The Lebanon

[tinribz]

Israel's response to the first then the second two soldier's kidnapping by bombing civilians and then blockading a whole country is shocking in the extreme.

Big surprise they get civilian targeted rocket's back at them. How does Israel always manage to make a bad situation turn in to the worst possible outcome.

It is decades that they have been continually committing atrocities Palestine with tanks and bulldozers against civilian women and children, a whole country imprisoned and tortured for generations, and they wonder why there are suicide bombers.

President Bush says Israel has the right to defend it's self. I quickly compared a CNN report against a BBC one and it was pritty obvious which was more balanced putting it mildly.


Are you all really that blind in America?

[kendoiwan]

Not this american...

[kendoiwan]

P.S. watching it on U.S. news its like they're cheerleading for Israel like it was a sports team on a winning streak

[PenguinHunter]

P.S. watching it on U.S. news its like they're cheerleading for Israel like it was a sports team on a winning streak

Heh... nice.

[LongSilence]

Thing is: America did basically a similar thing with Afghanistan. Terrorists attack the US - The US demands a full-scale war. Thus its unlikely they'll have too much of a problem... to begin with.

One can only hope the UN makes some sort of move to suggest that such "unilateral international justice" isn't acceptable. Take this to the extremes and every time a country fails to find or extradite a criminal they'll be threatened with foreign 'policing'.

[Stillwater]

To say that Israel has a tendency to overreact is an understatement. They are screwing themselves by bullying so many people- and making more enemies in the process. Collective punishment=war crimes.

[bergenski]

Collective punishment=war crimes.
I think Israelis know a thing or two about crimes against humanity.

[LongSilence]

And three or four about being hated by almost everyone else on the planet.

[Stillwater]

I think when you start bulldozing peoples houses, conducting aerial assaults, while barefoot children throw rocks at your tanks, you stop being a victim. Israel is by far the strongest military power in the region. They should start acting like it- and show some restraint.

[kendoiwan]

More or less...

[bergenski]

And three or four about being hated by almost everyone else on the planet.
This site isn't for NFs.

[tinribz]

I also honestly believe that the blatent support and cash is the root cause of the anti-american attudes in the region. Well at least before the whole Afgan / Iraq (I mean eye-rack) thing anyway. It certainly does your credability no good.

[kendoiwan]

It appears The U.S. gov't currently has little concern with "credibility"

[Madrigal]

The extreme right will always be incurably and unbelievably myopic. Bush and Isarael could be dragging the entire world into unimaginable barbarity. Just look at the recent events in North Korea and India. And this shit. This whole situation is very scary. I'm afraid that barbarity might win before people have time to organize the kind of Resistance this world really needs. I think that time has already started going faster, and the race has begun.

[KuJo]

The extreme right will always be incurably and unbelievably myopic. Bush and Isarael could be dragging the entire world into unimaginable barbarity. Just look at the recent events in North Korea and India. And this shit. This whole situation is very scary. I'm afraid that barbarity might win before people have time to organize the kind of Resistance this world really needs. I think that time has already started going faster, and the race has begun.

the race was started long before this. and probably wont stop. nevermind, its not going to stop.

[Madrigal]

the race was started long before this. and probably wont stop. nevermind, its not going to stop.
Shirley, but I was refering to an acceleration. :)

EDIT: Perhaps a moment in which quantity makes a qualitative leap?

[KuJo]

personally, I think this is Jesus' fault.

[kendoiwan]

Where's Superman when you need him?

[ptGatsby]

I also honestly believe that the blatent support and cash is the root cause of the anti-american attudes in the region. Well at least before the whole Afgan / Iraq (I mean eye-rack) thing anyway. It certainly does your credability no good.


Historically, it has to do more with intervention. Back in the 60s, after the various South American interventions, most of the anti-US terrorism was from there. A while later, the middle east (after overthrowing governments/etc in the me).

Over the long term, yes, a lack of resolution and continued intervention + local activity in politics (including money) allowed the problem to continue.



I'm afraid that barbarity might win before people have time to organize the kind of Resistance this world really needs.


Its a rather universal simple historical truth...

As power consolidates, inequalities emerge. The larger the power gap, the more people become inequal. The more people become inequal, the more resistance is gathered. The more resistance is gathered, the more power consolidates.

