Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Hezbollah non ha vinto

Occidente:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008847
 (WSJ)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101444.html?sub=AR
 
(Washington Post)
http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=2433
 (Daily Star, Libano)
http://liberaliperisraele.ilcannocchiale.it/?id_blogdoc=1148248
  (Luttwack)
Mondo Arabo
Al Nahar: fratture nel mondo sciita libanese
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=syria&ID=SP126606
Quelli che non pensano che Hezbollah abbia vinto
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD127706
*"The Destruction of Lebanon Can Never Be Described as a Victory for Hizbullah"
Ahmad Jarallah, editor of the Kuwaiti dailies Al-Siyassa and the 
English-language Arab Times, which consistently take a stand against Syria and 
Iran, wrote in an editorial in the Arab Times:(6) "The destruction of Lebanon 
can never be described as a victory for Hizbullah. After the issuance of U.N. 
resolution 1701, no one has the right to claim victory or play with words to 
change their meanings. Once again we Arabs have been defeated in Lebanon. The 
responsibility for the destruction of Lebanon and for playing with its future 
rests with a segment of the Lebanese [people], which is serving the interests 
and greed of Iran… Unfortunately Syria and Iran view the U.N. resolution as 
biased. This means [that] our dream of seeing a stable Lebanon is still so far 
from coming true…
"In this situation, there is no sense in talking about victory. Syria's claim 
that the U.N. resolution doesn’t reflect the magnitude of Hizbullah’s victory is 
farcical. Syria cannot claim victory, since it didn’t officially fight this war 
– unless Damascus thinks that Hizbullah has been fighting its war. If this is 
the case, it must be denounced in no uncertain terms."
-----
*"The Arab Intellectuals Have a Serious Problem [in Defining] the Criteria for 
Victory and Defeat"
Columnist Muhammad Al-Seif wrote in the Saudi daily Al-Iqtisadiyya: "The war 
currently being waged in Lebanon has shown that many of our Arab intellectuals 
have a serious problem [in defining] the criteria for victory and defeat. Some 
of them are still convinced that Hizbullah, despite its losses, has brought a 
humiliating defeat upon Israel and has shattered the myth of Israel as an 
invincible state.
"The problem repeats itself, in the exact same form, in every war fought by the 
Arabs. The criterion for victory is [as follows]: As long as the emblem, or the 
heroic commander, still lives, [the outcome is pronounced to be] a victory – 
regardless of the consequences of the war for the peoples [in terms of damage 
to] property and loss of lives and capabilities. Former Egyptian president Gamal 
'Abd Al-Nasser led the Arabs to a crushing defeat in 1967, but some of us did 
not perceive it as such... Despite this defeat, 'Abd Al-Nasser retained [his 
status] as an Arab symbol and [his image as] an undefeatable Arab leader...
"I do not think that Hizbullah gained any victory at all. Lebanon, rather than 
Hizbullah, suffered losses whose price will be paid by the Lebanese [people]."(8)
----
*"Israel Sees the War Realistically While the Arabs Continue to Market Illusions"
Qeinan Al-Ghamdi, former editor of the Saudi daily Al-Watan, wrote: "[Israeli 
Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert announced that the ceasefire was a diplomatic 
victory [for Israel], and that he and his government were about to enter a 
difficult [process of] self-examination, which would be carried out at all 
levels of the Israeli society. At the same time, Hassan Nasrallah announced a 
historic and strategic victory. [This victory was achieved] at the expense of 
Lebanon's territory and people, whose only crime is [living in a land that is 
used] by other [forces] as an arena for score-settling and pretentious 
announcements.
"[Syrian President Bashar] Assad, for his part, was not content with this 
intoxicating 'strategic and historic victory,' which he achieved single-handedly 
from the very first day of the war... The intoxication of victory led him to 
open additional, verbal, fronts vis-à-vis other Arab regimes that the war had 
'exposed.' Having achieved his 'historic victory' against the historical enemy 
[i.e. Israel], and having expelled the enemy and liberated the [occupied] 
territories, he decided to turn to his treasonous brothers, in order to educate 
them and teach them the meaning of 'honor' and 'resistance,' and the 'language 
of the powerful.' He should have also added the 'language of the dinosaurs' and 
[the concept] of profiteering at the expense of the masses.
"That is the difference [between Israel and the Arabs]. Israel sees reality [as 
it is] and assesses the data and the opportunities sensibly, while the Arabs 
market illusions, sanctify heroic lies and foster hostility in order to cover up 
scandals that can no loner be concealed."(9)
*The Lebanese are Refusing to Admit Defeat in Order to Avoid Responsibility
In an article titled "Who Will Pay the Price of Defeat," 'Abd Al-Rahman 
Al-Rashed wrote in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "In our region, [whenever] anyone manages 
to be defeated, [people] carry him around on their shoulders and shower him with 
wishes of longevity. No one, without exception, [ever] pays the price. What 
happened in Lebanon was an enormous tragedy, whether we label it 'victory,' 
'defeat,' or 'steadfastness.' [But] I do not imagine that anyone will be held 
accountable. On the contrary, [the one responsible] will get to impose his rule 
by using his propaganda machine to justify his actions, saying that what 
happened prevented something worse [from occurring]. [The problem is that] the 
people have no part in starting or stopping wars. Nobody asks them... In short, 
