.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Sunday, August 20, 2006

I Hate Predictability

Moved on! Check TheCairoCalls

When I read the title of this post (Ya Farha Matamet) , I thought "Finally, the guy will come down slamming on Israel's violation of the cease fire yesterday. But, I was wrong. In a typical new-con cadet style, the post attacks Iran, the Europeans, and suggest some sort of relation between the two. Can it get any more Reaganesque?
I don't think so.
Ah, and no mention of Israel, or the US whatsoever. Typical!

Moved on!


1. My post was not about this particular incident but about the dispatching of the multinational peacekeeping force and how it should look like. It was not about any party's violation of the resolution.

As for this particular incident, I believe both parties were in violation of the ceasefire. The resolution says that only the Lebanese government should accept arms. Prove to me that arms were not shipped to Hezbollah via Syria and I'll write the post that will make you happy. As for Israel, it shouldn't have carried out this operation but provided whatever evidence it had that arms were bein shipped. Of course I didn't want to see this operation carried out, but I just can't blame one party's violation and ignore the other.

You might ask: what makes you sure Hezbollah was getting arms from Syria? Well, what makes me sure it wasn't? Judging from my knowledge that hezbollah is willing to slaughter Lebanon on the altar of its narcissim and iranian backed ego, I can't rule out the fact that it will start rearming once again.

2. You said:

"the post attacks Iran, the Europeans, and suggest some sort of relation between the two. "

You're either putting words in my mouth, words that I didn't say or you just presume and make up things from the posts you read.

By Blogger BP, at August 20, 2006 1:30 PM  

To answer ur last point, I mostly make up things from the posts I read!

But seriously, dont u think that the "they must be doing evil things, cause they're evil ppl" line that u used is really the same as the shallow arguments Bush uses everytime he is stuck without his speech notes. Isn't that what led us to pre-emptive wars, which has, at least publicly, no justifiable reasons.
U dont judge somebody until u r sure. Period!

By Blogger Tomanbay, at August 20, 2006 2:42 PM  

Just one thing:

You might ask: what makes you sure Hezbollah was getting arms from Syria? Well, what makes me sure it wasn't?

But that's not it. What makes you sure it was? If Israel has evidence, why don't they share it with the world? They were quick to share one million other things. In fact, they trumped about everywhere when they got Arafat's signatures on money going to people that THEY consider terrorists.

Besides, in this breach of Cease-Fire (Kolo mrakez? Ana ba2ool The Last Cease-fire That Was Supposed To Begin A Couple Of Days Ago...) Israel was the one that took action.

Did you know that the two Israeli soldiers who were kidnapped were about to go into a military foray into Lebanon? What makes the situation so different then.

Double Talk. Double Standards. Always.

By Blogger Faisal, at August 20, 2006 2:43 PM  

"dont u think that the "they must be doing evil things, cause they're evil ppl" line that u used is really the same as the shallow arguments Bush uses everytime he is stuck without his speech notes."

Again you put words in my mouth and presume things. Presume things that were not written in my comment. Below is what I meant.

"U dont judge somebody until u r sure. Period!"

True. I agree. That's why I didn't criticize neither Israel nor Hezbollah over the incident. I stayed silent because I don't have enough information. However, judging from the nature of hezbollah, i said that I can't rule out the fact (i.e I strongly think) that it will rearm again.

By Blogger BP, at August 20, 2006 2:50 PM  

everytime i hear this man speaking, I think that elections are soon...

the irony is: even then he wont win!


By Blogger Tomanbay, at August 20, 2006 3:55 PM  

"everytime i hear this man speaking, I think that elections are soon..."

Isn't that what life is about?

But rest assured, neither of us will win. At least in the near future.

