Une terrible =?windows-1252?Q?pens=E9e_me_vient_=E0_l=27?==?windows-1252?Q?esprit=2C-_qu=27il_y_aura_un_autre_11-septe?==?windows-1252?Q?mbre?=

En ce beau jour, [email protected] a écrit:

> Malheureusement, comme chacun sait le Liban est en grande
> partie contrôlée par l'axe terroriste Damas-Teheran, et ce
> depuis longtemps.

Bien sûr. Et la destruction du Liban est un message non
équivoque �* ces deux pays qui manipulent le Est-ce beau l�* ?

Voil�* ce qui vous attend si vous persistez �* vous en prendre �*
Israël.

"Fustigator" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> Vitae forma vocatur "Jean Guernon" <[email protected]>, die
> Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:14:28 GMT, in littera
> <EaNBg.158793$I61.79535@clgrps13> in foro soc.culture.belgium(et
> aliis) vere scripsit quod sequitur:
>
>>
>>"Réjean Laflamme" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
>>[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet .ca...
>>> strixbubo a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Ne parlez pas �* l'avenir, mais au présent. Voyez-vous, nos
>>>> indignations sont très sélectives, ou alors notre tolérance a
>>>> formidablement augmenté. Les effets des attentats de New York ont été
>>>> plus politiques et psychologiques que meurtriers. Du moins si on
>>>> adopte un point de vue honnête et neutre sur la question. Car par
>>>> exemple �* peu près chaque semaine au Darfour, on massacre autant de
>>>> gens que dans les tours jumelles.
>>>
>>> Chaque jour au Congo, mas c'est le fait des alliés des États-Unis
>>> (Rwanda
>>> et Ouganda et leurs alliés), pas instrumentalisables dans la lutte
>>> contre
>>> le "terrorisme". Et puis au Congo, ils continuent de parler français
>>> conbtrairement au Rwanda, n'ont que ce qu'ils méritent donc (incroyable
>>> el
>>> nombre d'émissions aux États-Unis où on invite des Rwandais qui parlent
>>> anglais, luttent contre le Sida, les génocides, or quand on sait le sang
>>> sur les mains de Kagamé...). Les USA ne bougent donc pas sur le Congo.
>>>
>>
>>Au Congo (ex-Zaïre) ils parlent surtout le lingala entre eux, enfin, dans
>>la
>>région de la capitale, au nord le Kiswahili, [...]
>
> le Kiswahili est parlé dans l'est du Congo et dans le nord- est.
> http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/AXL/monde/swahili.htm
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swahili
> --
> Fusti
>

Oui, d'accord.

J.

Désolé, les média francophones ne vous diront pas la vérité l�* dessus.
Pourtant c'est vrai, Israël y va avec le dos de la cuillère, et même s'ils
savent que pour vraiment adresser les terroristes �* la solde de l'Iran, il
leur faudrait prendre les grands moyens, ce qu'ils se répugnent �* faire �*
cause des victimes civiles qui seraient vraiment significatives autrement.
Mais Fisk, qui miaule parce que son appart branle, n'a encore rien vu, et ne
verra probablement pas, grâce au self-contrôle d'israël, ce qui pourrait
régler le problème définitivement.

J.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull


Aug. 8, 2006 0:39 | Updated Aug. 8, 2006 3:06
The ethical dilemmas of the Jewish state at war
By DAVID HOROVITZ


This is a new and particularly pernicious type of war.

A quarter of Israel has been shut down for the best part of a month by
relentless missile fire from deep inside a neighboring country. Thwarting
the salvoes from the air, with pinpoint precision, has proved impossible.
Unless or until a full cease-fire is pursued and obtained, the principal
military options that remain are wider air strikes causing far-from-pinpoint
damage or a deeper ground incursion, involving large numbers of troops.

This is a new and pernicious type of war in that, while much of Israel's
homefront is coming under direct attack, deep inside our sovereign
territory, it is not from enemy tank or artillery fire moving relentlessly
forward, defeating Israel's conventional military defenses. It is, rather, a
strategic rocket campaign, to which conventional defense has no answer. This
is Saddam Hussein's Scud war of 1991 - except that the 39 missiles of 15
years ago have been superseded by 10,000 to 14,000 rockets in Hassan
Nasrallah's Iranian- and Syrian-stocked arsenal.

