Israel a Phalesteina'n dal ati

gan **HBK25** » Mer 06 Medi 2006 10:33 am

[quote="ChwadanY broblem efo cymryd y gair "terfysgaeth" yn llythrennol ydi nad ydi'r ystyr hwnnw yn cael ei ddefnyddio bellach - fatha'r defnydd gwreiddiol o'r gair "gay". Ydi, ma sniper sy'n saethu pobl ar hap yn derfysgwr mewn un ystyr, ond tydan ni ddim yn defnyddio'r ansoddair "terfysgol" achos yr arwyddocâd gwleidyddol sydd ynghlwm â'r gair bellach. Ma rhoi arwyddocâd terfysgol i'r sniper yn awgrymu fod yna fwriad gwleidyddol lle nad oes un mewn gwirionedd. Ma fel cyflwyno ffrind gan ddeud "he's feeling very gay tonight" - gan roi camargraff (bwriadol?). Ond ma gennan ni eiriau eraill i ddisgrifio canlyniadau erchyll gweithredoedd treisgar angwleidyddol, felly oherwydd y camargraff fasa'n codi yn sgil defnyddio'r gair "terfysg" yn y fath achosion, welai ddim rheswm dros ddychwelyd at y defnydd gwreiddiol o'r gair.[/quote]

God, nid y ddadl yna eto!? :ofn:

Ges i row mawr gan pobl lot mwy eiddfed na fi am ddefnyddio'r pwynt hynna. :crio:

Mae gan South Park lot i ateb amdano.

gan **Dan Dean** » Mer 06 Medi 2006 10:49 pm

Wel dyma chi erthygl gachu can golofnydd gachu, Alan Dershowitz

Lebanon has now declared war on Israel and its citizens are bearing the consequences. Lebanon is no more a victim of Hezbollah than Austria was a victim of Nazism. In fact a higher percentage of Lebanese--more than 80%--say they support Hezbollah. The figures were nearly as high before the recent civilian deaths.

This is considerably higher than the number of Austrians who supported Hitler when the Nazis marched into Austria in 1938. Austria too claimed it was a victim, but no serious person today believes such self-serving historical revisionism. Austria was not "Hitler's first victim." It was Hitler's most sympathetic collaborator.

So too with Lebanon, whose president has praised Hezbollah, whose army is helping Hezbollah, and many of whose "civilians" are collaborating with Hezbollah. According to a news report in the New York Times on Sunday, August 6th, Hezbollah is Lebanon and Lebanon is Hezbollah. It is "as much a part of society as is its Shiite faith." As a car mechanic put it, "we are Hezbollah." A café owner was even more direct: "Just because I'm sitting here in this café doesn't mean I'm not a resistance fighter." Of course if he were killed fighting Israel, his death would be listed as a "civilian" casualty. Nor is he alone. He continued: "Everyone has a weapon in his house...There are doctors, teachers, and farmers. Hezbollah is people. People are Hezbollah." Except, of course, when they are killed or injured fighting against Israel--then they become just 'people,' just "civilians." As a doctor asked rhetorically, as he pointed to dead bodies resulting from a battle between Israeli and Hezbollah forces, "Do you see anybody from Hezbollah?"

It is virtually impossible to distinguish the Hezbollah dead from the truly civilian dead, just as it is virtually impossible to distinguish the Hezbollah living from the civilian living, especially in the south. The "civilian" death figures reported by Lebanese authorities include large numbers of Hezbollah fighters, collaborators, facilitators and active supporters. They also include civilians who were warned to leave, but chose to remain, sometimes with their children, to serve as human shields. The deaths of these "civilians" are the responsibility of Hezbollah and the Lebanese government, which has done very little to protect its civilians.

Lebanon has chosen sides--not all Lebanese, but the democratically chosen Lebanese government. When a nation chooses sides in a war, especially when it chooses the side of terrorism, its civilians pay a price for that choice. This has been true of every war.

We must stop viewing Lebanon as a victim and begin to see it as a collaborator with terrorism. Nor is there any excuse for this choice. Lebanon was not "driven" to support Hezbollah by Israel or the U.S., as some Lebanese leaders falsely claim. Lebanon included Hezbollah in its government, knowing that it is a terrorist organization. It abdicated the responsibility for providing social, economic and police services in the south to Hezbollah.

The Nazi party too provided social, economic and educational services to the poor in Germany and Austria. Yet the people who chose to submit to such evil paid a heavy price. People make choices and they bear the consequences of choosing to collaborate with terrorism. Lebanon has chosen the wrong side and its citizens are paying the price. Maybe next time a democracy must choose between collaborating with terrorism or resisting terrorism, it will choose the right side.

