Liverpool FC Forum

by **LFC2007** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:16 am

Some interesting points have been raised.

I think Shanks' post is pretty much a summation of what most already know about the Taliban, we've all heard the stories, seen the evidence and come to the conclusion that they have a despicable human rights record and harboured Al qaeda which gave them the capacity to launch various international acts of mass violence.

Redtrader makes a few points although I can't say I agree with all of them. Palestine has had a broad definition, agreed. Having said that the concentration of Arabs in Palestine greatly exceeded that of Jews prior to the 2nd world war, arabs were the indigenous population. The Holocaust influenced the Jewish diaspora to emigrate to the Land of Israel in significantly greater numbers than previously before- something like a 10% to 30% increase. The demographics of the region before WWII show greater numbers of Palestinian Christians and Palestinian Arabs than Jews. Parts of Palestine where modern day Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt are, were already under control of Arab leaders and their borders were agreed by Britain and the League of Nations. As more Jews emigrated to Palestine, the place they considered the Land of Israel - a holy place of sanctuary -Jewish nationalism rose and so did the possibility of a Jewish state. In the intervening period there was also a lot of antipathy towards the immigration and antipathy towards the British occupation by Israelis and Palestinians, the beginning of the troubles if you like. Britain left, the U.N. were ineffective in agreeing bi-partisan plan of partition and in 1948 - it really kicked off. The Jews declared independance as the state of Israel, arabs who had lived in Palestine for years were forced from their homes by the zionist movement. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon all support the Palestine cause since they are the countries where many of the expelled indigenous Palestines now reside. They only managed to hold onto modern day Gaza and the West Bank, whilst Syria and Egypt are in dispute over some territories aswell - Golan Heights for example. Ever since 1948, Arab-Palestinian independence has been flouted by Israel, land is being bought up by Israeli's in large parts of the Arab district of Jerusalem - this is against U.N. law. As a result of the oppression of the Palestinians you now have what is a conflict that is seemingly endless. If you ask for my opinion, I greatly sympathise for the Palestinian cause and the oppression from Israel is draconian and vastly disproportionate. If anyone saw Paddy Ashdown's documentary a few weeks ago, you would really understand the situation in Palestine and more specifically Jerusalem a lot better.

As for the other issues I broadly agree but they are separate issues, linked, but separate nonetheless.

by **redtrader74** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:37 am

I understand the history of the region, my point is that the the surrounding countries around Israel and Gaza also occupy territories that were palestinian land, these countries essentially would like to see the annihilation of Israel, apparently for the benefit of palestinians, yet don't offer those lands back and give palestinians a country. Muslims need to understand this occupation also.

Essentially i don't agree with the carve up of the mid-east, Britain should have let them fight it out, and form their own natural borders and countries. Its a really dangerous situation, sooner or later someone will attack Israel, and if they start losing, i hate to think what they may do.

by **LFC2007** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:49 am

I understand where you're coming from, however, modern day Israel is where modern day Palestinians used to live. They were the indigenous population, they could seek sanctuary in another Arab state but it is their land they are fighting for - land occupied by Israelis. The carve-up of the region was not something they had control of, Israel seized control and created a Jewish state - expelling Palestinians from their homes. I don't see why Palestinians should see Egypt, Lebanon, Syria or Jordan as occupiers since those nations did not seize control of any land - they were formed after the British Mandate. The crux of it is this, people living in Palestine 80 years ago were those who are now Lebanese, Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanian people, but why should those Palestinians be forced to make way for a zionist movement intent on creating a Jewish state?
In a nutshell, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Jordan did not occupy Palestinian land as they were part of Palestine.

by **redtrader74** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:04 am

Its the same situation with the Kurds, when Iraq, Iran, were carved up, the Kurds a separate cultural group, as are palestinians, were ignored, and the area they lived in is split up through Iraq, Iran and Turkey. The palestinians are also a different identifable group, as you rightly said there were also jewish/chrisitian palestinians, their lands, however it came about (a mandate doesn't mean it's right), were assimilated into more than just israel, the diiference is israel is made up of immigrant jews and the other countries are islamic. All i am saying is that palestinians have a claim to the lands also under the jurisdiction of other countries aswell as what israel have taken.

by **LFC2007** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:22 am

I can only disagree with you on that point. The people of modern day Palestine were inhabitants of what is now Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan. They were the same people, it was only after the British Mandate were they then split up. What is now Israel was once vastly an an arab nation, Jewish immigrants only asserted what they considered their Religious right to a "Land of Israel" after mass immigration that was largely unregulated by the British and the League of Nations - partly because of the Holocaust. Gradually the demographics changed to a 50-50 split, the Jewish population seized control which was against the U.N. partition agreement of 1948 and confined the remaining Palestinians to flee to surrounding nations or to parts of what are now Gaza and the West Bank, but also Golan Heights and parts of Lebanon where there are some Palestinian refugees. The right to land on the part of Palestinians to Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon is non-existant since they are the same people, or descendants of the same people who were forced out of what is now Israel. Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan were all part of Palestine, they are descendants of the current Palestinian population. There is no distinct ethnic difference between those who were forced out of Israel 60 years ago to surrounding nations to those currently fighting for their land in Gaza and the West Bank.