These thousands upon thousands of rockets are being launched into Israel's
towns and villages from the very heart of residential Lebanese
neighborhoods, whether with the support or to the dismay of the local
populace.

Almost four weeks into the war, Hizbullah mocks Israel's inability to
staunch the fire. The Arab world, part of which essentially backed Israel's
anti-Hizbullah offensive in its early stages, has withdrawn or, in many
cases, thrown its weight publicly behind the terrorists amid daily evidence
of Israel's failure to decisively prevail. In America, analysts question
Washington's over-reliance on Israel, the little strategic ally that
couldn't.

But Israel could prevail in this conflict. Israel could silence the Katyusha
launchers. What it would need do is resort to one of those two options - a
much greater use of air power or a larger ground offensive.

Either of those avenues, however, would necessarily involve death on a far
larger scale than we have seen thus far. Pulverizing air power would likely
create Lebanese civilian casualties of a number that would dwarf the toll to
date. Wider use of ground forces, on Hizbullah's home territory, would
likely dwarf the IDF toll hitherto sustained in the close-quarters fighting.

With every day's evidence of underwhelming military success, the chorus
swells in Israel that this is a no-brainer. The army is being humiliated,
the argument runs; Israel's critical deterrent capability is being
shattered. Israel simply must ratchet up its military response to the daily
rain of incoming rockets. And while some experts favor the ground-forces
option, for others the choice is no choice at all: Dead Lebanese or dead
Israelis? Why the hesitation?

And yet Israel hesitates. It certainly does not want to put more of its
ground forces into harm's way. But it also does not want to inflict civilian
casualties on a more drastic scale in Lebanon.

This is partly because of a sense of short-term gain and long-term loss. A
much more forceful use of air power might indeed shatter Hizbullah's
Katyusha capability and bring a respite to the North. But it also might
leave Israel friendless internationally, and thus utterly vulnerable.

Without America in its corner, Israel is in real, existential trouble. And
an Israel deemed to be causing unconscionable civilian casualties in this
region, and by extension destroying what is left of its American ally's
power and influence in the Middle East, would risk dramatically undermining
the "special relationship" with Washington.

Could US President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
truly stand full-square with the Jewish state as hysterical anti-Israeli,
and anti-American protests, gripped the Arab world, and mobilized the masses
far beyond this region as well?

But Israel's hesitation is also born of its own sense of morality. Israel
has railed against what it considers egregious allegations of
disproportionality in its military response thus far to Hizbullah's
unprovoked escalation. The injustice is keenly felt precisely because Israel
is acutely conscious of proportion. That sense of proportion has evidently
determined that dozens of deaths at home, hundreds of thousands of fleeing
northerners, and 26 days in the bomb-shelters for those who have remained in
rocket range justifies the degree and scale of air power that it has
employed to date, and no more.

Presumably, continued Katyusha fire inflicting continued casualties at the
current level might be deemed to justify greater fire power, but not much
greater. A dire, Hizbullah-prompted escalation - such as, say, a missile
attack on Tel Aviv - would likely presage a weightier Israeli response. But
again, a calibration of kinds would apply, with the use of force calculated
against a measure of the damage sustained.

There is no sign - again, ironically, given the international criticism -
that Israel is prepared to depart from this kind of calibration and resort
to more devastating blows to the residential areas of Lebanon from which the
rockets keep flying.

Israel's official public relations performance in the course of this
conflict has been, as ever, dire. It has failed to highlight that this is
essentially a war against an Iran that publicly demands Israel's
destruction. It has failed to effectively articulate how pernicious an enemy
it faces - one that strikes Israel's citizens and delights in the fatalities
inflicted, then cries foul to a responsive international community when
Israel's attempts to stop the fire inevitably cause death and destruction.
It has failed even to widely disseminate film that clearly shows where the
Katyushas are being fired from; the footage of rockets flying out from Kana
was released a full 12 hours after the world had been subjected to graphic
coverage of the tragic consequences of Israel's response. It has failed, at
the most basic level, to help a watching world differentiate between a
guerrilla-terrorist aggressor subjugating Lebanon to its Iranian patron's
will and an embattled sovereign nation attempting to protect itself.

A major segment of international media, it should be noted, has emphatically
chosen itself not to highlight that distinction - out of a sadly familiar
combination of factors including ignorance, intellectual dishonesty,
misguided self-perceived liberalism, in some cases anti-Semitism, in others
fear for its own wellbeing in Arab host nations.