In the long run, power breaks and the gates of rome... err... city... are thrown open.

The only way power stays in power is if power gives it up. Unfortunately, its a paradox, and so history tends to go in these cycles... small (ie: Asian mini states) and large (Rome, consolidation of asian states).

[Stillwater]

The extreme right will always be incurably and unbelievably myopic. Bush and Isarael could be dragging the entire world into unimaginable barbarity. Just look at the recent events in North Korea and India. And this shit. This whole situation is very scary. I'm afraid that barbarity might win before people have time to organize the kind of Resistance this world really needs. I think that time has already started going faster, and the race has begun.

Some Christian conservatives in the US are invested in hurrying the end of days. They have way too much mortgage and credit card debt.

Seriously, there are people that view this conflict as a sign that the rapture is coming. How does one reason with that mentality? Especially scary because the prez is one of them. Gah! How can the rest of us opt out of the plan?

[kendoiwan]

Superman?

[KuJo]

people are just waitin' for that rapture. just cant come quick enough, can it? since i live with and around people like this, i wonder why they dont kill themselves to get that much closer to the afterlife. then again, maybe bush is trying to get the US to fall so that he gets to the afterlife that much faster.

[KuJo]

Superman?

hes too busy beating up drug dealers and taking their "merchandise" so he can smoke a J.

[kendoiwan]

Suicide is a sin in their book you'll recall

[SeierTapt]

personally, I think this is Jesus' fault.

:jesus: "The hell, son!? I was eating melons with Jimi Hendrix and Plato while all that middle east conflict shit was going down, I can't keep you people from screwing yourselves over every minute of the day. Don't be blaming me for your cartoon-like acts of violence founded on equally cartoon-like reasons. It's all the devil's fault, I assure you!"

[KuJo]

Suicide is a sin in their book you'll recall

yeah but there are ways for them to do things that arent considered suicide. like getting someone to push them off a cliff or something.

[kendoiwan]

hes too busy beating up drug dealers and taking their "merchandise" so he can smoke a J.

Superman flys high and he gets high... best of both worlds:joft:

[omnirook]

This back and forth between the East and the West is at least as old as the beef between Darius and Alexander. You've got essentially the same 2 world-views in opposition for the last several millennia, no matter the changes in brand names.

It's the same shit. There was shit going on in Palestine even after the Shah im Shah moved all the Jews out and left the the dump to the Philistines. There was shit going on in Palestine after (some of) the Jews moved back, and the Romans tried to cope w/the area. There was shit going on in Palestine the whole time that the Muslims owned it; there was shit going on in Palestine after the Crusaders borrowed Palestine for a century or two. There was shit going on in Palestine for the whole time between the fall of the Crusader Kingdom and the end of World War II, when Britain/the United States decided to dump Europe's Jews down and leave them to their own devices. And there's been shit going on ever since. Jews, Muslims, and Christians have all had a huge hand in making the mess in Israel. Fucked up thing is - get rid of the motherfuckers who benefit from all this nonsense (ie, the governments and the shit-lickers who sell weapons) - and the people live side by side w/o a bit of trouble. The Jews are NOT bad people. The Muslims are NOT bad people. The Christians are NOT bad people. Except for the fucking warmongers in high places who use faith and ignorance to stir up the trouble that makes and keeps them rich and powerful.

[KuJo]

they dont want to live side by side. thats the whole reason the region is in turmoil, its not the governments, its the fucking people.

[kendoiwan]

yeah but there are ways for them to do things that arent considered suicide. like getting someone to push them off a cliff or something.

Oh, you mean like go and fight their own fucking wars and live the rest of us out of it?

[KuJo]

Oh, you mean like go and fight their own fucking wars and live the rest of us out of it?

if only that were the case.

[jittus rye]

I'm just going to say the creation of a 'Jewish state' was a ' ' bad move. Unless the intention was to create an ongoing conflict, but I don't really think that's all that useful.

[Stillwater]

yeah but there are ways for them to do things that arent considered suicide. like getting someone to push them off a cliff or something.

...or Jim Jones II

Kool-aid? Ohhh Yeahhh!