Mae'n dweud dylir Libanus ochri gyda Israel, er na Libanus gyfa oedd targed Israel, nid dim ond Hezbollah. Gwych!

gan **Garnet Bowen** » Gwe 08 Medi 2006 5:12 pm

Dan Dean a ddywedodd:
Garnet Bowen a ddywedodd:Ydi gang o hogia yn mynd rownd Pwllheli ar nos sadwrn yn colbio pobl yn eu diod yn derfysgwyr?

Yndi mewn ffor, ond ar lefel isel a tymor byr i'w gymharu ar be da ni'n weld ar y newyddion.

I rest my case.

gan **Sioni Size** » Sad 09 Medi 2006 4:00 am

Www.

Mae George Bush a'i debyg yn ei ddefnyddio fel rhyw fath o catch-all i ddisgrifio unrhyw un sy'n gweithredu yn eu herbyn nhw, tra bo'r rhai sy'n gwrthwynebu polisi tramor America yn trio troi hyn ar ei ben, a defnyddio'r gair er mwyn gwneud cymhariaeth rhwng gweithredoedd y UDA a'i gelynion. Ond mae'r ddwy ochr yn gwneud rhywbeth sy'n peri pryder i mi, sef plygu ystyr geiriau i siwtio eu hamcanion eu hunain.

Be mae Garnet yn ein haddysgu yma ydi nad ydi State Terrorism yn bodoli os ydi'r wladwriaeth dan gwestiwn wedi cynnal etholiad i edrych pa filiwnydd sy'n medru gaddo mwy o $ i'w thrigolion.
A mae ei lwmpio o'r IRA a ETA fel mudiadau oedd yn gwrthwynebu democratiaeth yn dangos diffyg enfawr o ddealltwriaeth yng ngwreiddiau a phwrpas y mudiadau hynny.

gan **Dan Dean** » Sad 09 Medi 2006 10:23 am

Garnet Bowen a ddywedodd:
Dan Dean a ddywedodd:
Garnet Bowen a ddywedodd:Ydi gang o hogia yn mynd rownd Pwllheli ar nos sadwrn yn colbio pobl yn eu diod yn derfysgwyr?

Yndi mewn ffor, ond ar lefel isel a tymor byr i'w gymharu ar be da ni'n weld ar y newyddion.

I rest my case.

Paid a bod yn hollol, hollol wirion. Nagwyt, ti ddim, sut ti'n restio dy "case"?. Pam gwleidyddiaeth, Garnet, sgin ti ateb call? Nagoes. Ti'n son am dau beth gwahanol. Gei di ymhelaethu'r uchod fyd. Be os oedd gwleidyddiaeth yn achosi'r engraifft (bwriadol) anodd ti di rhoi i weld os dion derfysgaeth neu beidio? Be fysa fo wedyn? Ateb gachu arall. Diolch am anwybyddu gweddil fy ateb, fyd. Pathetic! :rolio:

Sioni size a ddywedodd:Be mae Garnet yn ein haddysgu yma ydi nad ydi State Terrorism yn bodoli os ydi'r wladwriaeth dan gwestiwn wedi cynnal etholiad i edrych pa filiwnydd sy'n medru gaddo mwy o $ i'w thrigolion.

[nonsens]
O cym on Sioni, trigolion y wladwriaeth drwy eu bleidlais democrataidd yn y pendraw sydd yn penderfynu terfysgu yn erbyn gwledydd eraill. Er nid oes ganddynt unrhyw ddeud dros y mater. Ond diom ots am hynnu, nadi?
[\nonsens]

gan **Dan Dean** » Iau 21 Medi 2006 7:31 pm

George Bush yn yr UN:

To the people of Lebanon, last year you inspired the world when you came out into the streets to demand your independence from Syrian dominance.

You drove Syrian forces from your country, and you reestablished democracy.

Since then, you have been tested by the fighting that began with Hezbollah's unprovoked attacks on Israel. Many of you have seen your homes and your communities caught in crossfire.

"Crossfire". Ffyc mae'r boi ma yn fong.

gan **Dili Minllyn** » Iau 01 Chw 2007 8:52 pm

Darn bach diddorol am y trafodaethau cudd rhwng yr archelynion Israel a Syria, gan gynnwys rhoi Mynyddoedd Golan yn ôl i Syria yn gyfnewid am heddwch.

Yn ôl yr erthygl, difethwyd y cyfan gan i'r Unol Daleithiau fynnu na ddylai Israel gyfathrachu gyda gwlad sy'n rhan o'r "echel ddieflig" ddychmygol.

Israel a Phalesteina'n dal ati

Pwy sydd ar-lein