By Blogger BP, at August 20, 2006 5:06 PM  

I can't believe that anything those guys write still surprise you Toman Bay, I understand your frustration with the bp and sm, but I think that by now and by the kind of comments posted on their blogs (the most extreme of the extreme of what an extreme fanatical hillbillie/neocon hate fest orgy might be), you'd notice that these people aren't catering to you nor to the people aspiring for the best interests of this country, nor to fairness or justice or to the alleviation of human suffering, where do they come from and what's their agenda? I have no clue and I don't want to start throwing accusations, but I don't think they're from the same Egypt (mentality wise) that you're from. Egyptian neocons, I'm pretty sure that's as oxymoronic as it gets.

By Anonymous Mohamed, at August 21, 2006 1:29 AM  

I remember in the eighties when i used to watch the news at nine o'clock together with my gandfatherin egypt. It was full of shit about what was going on in nicaragua (i hope i spelled it right, actually i know somebody from nica.. whatever now, anyway) and other stuff. BUT remember the essential part about south africa's apartheid regime. Remember the black police officers beating up the black protesters... bad.. sad. Not just mere virtual oxymorons then. That kind of people will always exist. They'd hope one day they would evolve and take their eventual destined form, but they're feeding on the wrong host, alas.

By Anonymous Hany, at August 21, 2006 2:36 AM  

Still Hany, using your black police officers analogy, what's their explanation for beating their fellow africans, scared to be on the other end of the stick, or self haters, or just trying to please, or abused turned to abusers or hoping for financial rewards for being such good "boys" , or just plain sick, couldn't think of some other reasons nor think of them as excuses.
Also, rest assured, if your two buddies were blogging in the eighties they wouldn't have wasted no chance to redicule or discredit Mandela himself, while singing the praises of the "moral high ground" of the apartheid regime, a phrase they both love to use and twist around to describe anything so hideous or unfair.

By Anonymous Mohamed, at August 21, 2006 3:37 AM  


I simply can't answer your accusations. Your comments makes it appear as if I'm the devil incarnated. I can't even try to convince you otherwise simply because you've already made up your mind. You are not criticizing me, you are not disagreeing with me, you are dehumanizing me..that's the cheapest way to discredit whomever you disagree with. Just dehumanize him, just second guess his patriotism, just say he's a neo-con, an american spy..these accusations are so easy to level and this is why they are so cheap.

I'll respond to one thing only. I cater to no one when I write my posts. Every post is exactly what I believe in. You are not happy with a post, come and discuss it with me in an intellectual way, come and criticize me..but to dehumanize me in such a manner, it only shows the level of your intellectual discourse.

One last thing, don't judge me based upon some of the comments on my blog. Some are sane, others are not and I don't have the time to filter every comment that comes in.

By Blogger BP, at August 21, 2006 6:13 PM  

Notice that I was very careful not to accuse you of anything, I just couldn't grasp where do your views come from (and by the way, they're predominantly neocon/likudist views, even if you don't acknowlege or realize that), and I also wasn't trying by any means to dehumanize you, this was an honest to god question to Toman Bay about how he could still get surprised or outraged by what you write after all this time, I had my initial shock with your and the SM's writings, then I became completely numb to them (sorry, but I just don't know how could you rationalize some of your writings, although if a person's clever enough he could rationalize anything), what really dehumanizes you is yourself, by making yourself such an affectionate advocate of occupation, land confiscation, home demolishings, abuses on a daily basis of an entire population with complete legal impunity, how about that for dehumanizing, how about finding yourself on the recieving end of a cluster bomb, how about the only thing left of your sister is a patch of blood spatter, or that indistiguishable piece of goo lying on the rubble of your entire neighborhood was your father five minutes ago, not dehumanizing enough, right?
You're entitled to whatever opinions you might have, but you've also got to accept whatever criticism your opinions might raise, including harsh ones.
I'm really sorry if I've offended you, really didn't mean to, but I still stand by my opinions.

By Anonymous Mohamed, at August 22, 2006 5:13 AM  


I was not offended at all. I just said that I can't argue with you intelelctually if you're dehumanizing me. if you think that I advocate "occupation, land confiscation, home demolishings, abuses on a daily basis of an entire population with complete legal impunity..." and the rest of the things you listed.