The negative perception and presentation of Israel starkly impacts on the
degree of Israeli military response that international public opinion, and
by direct and vital extension the American political leadership, is prepared
to tolerate. The problems, self-made or inflicted, that Israel is
encountering on the media battlefield, in short, constitute a significant
factor in circumscribing its military room for maneuver.

But the main limitation on Israel's use of heavier force, nonetheless,
remains our own nation's sense of right and wrong. Israel's leadership and
its mainstream public don't want to get large numbers of reservists killed
in the effort to eviscerate Hizbullah. And they also don't want to kill
large numbers of Lebanese. And so Israel still hesitates.

It may be that a cease-fire process curtails this conflict in the near
future. It may be that it escalates into a wider regional war.

But this round of conflict has already tested the degree to which Israel is
prepared to reconsider the standards to which it has clung, even as it has
fought for its survival through 58 blood-strewn years. In previous rounds of
conflict and war, it often managed to use ingenuity and innovation in order
to maintain its self-prescribed moral high-ground.

Israeli ingenuity and innovation have not yet proved decisive this time. Yet
to date - at immense ongoing cost to its civilians' welfare, and to its
deterrent image both in the region and in the eyes of allies and enemies
further afield - Israel has not chosen different answers to its ethical
dilemmas.

Facing evermore ingenious, cynical and merciless enemies, the stark choice
grows evermore inescapable - kill or be killed.

Our own sense of why the Jews must have a nation of their own is born in
part of our appreciation of the Jewish values that underpin it. Our Jewish
values are what sustained our nation in exile over the centuries.

But in this hostile Middle East, in this ruthless and hypocritical era,
Israel increasingly faces the question of whether it can cling to those
values and still survive - or perhaps more accurately, whether it needs to
reinterpret what those Jewish standards require it to do in order to
survive.

Sooner or later, Israel will have to decide how far it is prepared to use
the devastating force it has at its disposal in order to maintain its right
to national life in this vicious part of the world.

Fanfoué a écrit :

> [email protected] a écrit :
> > Malheureusement, comme chacun sait le Liban est en grande partie
> > contrôlée par l'axe terroriste Damas-Teheran.
>
> Donc israël n'a pas les couilles au cul pour s'attaquer directement �*la
> source, elle préfère se défouler sur les civils libanais, c'est plus
> facile, mais moins responsable.

N'inversez pas les choses: ce sont Damas et Teheran, qui n'ayant pas le
courage d'assumer leur politique, utilisent des groupes terroristes
comme le Hezbollah pour se battre contre Israel sans assumer cette
responsabilité directement. On peut les comprendre, chaque fois que
des états musulmans ont attaqué directement (y compris coalisés), ce
fut une débandade de babouches dans le desert :-)

Même si on tout le monde sait que le Hezbollah est proche de Teheran,
attaquer l'Iran pour cette raison serait encore plus violement
condamné par la "communauté internationale" que l'attaque contre le
Hezbollah au Liban.

Hika

[email protected] a écrit :

>
> N'inversez pas les choses: ce sont Damas et Teheran, qui n'ayant pas le
> courage d'assumer leur politique, utilisent des groupes terroristes
> comme le Hezbollah pour se battre contre Israel sans assumer cette
> responsabilité directement. On peut les comprendre, chaque fois que
> des états musulmans ont attaqué directement (y compris coalisés), ce
> fut une débandade de babouches dans le desert :-)
>
> Même si on tout le monde sait que le Hezbollah est proche de Teheran,
> attaquer l'Iran pour cette raison serait encore plus violement
> condamné par la "communauté internationale" que l'attaque contre le
> Hezbollah au Liban.
>
> Hika

T'as raison, cette attitude est plus dans les moeurs des islamistes.
Qu'israël s'y mette aussi...

Jean Guernon a écrit :
> Désolé, les média francophones ne vous diront pas la vérité l�* dessus.
>
> J.
>
> http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

Grrrr. Toujours la langue de l'Empire. Vous voyez que vous ne voulez pas
qu'on vous comprenne...


Traduisez (oui, je le fais souvent, même si un peu trop vite, mais bon
pas payé pour) ou passez-nous les articles de l'édition en français du
Jesuralem Post !!!

http://www.fr.jpost.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=HomePage

En français votre "vérité".