the opinion of millions of people carries no weight, even when their lives and 
the lives of their children are at risk.
"Everyone in Lebanon has promised that, after the war, there will be a rigorous 
investigation – but these are empty words since no one will [actually] lose his 
position. Hassan Nasrallah will not resign since he is head of a party that does 
not hold elections; [Lebanese Prime Minister] Fuad Siniora will not resign 
[either], since he had no role in [making the decisions concerning] war and 
peace. The government will not resign since it does not want to acknowledge 
defeat, and even if it does acknowledge [defeat] it will not agree to take 
responsibility for Hizbullah's adventures. The worst thing of all is that nobody 
[is willing] to call it a defeat, not to mention take responsibility [for it]."(10)
----
"There is a Need to Form an Arab Investigation Committee"
In an article titled "Arab Investigation Committee to Investigate the Lebanon 
Crisis," 'Abd Al-Mun'im Sa'id, director of the Al-Ahram Center for Political and 
Strategic Research, wrote in the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram: "Israel was 
the only side that immediately set out to investigate what happened in [this] 
crisis and war. [Israeli Prime Minister] Ehud Olmert acknowledged that Israel's 
performance had been unsatisfactory, and Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz 
appointed a committee to investigate the performance of the Israeli military. 
The press and public in Israel were not silent [either], but criticized the 
performance of the government and army. The entire Israeli society moved from a 
state of solidarity to [a process of] investigation and questioning...
"Therefore, [we too] must form an Arab investigation committee, official or 
unofficial, that will investigate the crisis and the war, as Israel is doing. 
[The investigation] will raise questions regarding everything that happened 
during the war, from beginning to end. The first issue might be the decision [to 
start] the war. Nasrallah said at the beginning of the war that his party will 
be the spearhead of the Arab and Muslim nation in liberating Palestine. Who 
appointed him to this role?... Even if we accept [the claim] that Hizbullah is 
permanently empowered by the Lebanese government to continue the resistance 
until the Shab'a Farms are liberated, [we can still ask whether] Hassan 
Nasrallah assessed the situation correctly when he decided to kidnap the Israeli 
soldiers...
"It has [also] been proven that Hizbullah... did nothing to prepare the 
[Lebanese] home front [for the war]. When asked about this, [Hizbullah] replied 
that this is the responsibility of the Lebanese state, i.e. of the side which 
was the last to know about the [impending] war, as [Lebanese Prime Minister] 
Fuad Siniora said...
"Many questions [also] arise as to [Hizbullah's] military performance, such as 
why it did not fire its Zilzal, Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 missiles, which it [promised] 
to fire in retaliation if Beirut was attacked. After all, the Lebanese capital 
was attacked repeatedly, especially the southern neighborhood where 'Hizbullah 
state' is located.
"[And] the most important question of all is why the rockets used by Hizbullah 
were of such limited effectiveness that some 30 rockets had to be fired for 
every Israeli victim ([some of these victims] being Arabs). This ratio makes the 
war very expensive, and [we] should consider equipping the rockets with a 
mechanism to improve their accuracy..."(11)
-----
Hizbullah After the War
*Acceptance of Hizbullah as an Armed Organization has Come to an End
In an article published in the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram, columnist 
Hazem 'Abd Al-Rahman discussed the significance of the demand to disarm 
Hizbullah: "It is clearly understood from Resolution [1701] that there can be no 
acceptance of an armed organization which is more powerful than the state's 
armed forces. [The resolution also clarifies] that the international community 
refuses to make light [of the fact] that the leader of this organization usurps 
the state's [authority to make] decisions regarding war and peace... The most 
dangerous thing about the Hizbullah model is that it conveys the message that 
armed and secret militias, which [operate] outside the [official] frameworks of 
the state, are the solution. [According to this approach,] any political party 
or organization which is displeased with the state's policy must [simply] form a 
militia and buy weapons – from arms smugglers, from some evil country, or from a 
country that wants to use [this militia] to achieve its aims. Political parties 
thus forsake their basic duty of conducting political activity... and their goal 
becomes to stockpile weapons and to annihilate their political opponents and 
[anyone else who] disagrees with them."(14)
Endnotes:
(1) Al-Ahram (Egypt), August 14, 2006.
(2)Al-Yawm (Saudi Arabia), August 15, 2006.
(3)Al-Ahram (Egypt), August 13, 2006.
(4)Al-Rai (Jordan), August 17, 2006.
(5)Al-Ahram (Egypt), August 13, 2006.
(6) These excerpts are from an English translation of the editorial on the Arab 
Times website.
http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/opinion/view.asp?msgID=1276
, August 14, 
2006.
(7) Al-Siyassa (Kuwait), August 14, 2006.
(8)Al-Iqtisadiyya (Saudi Arabia), August 14, 2006.
(9)Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), August 16, 2006.
(10)Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), August 14, 2006.
(11)Al-Ahram (Egypt), August 21, 2006.
(12)Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), August 16, 2006.
(13)Al-Gumhuriyya (Egypt), August 14, 2006.
(14)Al-Ahram (Egypt), August 13, 2006.
(15)Al-Hayat (London) August 20, 2006.
--------------------
www.tonibaruch.blogspot.com