How can I argue with you if you think I'm such a terrible human being all because I am anti-Hezbollah and anti-Hamas even though I have stated over and over again that I believe many of Israel's actions are insane whether in palestine or Lebanon. Go spend more time reading my posts before you make such crazy general assumptions about me.

You're following the line that many follow here. If you don't like hezbollah, then you're advocating Israel's crazy bombing of all lebanon (something which I condemned). If you're anti-hamas, then you're pro-occupation, which is definitely not true.

I believe I present my views and their justifications pretty well. If you want to discuss them, you're more than welcome, if you want to continue believeing the worst about me, then sorry any discussion between us will be futile.

I don't give a rat's fart about whether you think my views are neocon, con, likudist, leftist, marxism, betenganest or whatever. These are my personal opinions and I simply don't pay much attention to who else might be sharing them even though I think you went to to to far in attributing them to likudists! It shows how seldom you visit my blog.

You call me likud because I didn't want hezbollah to win. Well, try talking to some christian or sunni lebanese on pal talk..these guys curse israel, but from what they say about hezbollah you'll think they are ariel sharon's siblings in lebanon, that of course if you decided to use your insane measure (anti-hezbollah = pro-israel).

By Blogger BP, at August 22, 2006 10:47 AM  

If you don't advocate those actions (occupation, confiscations, demolitions, consistent random shelling of residential areas, all which leave you with no other conclusion except that they have a higher regard for a cockroach's life than a lebanese or a palestinian)could you please list how many times did you describe the country responsible for those actions (Israel) as having the "moral high ground", or how many times did you take their justifications at face value (the gaza beach incident as an example, and your latest post about their violation of the ceaze fire), and come on, when you criticize Israel, it's always something like you're disappointed in your childhood buddy (like this poll about expelling the palestinians) who was always and will remain the epitome of justice and compassion to you.
And again you're misquoting me, I've never said that antihizballah=pro israel, actually I think that Israel's foolish actions are the ones lending hezballah it's significance, otherwise it'd have been a much less influential group than it is right now.

By Anonymous Mohamed, at August 22, 2006 11:40 PM  


I never ever said that israel had a moral high ground. I don't believe anyone has a moral high ground whenever war is involved, because war itself is immoral. I have criticized israel countless times and you mentioning just one post is very unfair to me.

As for the Gaza incident, I couldn't just go ahead and only bash Israel's often crazy bombings. I couldn't do so without also mentioning the ueless Qassam rockets that Hamas fires from Gaza, that was liberated making the liberation of further palestinian lands very difficult. And the incident itself was unclear. You couldn't know if it was a direct shell, an unexploded shell, or a palestinian shell. This is why I demanded that an independent investigation should be conducted taking all evidences into considerations.

You want me to only bash israel letting Hamas for example off the hook. And this is something I will never do. Whenever I see Israel acting recklessly and inhumanely, I say so. Whenever I see hamas firing useless rockets from areas that were already liberated, I also say so. Rockets that I believe harm the palestinians more than the tiny israeli town they fall on.

What did I say during the war. I said that Israel was bombing Lebanon and not Hezbollah. It was bombing the entire country making it impossible for the staunchest anti-hezbollah Lebanese to express his/her position.

Mohamed, I am emotionless when it comes to politics, I am only a realist. I know it is "Israel"..ISRAEL..but as I said, I have no emotions in me when I write about politics, emotions that will make me biased. I just look at facts, at things on the ground and try to convey them. I might be wrong in what I convey and I might be right. But I just express what I am seeing and leave others to whether agree or disagree with me.

By Blogger BP, at August 23, 2006 11:19 AM  

Fair enough, couldn't disagree with anything in this last comment, except that ( and I might be wrong), I don't get this sense of absolute impartiality you're claiming when I read your blog, but again, I migt be wrong, or I might be subconsciously impartial myself.
Peace now.

By Anonymous Mohamed, at August 23, 2006 7:51 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home