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/kool.jpg

[omnirook]

they dont want to live side by side. thats the whole reason the region is in turmoil, its not the governments, its the fucking people.
I don't agree. People don't make wars. Governments do. There's not a government in the world whose first concern is not neutralizing public opinion, so that it can act w/o regard to public opinion. The tool kit for doing such is ancient and quite simple: frighten the people, threaten their children, dehumanize the enemy, make living hard by cutting off supplies and pretending that the monster over there is responsible ... Fucking goat herders and olive grove tenders don't do shit like that.

[KuJo]

yeah thats the real problem over there. if only they had kool-aid man....

[omnirook]

I'm just going to say the creation of a 'Jewish state' was a ' ' bad move. Unless the intention was to create an ongoing conflict, but I don't really think that's all that useful.
Creating a Jewish state served several purposes.

One was having a place to send the Holocaust survivors. Everybody likes to pretend that it was just the Germans; it wasn't - in every country where the SS began to round up Jews, there were collaborators who helped out w/joy. After the war, what were the Allies to do w/the survivors? That was when the Zionists got a sit down and a serious listen to.

That was a secondary concern. The main concern was to carry on the British policy of keeping the oil rich Arabs down. Putting an Israel into the area gave the British and the Americans an excuse to meddle - our Jewish friends - and the oil.

Keeping the area whipped up and in the hands of either tyrrants or puppets has served the oil biz very well indeed. The Yalta agreement between the US, the UK, and the USSR - to let the Arabs hold OUR oil, so that we can all use it w/o having to fight each other for it - has kept the misery pretty much regional - until recently when the Arabs havd just plan got fed up and desperate. I mean, they're getting what basically amounts to a shitty tip for the oil that has built America's 12 trillion dollar annual economy; they were bound to start blowing up things ... The way that Israel was set up was shitty - handled properly, it could have been relative smoothe sailing, but, no ...

[Stillwater]

Since we can't unbake that cake, is there an alternative ending other than all out war? Aside from intervention by any super or kool-aid men, of course..

[tinribz]

Creating a Jewish state served several purposes.

One was having a place to send the Holocaust survivors. Everybody likes to pretend that it was just the Germans; it wasn't - in every country where the SS began to round up Jews, there were collaborators who helped out w/joy. After the war, what were the Allies to do w/the survivors? That was when the Zionists got a sit down and a serious listen to.

That was a secondary concern. The main concern was to carry on the British policy of keeping the oil rich Arabs down. Putting an Israel into the area gave the British and the Americans an excuse to meddle - our Jewish friends - and the oil.

Keeping the area whipped up and in the hands of either tyrrants or puppets has served the oil biz very well indeed. The Yalta agreement between the US, the UK, and the USSR - to let the Arabs hold OUR oil, so that we can all use it w/o having to fight each other for it - has kept the misery pretty much regional - until recently when the Arabs havd just plan got fed up and desperate. I mean, they're getting what basically amounts to a shitty tip for the oil that has built America's 12 trillion dollar annual economy; they were bound to start blowing up things ... The way that Israel was set up was shitty - handled properly, it could have been relative smoothe sailing, but, no ...This is BS, for one where is the oil? For two the British were turning back ships loads of immigrants and then getting shit from both sides but especially the Jewish fanatics who started hangings and public punishings of the British peace keepers to USA cheers.

We left'em to it and look what a mess they've made.

[SeierTapt]

Since we can't unbake that cake, is there an alternative ending other than all out war? Aside from intervention by any super or kool-aid men, of course..

:jesus:

[omnirook]

This is BS, for one where is the oil? For two the British were turning back ships loads of immigrants and then getting shit from both sides but especially the Jewish fanatics who started hangings and public punishings of the British peace keepers to USA cheers.

We left'em to it and look what a mess they've made.
In the Middle East, pumpkin. Saudi Arabia has the world's largest supply. Where is Israel? The Middle East. :blink:

Now, doll, my mother was English. I've spent a lot of time in England. I adore the United Kingdom - I'm an ultra anglophile - BUT - baby, the United Kingdom has not let out the tiniest fizz of a fart w/o a nod of permission from the United States since - 1941. Get over it.

[Stillwater]

:jesus:

:devil:

[KuJo]

Since we can't unbake that cake, is there an alternative ending other than all out war? Aside from intervention by any super or kool-aid men, of course..

of course there is. there are limitless endings to this problem. I dont know what world leaders are thinking, maybe they just dont want to solve the problem. maybe they want to fight. continued conflict in the middle east, means no unified muslim nation. a large international muslim community that cooperates with eachother could damage the good ol' jesus coalition. ;)

[LongSilence]

This site isn't for NFs.