 Occidente:
Who Won? Who Lost and Why? 
For anyone confused about the results of the war in Lebanon, what with
both 
For anyone confused about the results of the war in Lebanon, what with 
both Israel and the Hezbollah claiming victory, the following rule of 
thumb should be helpful.  Those claiming an Israeli victory and a 
Hezbollah defeat are basing themselves on things that are supposedly going 
to happen in the future. George W. is the most prestigious representative 
of the ?Israel won? school of thought. He said this. ?How can Hezbollah 
claim victory when they are going to be replaced?? Georgie, losing still 
another battle with the English language, must have meant ?displaced.? 
Experts on GWB explain that he quite often confuses things that he wants 
to happen with things that are actually happening. 
Those, who state that Israel lost and Hezbollah won, base themselves on 
what happened, and this is of course, the only reliable basis for 
analysis. 
The extent of the loss and the significance of the Israeli defeat are, of 
course, open to discussion. 
And now, I have to make a confession. A few days back I wrote an article 
for our Hebrew website, ?Hagada Ha?smolit? [Left Bank].  Pained and 
disgusted at the war and the steady stream of the official lies, I said 
some very unpleasant things about the state of Israeli society. The key 
motif of that article was that even the most consistent opponents of 
Israeli policy over the years could not have known the depths to which 
Israeli society had sunken.  The blistering indictment that I presented 
there is so severe as to pose the question as to whether there are still 
some redeeming features in Israeli society.  Fearing to be misunderstood 
on so critical an issue, I wanted to rewrite the English text, though I 
knew that, eventually,  I would have to come clean and write the sad and 
bitter truth for my English readers. I had simply hoped that I could find 
a way to balance the indictment by finding a few just people and events in 
Sodom.  If you have not noticed we are in Sodom and Gomorrah.     
Three items in the news yesterday showed me that I was silly and naïve. 
Item one revealed that Dan Halutz, the IDF Chief of Staff had called his 
bank at 12:00, three hours after the July 12 incident, in order to sell 
all his stocks. The Attorney- General decided that very morning to file 
charges against Ha?negbi, one of the leaders of Kadima and the present 
chair of the powerful Knesset committee on Security and Foreign Affairs, 
for handing out civil service jobs to party hacks. On the same morning, 
the police requested the Attorney-General to file charges against  Haim 
Ramon, the Minister of Justice (!), for sexual harassment. 
Of course, these gentlemen richly deserve the anguish and humiliation that 
they should be feeling (but do not be certain they do feel anything of the 
sort). Moreover, this is just one more instance of some flotsam and 
jetsam being expunged from dark and deep currents. 
The plain fact of the matter is that, even as consistent political and 
moral opponents of the Israeli regime, we did not and could not have known 
that the rot and the decay in the interstices of Israeli society had 
proceeded to a level that challenges the imagination. 
Of course, we are not concerned with the peccadilloes of this or that 
politician or general. We are concerned with the recent formation of a 
national consensus enthusiastically supporting a war that should have been 
seen immediately as a wild and irresponsible project launched by 
irresponsible politicians and arrogant generals. There is no need to 
repeat here all the aspects of this debacle, recognized as such by almost 
every part of Israeli society. The details of the disaster are becoming 
clearer day by day.  But it our duty to ask the more basic question of WHY 
this happened! There is a sickness in this land and those who cherish the 
land and its people, those who see it as their homeland, cannot avoid 
facing the whole truth. 
Root Causes ? Real Ones 
These, in broad outline, are the root causes of the deep and abiding 
crisis in Israeli society. 
One: Israeli politics have been thoroughly militarized to the point that 
all major issues are analyzed exclusively in military terms and the 
employment of brute power. The military and its thought patterns has 
permeated the body politic and the civilian echelon rendering civilian 
control of the armed forces a sad joke. 
The public is led to believe that all problems and difficulties can be 
resolved only through the use of force. The assumption is that the IDF, 
were it released from moralistic considerations and political wimps   
could take care of business. Thus, the persistence of unresolved 
difficulties is understood by public as a result of lack of will on the 
part of the civilian echelon.  In times of tension or military operations, 
the first concern of the government is to convince the public that it has 
given the military a free hand.  The politicians are in mortal fear that 
any general accuse the government that prevented the army from reaping the 
fruits of victory.  All the government has to do is to ?Let the IDF win!? 
Two: The pre-existing special alliance between the United States and 
Israel has been upgraded.  Israel has become a full scale operational 
partner in the ?war on terror? and has been assigned specific targets in 
the crusade of the Bush administration against the axis of evil. Most 
Israelis are convinced that they are receiving fantastic diplomatic, 
military and logistical support for doing something that they would have 
to do anyway. Indeed, how could Israel not respond with a deep sense of 
gratitude and solidarity when the only major superpower deepens the 
special alliance and converts it to a mutual interest in battling 
?Islamo-Fascism.? Israel believes that, with the security of the U.S. 
commitment, its existential problems are over. 
The political and military elites, including the intellectuals, who should 
know something about the reliability of the United States, have enrolled 
Israel in a project that might well end in a major catastrophe.  Israel is 
quite satisfied with itself about lining up with Bush, though it does not 
have the faintest idea of the objectives and the chances of reaching them. 
