of terroristic Hezbollah entering into play. Calling Lebanon a "w**** host" refers NOT to Lebanon as a "w****"...I clearly explained this, but here it is AGAIN:... How can you say that ROXRAN? How could you? I respected you as one of the top 6 posters of all time...and who rarely if at all could be placed in such a compromising situation of depicting a grossly offensive post for all to see... well I'm exaggerating, but the part I'm not exaggerating is my reference of meaning when I said: "w**** host"...(btw, if I said a dog was a flea host...am I referring to the dog as a flea or a host - think about it it...) "w**** host"...Ugly word. yea...I'm been trying to figure that one out as well. Except, you see I never had to because a basis of reasoning was evident from what I had read before...and a comparison was evident and clear in my mind. Why? I'll tell you why... I am not a History expert, but I had a minor in History and my religious views naturally over the years gave attention upon some instances of biblical history and references of such history... Enter the "w**** of Babylon"...A reference...A meaning...An implication...A warning...It can be whomever as well...Wording fortells the "w****" can be anyone and Babylon can be anywhere... However if I had to single someone out right now based on literalism and symbolism from the described wording which characterizes who the "w**** of Babylon" currently is,... then in my view it is clearly the Islamic facists, otherwise known as bonafide terrorists (i.e. Hezbollah) which best lends being cast as the w**** of Babylon in current times... In other words, Hezbollah is the "w****"...Lebanon is an unfortunate host of such...The w**** of Babylon is referred to as a supreme evil...(what could be more than those who perpetuate terrorism?) The w**** of Babylon is said to be drunken with the blood of saints and blood of the martyrs of Jesus...(To me saints imply those wholesome, innocent and of natural good, in other words: children -...drunk with blood? That implies a bloodlust to kill...Who else is so demonstrative of this than terrorists and their actions?-...also I get an implication against those who follow Jesus) The symbolism of the w**** against jewish people and the w**** emerging from the desert is further implicit of Hezbollah...In a biblical sense God warns that people must decide to be free from the grasp of the w**** of Babylon...I take this that a detachment from terrorism must be decided upon...especially those who are truly innocent... Well,... You have my reasoning on the original post...It simply came to mind as a reference on my choice of wording...Is it so vile now? maybe, maybe no...Regardless I have an opinion and a choice of wording was based on a preconceived reference. You may laugh, cry, disagree...whatever...But it is what it is... My aim was to show a reasoning on what I posted. I really didn't appreciate a poster I thought I held in high regard (even though we oppose political viewpoints) catergorize my intention and meaning without asking...Sometimes all you have to do is ask and show better respect... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon BTW, I may accept you apology yet...