SomaliNet Forums

History has proven that those who have been in war once do not rush to it again with the same ease as those who havent.

Exceptions remain like Hitler who fought in WW1 but most old soldiers turned politicians tend to think really hard before getting involved in wars.

Take Israel of the 80s/90s. Both Barak who was a member of elite commando unit like his brother who led the Entebbe operation and surprisingly, Sharon who was the leading officer at Dafraswar crossing on 73 ignored dozens of Hezbollah attacks on Isreal some far worse than the capture of the two soldiers which is used an excuse for the current Israeli madness.

Olmert never fired a gun in anger very unusual in Israeli politics. Are people dying to `prove' one man's toughness?

Needless to say neither Bush nor Rummy nor Cheney were war veterans.

What do you think?

As veteran Middle East correspondent, Robert Fisk for the Indie said:

"If you go to war, you realize it is not primarily about victory or defeat, it is about death and the infliction of death and suffering on as large a scale as you can make it. It is about the total failure of the human spirit."

Nicely summed up I think. Clearly Olmert hasn't learnt a thing from history.

shalom

arabs and israeli's will fight da rest of der existance. somalis r like dat, bud like 2 fight among demselves. one war finishes, anoder starts. i suggest if da israelis and arabs 2 be invited 2 fight in somalia. somalis will learn how 2 use modern weapons, and one side will be winners, instead of dose trucks wid machine guns which is easy to get.

shalom

AA

I hate to say this but I cant stand Fisk or any of the other patronising liberal leftie westies on the issue of the middle east, or on most other issues for that matter.

These SOBs, just like Arab masses who are also SOBs, never railed against Saddam Hussein when he was massacring with abandon in the 80s.

Have you ever seen Fisk, Pilger et al write a great piece criticising a third world fascist nationalist leader or movement without looking for a western angle first?

These fockers think And believe everything that happens everywhere must be white man's fault. Fock them.

Galol

Robert Fisk said the duty of journalists isn't to report an impartial view of events, but "Our job is to monitor the centres of power...especially when governments and politicians take us to war, when they decide that they will kill and others will die".

So Fisk's cheif concern is holding western governments in check. But to argue that he's never once spoken out against Arab dictators is bollocks and you know it (for our Yankee friends, "BOLLOCKS" is a cheifly British term meaning utter nonsense!)

I wasn't born until the late 80s, but reading what he's written of late, one can't help notice that he reserves some of his fire for Arab despots and dictatorships such as the Saudi royals, Saddam Hussien and others.

And the reason why great journalists like Pilger, Fisk, and Patrick Cockburn emphasise the wrongs of western powers is for two principle reasons: one because they're OUR governments, and we need to know what they're getting upto, and secondly the British and Americans have played a massive role in shaping the Middle East since colonisation.

So it's necessary for a man like Fisk who's covered all the major events of that region from the Iranian revolution until now, to set the back drop and put into context Arab hostility toward the west. I suppose what I’m trying to say is “get off his back!” you neo-conservatised capitalist sell out . You and I both know he's one of the finest (not to mention brutally honest) journalists around.

Fisk is an idiot. Like Pilger. They are liars and naives. Try quoting someone with a focking brain and some integrity.

AA

Are you kidding? You werent born till the late 80s? What happened? Why didnt you tell dad to do mum a little earlier than that? Young people suck the little spotty SOBs. Kill all young people the useless little fockers I say. I hate my tax money being spent on their spotty selves and I cant even fock them cos I feel so guilty and chit about humping some bubble-gum chewing spotty little minx

Anyway You will notice that these guys will only criticise Saddams and Saudis et al if they could find a Western angle. So the only critcism they will level at say Saddam is to suggest completely wrongly, is that "We" meaning the white West have put him in power. They will attack him or the Saudis on their merit as leaders and regimes NEVER. So here is a challenge for your spottiness: Get me a piece ever written by Fisk or Pilger critcising Arab regimes without linking it to America and Briatin etc.
So go on be useful for once and earn your education maintenernce grant that I pay for.