Three:  It is impossible to oppress an entire people for 40 years and not 
to succumb to the ultimate rationalization for such action. Anti-Arab 
racism is endemic in Israeli society.  This racism is so pervasive that it 
covers the political landscape like a cloud and infects all the thinking 
and the attitudes of the overwhelming majority of Israelis. There are 
endless variations on the never ending litany of the faults of the Arabs ? 
some more sophisticated for the more educated strata and more vocal and 
vicious for the masses. 
Four: In a society busily engaged in privatizing its very soul, the 
concept of dedicated public service becomes anachronistic. Everyone is 
involved in his/her own career, looking out for advancement and pursuing 
more monetary reward.  If you are smart, you understand the value of 
public relations. If you want recognition you will find your way to the 
media. Truth is irrelevant, and everyone knows that what counts is what 
gets to the media. 
These broad and far reaching developments:  rampant militarism, abject 
subservience to Washington, deep seated racism and careerism are the 
deeper reasons why Israel embarked on the recent adventure in Lebanon. 
Despite the tremendous sigh of relief all over the country after the cease 
fire went into place, the hawks, the generals and their stooges are 
already explaining that the next round is inevitable and it won?t take 
long in coming. 
The Risks of Leadership 
With a slight nuance here and there, the Zionist left rallied to the flag 
of national unity when Olmert and Peretz blew the bugle. However, from the 
very beginning there were some brave souls who disassociated themselves 
from their leadership by showing up at the demos by thousands of the 
militant left which opposed the war from day one. 
At a meeting of Peace Now activists on July 24, 2006, there was a clear 
division between supporters and opponents of the war. Supporters of the 
war rejected a suggestion that Peace Now, at the least, come out in 
support of a cease fire. The movement leadership argued that its 
supporters would not understand such a position and that it was impossible 
to know whether the demand for a cease fire might not help Hezbollah.(!?) 
Public opinion counted Peace Now with those sections of the left who had 
seen the light and returned to the fold of the nation.  But as the war 
dragged on and there were signs that victory would be evasive or not be 
achieved at all, three central figures of the Zionist left (Amos Oz, A.B. 
Yehushua and David Grossman) came out in support of a cease fire on 
Sunday, August 6. In parallel development, Peace Now and MERETZ activists 
called, in open defiance of their leaderships, for a demonstration on 
Thursday, August 11, supporting the demand for a cease-fire. As the week 
went on, pressure was building on the recalcitrant leaderships to take a 
position.  By Thursday morning, the break away, grass roots initiative had 
been adopted by both leaderships as an official movement activity calling 
for quick end to the war . 
During the week, there were insistent rumors that Israel was going to 
launch a mass land offensive drive to the Litani River, any minute. This 
had the effect of uniting all sections of the Zionist left, which 
recognized the move as nothing more that a costly attempt by the IDF to 
bolster its sagging prestige. 
There are two ways to respond to these events in the peace movement.       
One could say, well, better late than never. Another way of looking at 
this is to ask what kind of leadership has to be dragged by its rank and 
file to the street in order to protest against a government that is 
blatantly ignoring the human 
There are two ways to respond to these events in the peace movement.       
One could say, well, better late than never. Another way of looking at 
this is to ask what kind of leadership has to be dragged by its rank and 
file to the street in order to protest against a government that is 
blatantly ignoring the human costs of an imbecilic war? 
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
http://cubainforma.interfree.it/
il film sul 9/11 : 
http://www.loosechange911.com/
http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/Berlin.jpg
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 
toni, fuor di polemica, mi spieghi perche' ti stai infognando in questa
assurda diatriba di "hezbollah ha vinto", "hezbollah non ha vinto",
"hezbollah ha perso", "israele ha vinto", "israele non ha vinto", "israele
ha perso"? in internet si trovano mille opinioni piu' o meno autorevoli per
ogni caso sopra elencato, dal che si puo' dedurre piu' o meno agevolmente
che ad ora non ci sono vincitori ne' vinti in questa guerra rabberciata e
disgraziata. Da una parte c'e` la possibilita' di disarmare hezbollah, che
pero' per ora resta solo una possibilita' e che sara' ben difficile
implementare (ammesso dal governo libanese stesso stasera), c'e` una parte
dell'opinione pubblica libanese che ritiene HA responsabile della guerra in
cui tutto il libano e` stato trascinato, c'e` una parte abbastanza
consistente dell'opinione pubblica libanese che invece si e` sentita
protetta da HA, tanto che il consenso verso HA e` aumentato. C'e` la
possibilita' di creare una vera democrazia in libano, al posto di quella
farsa di democrazia che c'e` attualmente, ma c'e` anche la possibilita' che
il libano torni indietro di una ventina d'anni, e sappiamo cosa questo
significhi (e questo magari per israele e` un bene, daro che cancederebbe
un certo respiro, ma per me no). Sorvoliamo sulla siria, che non e` ben
chiaro cosa intenda fare, sorvoliamo sull'egitto che oggi ha dichiarato che
i buoni rapporti tra esso ed israele sono in bilico, sorvoliamo sull'iran.
La situazione interna di israele e` quantomeno critica, non passa giorno
che su yedioth e haaretz non venga aspramente criticato una volta olmert
l'altra peretz, c'e` un governo che si tiene in piedi per miracolo, ed una
alternativa likud-israel beitenu che fa rizzare i capelli solo a pensarla.
Saro' pure noioso, a forza di dirlo, ma per come la vedo io, HA non ha
vinto, ma di certo nemmeno israele ha vinto. La partita non e` affatto
chiusa, e per ora ogni esito e` ancora possibile. Certo non vedo
all'orizzonte scenari catastrofici (almeno per ora), ma mi piacerebbe veder
spuntare... 'n'anticchietta de sole...
'notte
d

