It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK to spend £6M repairing IDF damage in Lebanon

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
Should Britain (and others) recover this cost from Israel via import duties etc?


This would make sense…or perhaps GB merely desires to salvage some of her mines, missiles and unexploded ordnace…

However; the better option would be perhaps to reconsider her weapons exports, imports, (which has been claimed to violate both the EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria)…of course the ‘open license’ amounts are not available…also GB could end mutual arms industry collaborations and request her plutonium returned…if this is truly an issue.

Mg




posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   



You accepted Osama Bin Ladens responsibilty for the WTC when he sent a televised message yet you ignored the messages contents after that. Thats very convenient. The man stated exactly why they had attacked us.



I do agree terrorism occurs due/inflamed to Western imperialism, etc. But that by no far standard of thought, should mean, that we should stop because cowards destroy thousands of civilians lives. We should stop because it is wrong.

I have read on here and other places, that Europeans don't want to support the US and Israel, because they would be as hated and targeted for terrorist attacks. And that Spain didn't get terrorist attacks anymore after they left Iraq. Well who cares? Why should terrorists be allowed to influence governments, through terror? It is just as wrong. Don't try and give reasons and justifications to make terrorism seem like it has reasons. Not when it means killing civilians, which you on here scream about what Israel does all the time. Yet seem to 'forget' that Hezbollah does the same thing.

Martin Luther King, and Ghandi didn't use terrorism, and they were a lot more affective than Islamic fanatics are



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
I have read on here and other places, that Europeans don't want to support the US and Israel, because they would be as hated and targeted for terrorist attacks. And that Spain didn't get terrorist attacks anymore after they left Iraq. Well who cares? Why should terrorists be allowed to influence governments, through terror? It is just as wrong. Don't try and give reasons and justifications to make terrorism seem like it has reasons. Not when it means killing civilians, which you on here scream about what Israel does all the time. Yet seem to 'forget' that Hezbollah does the same thing.

Martin Luther King, and Ghandi didn't use terrorism, and they were a lot more affective than Islamic fanatics are


What terrorists were in Iraq? There were no terrorists in Iraq, that was a fabrication made up solely by Chalabi and the Mossad. There were no training camps, there were no WMD's and there were no Al-Queda in Iraq before we went in there. Why are you implying this? Its not true. The only person(s) influencing anyone through terror was Rice,Cheney,Bush, and Rumsfeld who were repeatedly telling us that WMD's were going to strike American shores.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Wow...the UK only spent 6 Million? Thats not a bad deal!!!



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
We shred our army to bits to save 40 million on one hand, and yet pour 6 million into terrorists hands to feed and build for them???


HAMAS should pay for the damage as it started the fight. HAMAS is in goverment in lebanon, so it should have to pay to clear up after a war it started.

Stop handing out our hard earned money to terrorists and start looking ater the UK first - its not like we don't need all the money we can scrape together. We have enough problems - let HAMAS sort out a HAMAS caused problem.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I think you forgot Hizbo and Syria and Iran in all of that...maybe they should foot some of the bill no? LOL, but they are CANDY gov's...they only speak oput when something in their favor goes right, otherwise, silent as the night. Typical of those "types" of peoples it seems tho.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
you beat me to it. I was going to suggest that Iran and Syria pay to rebuild Lebanon since they were the ones supplying hezbollah the entire time anyway. Since others here think that the US and Israel should foot the bill since it was our weapons that did the damage, I in turn counter reply with suggesting that Iran and Syria manup and pay it. Hezbollah after all does their bidding anyway.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Exactly dude....let Iran and Syria open their checkbooks and pay for the damage in Lebanon. If states are going to harbor and /or support terrorists, then they should foot the bill for the damage the cause as well.

Step up to the plate President Ameniasdjhbfvaukjad!!!!! Oh but i forgot...you only speak in big terms and retoric you cant back up.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   



What terrorists were in Iraq? There were no terrorists in Iraq, that was a fabrication made up solely by Chalabi and the Mossad. There were no training camps, there were no WMD's and there were no Al-Queda in Iraq before we went in there. Why are you implying this? Its not true. The only person(s) influencing anyone through terror was Rice,Cheney,Bush, and Rumsfeld who were repeatedly telling us that WMD's were going to strike American shores.


Totally missed the point. I was saying, why should terrorists manipulate governments to do things due to threats? They shouldn't. The West shouldn't stop infliltrating the Middle East because of the threat of terrorism, but because it is wrong. Terrorists think they will accomplish things, but they won't. They just accomplish more hatred towards them, and it may boil over at some point in time, when there will be nothing in the Middle East minus the oil that the nations of the world will go in and take. Both Islamic fanatics and neoconservatives and zionists, etc. are just fueling the fire. Neither is putting it out.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
We shred our army to bits to save 40 million on one hand, and yet pour 6 million into terrorists hands to feed and build for them???


HAMAS should pay for the damage as it started the fight. HAMAS is in goverment in lebanon, so it should have to pay to clear up after a war it started.

Stop handing out our hard earned money to terrorists and start looking ater the UK first - its not like we don't need all the money we can scrape together. We have enough problems - let HAMAS sort out a HAMAS caused problem.

Hamas is Palestines government. Hizbollah is the guerilla group in Lebanon.

If Hizbollah dropped all those bombs on Lebanon I'd 100% agree with you, but that was Israel's doing and no one elses.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Wow...the UK only spent 6 Million? Thats not a bad deal!!!


Read the original linked story - the UK is spending an addtional £6M on repairing infrastructure / dealing with UXO's.

In what way is that 'not a bad deal'? Why should we spend any money when those who supplies / dropped the bombs do nothing to clear up the mess they created?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join