by **112-1077774096** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:30 am

LFC2007 wrote:I understand where you're coming from, however, modern day Israel is where modern day Palestinians used to live. They were the indigenous population, they could seek sanctuary in another Arab state but it is their land they are fighting for - land occupied by Israelis.

so i suppose its a bit like the british and bradford, modern day bradford was where the indigenous modern day britons lived until it was handed over to the asians and now the british could attack to reclaim it

i am only joking guys so pleas dont start screamin racist at me and analysing my post

by **babu** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:05 am

would never dream of analysing any of your posts peewee. what would be the pioint?

by **112-1077774096** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:08 am

hoisted by own petard

by **Salty Sock** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:35 am

I wouldn't doing it to you peewee! Not even in a swaf...
It is a sad terrorist organing in Israel that occur.

-Good input guys, I like the passion of this club

by **66-1112520797** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:59 am

Lets not forget after the taliban were ousted there was than American/Afghan women that entered miss World representing Afghanistan. The reaction in Afghanistan even from women was one of disgust and that women is not welcome in Afghanistan or a representative of Afghanistan

Glad I'm not a Muslim, otherwise I'd be too Fred Flinstone to see it.

by **puroresu** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:28 am

I would never dispute the brutality of the taliban or have any desire to see them back in power. What I have a problem with is the invasion of Afghanistan and the aftermath. Only last week the British Ambassador to Afghanistan, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, said that the UK "should be thinking in terms of decades" of occupation in Afghanistan.
As for the poppy trade I dispute that under the taliban it was booming in comparison to post invasion by western forces.
The United Nations say there was a 59% increase in areas under opium cultivation in 2006. Production of opium is estimated to have increased by 49% in relation to 2005.

The Western media in chorus blame the Taliban and the warlords, yet in a bitter irony, US military presence has served to restore rather than eradicate the drug trade. Opium production has increased 33 fold from 185 tons in 2001 under the Taliban to 6100 tons in 2006. Cultivated areas have increased 21 fold since the 2001 US-led invasion.

What the media reports fail to acknowledge is that the Taliban government was instrumental in 2000-2001 in implementing a successful drug eradication program, with the support and collaboration of the UN.

Implemented in 2000-2001, the Taliban's drug eradication program led to a 94 percent decline in opium cultivation. In 2001, according to UN figures, opium production had fallen to 185 tons. Immediately following the October 2001 US led invasion, production increased dramatically, regaining its historical levels.

The Vienna based UN Office on Drugs and Crime estimated that the 2006 harvest would be of the order of 6,100 tonnes, 33 times its production levels in 2001 under the Taliban government (3200 % increase in 5 years).

Cultivation in 2006 reached a record 165,000 hectares compared with 104,000 in 2005 and 7,606 in 2001 under the Taliban.

Now this does not mean the taliban were good and should be in power. I'm making a point that Afghanistan under occupation is in chaos and there are no signs when this will end.

Now for Palestine. I think Arabs have to take some responsibility for the creation of the illegal Zionist state of Israel as many of them supported Lawrence of Arabia against the Ottoman Caliphate. They believed this crazy idea of separate nation states and ended up paying the price as artificial borders were drawn, the Middles East was carved up and Palestine was lost. The new Transjordan wanted the West Bank and Egypt wanted Gaza. The Arab v Israel wars were nothing but a joke as the Arab states were only fighting for there own self interest and not to liberate Palestine at all.

Do I blame the West for the current conflict between Hamas & Fatah? Not totally but the US has her mucky hands in the conflict as usual. Hamas won an election and the West never gave them a chance to govern. Since day 1 after the election win the West has supported Fatah in trying to undermine the Hamas government and turn the people against Hamas. When that didnt work the US decided to supply Fatah with plenty of weapons and training hoping to see Fatah defeat Hamas on the ground. That also didnt work so now they support Fatah by supporting Abbas' decision to declare a new emergency government in the West Bank ignoring Hamas in Gaza. Again this is another example of western leaders calling for democracy in the Middle East but dont accept it if the chosen puppet doesnt win.

by **Big Niall** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:55 am

UK & USA should give up on their invasion of Iraq and send troops to Afghanastan to control the drug trade.

The media always show the cr*p side of Islam. One fool says all christians should be killed and he gets loads of publicity. The fools who say that stuff should be kicked of the country though.

The religion itself though isn't that far from christianity though, both are just updated forms of judaism.

by **66-1112520797** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:33 am

I think Ireland and all the other planets countries should sort Afghanastan out while the UK and the US sit back and kick their heels up.

by **dawson99** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:35 am

But invading Iraq was right, even if the motives were wrong, and al ot more needs to be sorted out now properly.

by **Ciggy** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:42 am

dawson99 wrote:But invading Iraq was right, .

It wasnt Daws it was very very wrong its a big feck up that wont be settled any time soon.
To many innocent people dying every single day for no reason atall.
They could have got Saddam without a war it was just an excuse, but why go into Iraq without finishing the job off in Afghanistan first by capturing Bin Laden?

Liverpool FC Forum

Salmon rushdie knighted - (i can see this getting locked)

Who is online