 assurda diatriba di "hezbollah ha vinto", "hezbollah non ha vinto",
Volentieri.
Perché vedo un eccesso di sicurezza apodittico sul trionfo di hezbollah.
E' una specie di pre-analisi. Siccome esiste ancora, siccome dice di aver vinto 
(siccome ci si augura sempre che Israele perda), siccome Israele ha una stampa 
libera e un'opinione pubblica insoddisfatta, Hezbollah ha vinto.
Ora, che Israele abbia sbagliato molto e concluso assai meno di quanto le 
dichiarazioni e i proclami delle prime ore sostenevano, è un fatto. In Libano, 
al contrario, non sono pensabili commissioni d'inchiesta su Nasrallah.
Ma sul trionfo di Hezbollah, molti osservatori dei fatti anche piuttosto vicini, 
dissentono abbastanza. D'altra parte, credo che un'osservazione del terreno, 
delle condizioni in cui operava prima e quelle in cui opererà adesso, dicano 
militarmente una cosa molto diversa.
Politicamente, si vedrà.
 > tanto che il consenso verso HA e` aumentato.
Questo è uno degli elementi della pre-analisi apodittica. Che sia così in Libano 
non è affatto così scontato. Ed è una delle cose che vengono messe in notevole 
dubbio dagli articoli (anche libanesi) che trovi in quella collezione.
Che cosa succederà adesso, come finirà per stabilizzarsi (o esplodere del tutto) 
la situazione, è un groviglio di incognite.
Ma anche un altro discorso.
Tb
-- 
Diario di guerra
www.tonibaruch.blogspot.com