Right Mad Mac, Thomas Freidman only thats the Bible of the truth and rational

A bunch of Oldy idiots having a moment!

Galol, You are positively dying now, there are people around here born in the late 80s!! Goodness gracious that makes even me feel old.

Demure

Sad little gits arent they? Why go to messageborads when you were born in the late 80s? shouldnt you dance in the streets or finger your mates or play lance-my-puss-filled- zits or something as interesting as that?

Messageboards for the elderly like you and me.

Galol aka Neoconservatised by MAD MAC

" Anyway You will notice that these guys will only criticise Saddams and Saudis et al if they could find a Western angle... They will attack him (Saddam) or the Saudis on their merit as leaders and regimes NEVER. "

That's not strictly true: Fisk criticises totalitarian regimes for what they are without necessarily linking it to the US OR Britain (see the article below). He's a fierce critic- and always has been of brutal dictators even during the time when western politicians were hailing Saddam as an ally, and the media were paying lip service to him.

But one must understand that it's no good criticising a monster like Saddam or the house of Saud, if you don't expose the links between our governments and them. It reeks of wretched hypocrisy to speak of democratising the Middle East in the mean while financially and militarily supporting as well as providing diplomatic cover for a brutal and an undemocratic regime such as Saudi Arabia.

It's important for people to be aware that we're partly responsible for the crimes committed by Saddam simply because we held him in power: we supplied him with the weapons with which to crush the rebellion of the Shia, Iraqi generals and others who resisted his regime. That doesnÂ’t diminish his crimes one iota.

You seem to be advocating that journalists only tell us half truths. That they only inform us of the crimes committed by the other side and keep quiet of our active involvement in those heinous crimes; that we mustn't besmirch the good name of our dear beloved leaders Tony Blair and George Bush who always tell us the truth.

I found this article on the capture of Saddam within five seconds of searching. There's plenty more where that came from:

http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk12162003.html

AA

Stop being such a drama merchant will you?. No of course the west's crimes should be told but other crimes should told too. And these guys actually beliebve everyuthing thatb happens is teh fault of the West.

I find middle class Western liberals to be the most racist creed on earth: they have a neo-White-man's Burden attitude to the world: Never will they acccept that a third world nation made its own conclusion and made its own mistakes.

Havent read the link yet wil get back to you about it

Galol

I can't continue this discussion unless you actually support your baseless claims, otherwise it'll be a case of me saying "it is" and you, "is not". I've provided you with the evidence you sought, now give me an article (shan't be holding my breath) where Fisk lays sole blame at the feet of our dear leader Blair.

What on earth is this "neo-white-man's burden attittude" (ridiculously funny actually) you speak of? Fisk's reports are seldom about racism or the white man's wrongs. If that were so, why doesn't he criticise the French, the Portuguese or the Dutch who were all big players in colonising the thrird world?

Because the French, and the Dutch have not been lying in bed with dictators, propping them up, and meddling in middle Eastern affairs. Your claim that Fisk is opposed to the west is false and unfounded, He's critical of ONLY Britain and the US because ONLY they continue to back dictatorships and ONLY they've invavded Iraq.

The dots are connected: Middle Eastern puppet governments (such as house of Saud) continue to exert authority over their masses only with our support. THAT must be highlighted as well as criticising those undemocratic regimes.

PS. get off my young ass you old aged pensioner. I'll have you know I pay my taxes as well. You're right, your tax money did put me through kindergarten, but bear in mind today I pay for your hip, joints and pelvis replacements, as well as your luxurious quality wheelchair.

"Because the French, and the Dutch have not been lying in bed with dictators, propping them up, and meddling in middle Eastern affairs. Your claim that Fisk is opposed to the west is false and unfounded, He's critical of ONLY Britain and the US because ONLY they continue to back dictatorships and ONLY they've invavded Iraq."

This is exactly wrong. The US is bigger and stronger than everyone else, but everyone elses foreign policy functions like ours does. The French have maintained relations with more dictators than you can shake a stick at. Look how many states maintain relations with Burma. US policy is to protect its interest - like every other state in the word. No difference except in capacity.

Robert Fisk is a liar and naive.