First of all, what? And secondly, what?

If you'd like I'll explain that I was joking and also that historically most cultures have been anti-semitic. It may not have been right but they as a race and religion have suffered at the hands of almost every race and religion they have come into contact with. Maybe its because they acted like that God loved only them as a people, maybe because they were oh so sure that they were 'promised' a certain bit of land and so it was naturally theirs, or maybe its just because everyone loves to have someone or thing that they can blame or vilify and the Jews were easy targets to envy and hate.

Oh, and how was my joke "NF"?

[Claverhouse]

...since - 1941.

Exactly. I don't necessarily agree with the rest but this is so. Clive Ponting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Ponting) wrote a good book which goes into this.

1940 - Myth and Reality (1993)


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[tinribz]

Since we can't unbake that cake, is there an alternative ending other than all out war? Aside from intervention by any super or kool-aid men, of course.. There are lots of options and lots of support in the populas for everything from power share to properly negotiated borders. What is lacking is a political will and any sign of compromise from those in power. Northern Ireland looked equally as hopeless only a few years ago. The recent changes in leaders on both sides was a golden opportunity missed.

[songbird36]

of course there is. there are limitless endings to this problem. I dont know what world leaders are thinking, maybe they just dont want to solve the problem. maybe they want to fight. continued conflict in the middle east, means no unified muslim nation. a large international muslim community that cooperates with eachother could damage the good ol' jesus coalition. ;)

I don't believe there is a solution here. I don't think Israel will rest until it has economically crippled Hizbollah, and if Syria gets involved, things will get 10 times worse..

[KuJo]

I don't believe there is a solution here. I don't think Israel will rest until it has economically crippled Hizbollah, and if Syria gets involved, things will get 10 times worse..

this conflict wont stop. the only way it could stop is if one side was eliminated completely. which isnt impossible, but im pretty sure it wont happen.

[songbird36]

It just remains to be seen whether this will result in a full scale Israeli invasion - ala 1983. From Israel's point of view that war was partially successful, as for a while there was a relatively successful security zone operating in Southern Lebanon..

[Conan]

To Christians this is just the beginning of another event playing out as prophesized by the book of Revelations.

[LongSilence]

No. It's not. To some I'm sure it might be but to many Christians this is just another war, like the many that have preceded it.

Anyway, its not like Christians are the only people who might look out for the end of the world- i know a fair few who "believe" in Nostradamus' prophecies.

Nevertheless, is Western Christian re-involvement really the best thing for the conflict? Would they be accepted as mediaries?

[JBHunt]

It just remains to be seen whether this will result in a full scale Israeli invasion - ala 1983. From Israel's point of view that war was partially successful, as for a while there was a relatively successful security zone operating in Southern Lebanon..
It seems very much like a full scale war.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/13/mideast/index.html
Maybe we should send some INTPs over since they are so good at diplomacy.

[Stoic]

Am I the only one who thinks Israel and some US interests are making an effort to keep the Middle East destabilized?

[Architectonic]

The extreme right will always be incurably and unbelievably myopic. Bush and Isarael could be dragging the entire world into unimaginable barbarity. Just look at the recent events in North Korea and India. And this shit. This whole situation is very scary. I'm afraid that barbarity might win before people have time to organize the kind of Resistance this world really needs. I think that time has already started going faster, and the race has begun.

This has nothing to do with 'the extreme right', or any sort of right/left politics.

Its simply a continuation of the traditional lust for power and retaliation. What they need to realize is that Israel is no longer the centre of the world.

[ptGatsby]

Maybe we should send some INTPs over since they are so good at diplomacy.


"You, sir, are a dumbass. And so is your country."
"You, too, are a dumbass. And so is your country."

Followed by a five minute lecture on why people are so god damn stupid.

Followed by the INTP losing interest and moving onto better things.




Am I the only one who thinks Israel and some US interests are making an effort to keep the Middle East destabilized?


I think the mistake is to believe that those in charge have 'US interests' at heart. These people are not patriotic people. They siphon the lifeblood of the countries they can and know no borders.

As a result, they have no care for the blood of the people of these countries either.


But yes; either intentional and competent... or unintentional incompetent.