 (Luttwack)
Ho letto solo questo...cavoli sarŕ l'etŕ ma
Luttwack č messo proprio male
Ciao! 

 non è affatto così scontato.
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
il goebbelsbaruch ha la stessa visione della realta' del Libano che
avevano hitler e goebbels dal bunker di berlino della Germania che veniva
liberata dall'Armata Rossa. 


Ok, avrò capito male io.
http://xoomer.alice.it/barcapi/giara/index.html

http://tonibaruch.blogspot.com/2006/09/hezbollah-non-ha-vinto.html
Riporto in questo post un'antologia dei più rilevanti editoriali occidentali, 
libanesi e arabi, che sostengono come Hezbollah abbia peggiorato le sue 
posizioni in seguito alla guerra.
Sia dal punto di vista militare (cosa secondo me di un'ovvietà assoluta) che dal 
punto di vista economico, che dal punto di vista politico. Persino peggiorando 
la sua posizione all'interno della comunità sciita libanese.
Tb
-- 
www.tonibaruch.blogspot.com

"tonibaruch"
Ti rendi conto che stai facendo come i bambini piccini?
"ho vinto io neee neee".."ho vinto io neee neee".
Forse non ha vinto hezbollah ma pure Israele non ha vinto.
Ora staremo a vedere le conseguenze della guerra e di altre
scelte idiote, ma comunque si tratta di una guerriciola,
mentre i problemi grossi sono all'orizzonte.
Probabilmente ancora non sarà chiaro chi ha vinto
questo scontro che già ne sarà partito un altro
e molto più grosso.
Ciao! 

 i problemi grossi sono all'orizzonte.
Quoto anche questo


 Forse non ha vinto hezbollah ma pure Israele non ha vinto.
sbagliato: Israele ha vinto. Ha distrutto tutto il Libano e massacrato
piu' di mille civili e provocato l'esodo di piu' di un milione di libanesi.
Per il goebbelsuccio szalasiano questo conta.


 Quoto anche questo
Dovresti staccarti dal computer per un paio di giorni
lo sai? Prendi una boccata d'aria che questa tensione
da accerchiamento continuo non ti fa troppo bene.
Tranquillo, avviso Nadir che controlli il "fronte" per conto
tuo e se Israele farà un'altra fesseria sarai avvisato subito.
Non vi è alcuna volontà di offendere ma è una cosa
abbastanza evidente.
Ieri hai aperto una discussione sul perchè ci fossero
tante portaerei davanti al Libano...la spiegazione
è nel nome stesso  e nelle dichiarazioni precedenti di
molti governi partecipanti (mandiamo navi ma
nessun militare) ma tu ci hai visto chissà che
segnale di guerra imminente con la nuova Unifil
al fianco d'Israele.
E questo è solo l'ultimo episodio di una luuuunga serie.
Ciao!

 da accerchiamento continuo non ti fa troppo bene.
ROTFL
Ma sei tu che l'hai scritto!
Tb
-- 
www.tonibaruch.blogspot.com


Non mi riferivo alla risposta ma a come rispondi.
Allo "stile" della risposta.
Comunque lasciamo perdere...sei senza speranza
Ciao! 

 Non mi riferivo alla risposta ma a come rispondi.
In effetti ho risposto "quoto" a un tuo post.
Concordo che potrebbe essere preoccupante e che la cosa merita ulteriori 
approfondimenti.
Tb
-- 
www.tonibaruch.blogspot.com

Quoto anche questo
Hai dimenticato di quotare questo, barucchio:
Ti rendi conto che stai facendo come i bambini piccini?
"ho vinto io neee neee".."ho vinto io neee neee".