I find the governments so far highly incompetent... but not the 'shadows', like oil/arms etc. So, I say either one is possible.

[Poster]

I think the New York Times offered the best piece of advice in one of their opinionated articles.


. . . even when acting justifiably in the face of aggression, Israel best serves its long-term security interests by acting wisely and proportionately. Its guiding principle must always be to focus military actions as narrowly as possible on those individuals, organizations and governments directly complicit in the attacks, while sparing the civilian populations that surround them.

That is, of course, far easier said than done. Military actions in inhabited areas cannot be fine-tuned. Yet surely the repeated lesson of recent history is that inflicting pain and humiliation on Arab civilians does not make them angry at the terrorists who provoked the violence. It makes them angrier at Israel.

Frankly, I think the US's lack of interference in the conflict is worrisome. If the US continues to play such a minor role in the conflict by almost ignoring it, there's a risk of further prolonged violence. How invested really is the US in Middle East peace?

[PenguinHunter]

That was a secondary concern. The main concern was to carry on the British policy of keeping the oil rich Arabs down. Putting an Israel into the area gave the British and the Americans an excuse to meddle - our Jewish friends - and the oil.

Oil didn't really come into the politics of the Brits and Americans until the late 60s and, even then, not really strongly. America had (or thought it had) all the oil it needed until the embrago in 1973 shook everyone.

[BILLER]

Am I the only one who thinks Israel and some US interests are making an effort to keep the Middle East destabilized?

No, you're not. I believe that is pretty obvious. The most frightening aspect is that it seems to be only the begining of this phase of the conflict. It will simply escalate and since Hezbollah is at the middle of it all, the Iranians will be roped into the conflict. That will give the Isrealis an excuse to attack Iran.

So, the Americans can only hope the conflict worsens.

[omnirook]

Oil didn't really come into the politics of the Brits and Americans until the late 60s and, even then, not really strongly. America had (or thought it had) all the oil it needed until the embrago in 1973 shook everyone.
Oh, right, yeah, sure - Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin - 3 such men together could not see into the future and realize that the world's oil was limited and that it was necessary to do the long range w/plans for the supply. Right. Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin! ... Whew! I've been in the flame wars pit all day. Sorry if I sound abrasive. The abrasiveness has nothing to do w/you, so relax and just think about how unlikely it would have been for 3 such men not to understand that every drop of oil had to be earmarked for the future.

[Stillwater]

Yes. I don't think we'd have given two cat turds in a sandbox if it weren't for the oil in the region, even in the 1940's. The Anglo-Persian (now BP) and Turkish Petroleum oil companies were western controlled and were exploiting the oil riches in that region since WWI. As early as the 1950's the locals were getting disgruntled with the deal- giving as much as 95% of profits to western corporate interests. Iran tried to nationalize their oil in '51, the CIA pulled off a coup d'etat installing the Shah in '53. We are still reaping the whirlwind on that one.

[distraction tactics]

President Bush says Israel has the right to defend it's self. I quickly compared a CNN report against a BBC one and it was pritty obvious which was more balanced putting it mildly.


Israel does have a right to defend itself, but it seems to be run by a bunch of morons. Military assaults on state targets for guerilla attacks?

[cafe]

To Christians this is just the beginning of another event playing out as prophesized by the book of Revelations.
Christians are commanded to pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Heck if I know how it will happen. I don't think God needs our help doing whatever it is that has to be done in order to fulfill the prophecies so Jesus can come back for his 1000 year reign. I know the prophecies, and I believe the prophecies, I even have a general stance on the rapture, etc. But interpreting prophecies is really iffy work and I think it's really stupid to think you understand them enough to plan wars or even buy a house based on stuff from Daniel, Revelation, or Thessalonians. Neither do I know any solution for this very old conflict. Seems like there ought to be some way to all get along, I dunno.

[PenguinHunter]

Oh, right, yeah, sure - Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin - 3 such men together could not see into the future and realize that the world's oil was limited and that it was necessary to do the long range w/plans for the supply. Right. Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin! ... Whew! I've been in the flame wars pit all day. Sorry if I sound abrasive. The abrasiveness has nothing to do w/you, so relax and just think about how unlikely it would have been for 3 such men not to understand that every drop of oil had to be earmarked for the future.

It's not that oil was not a factor at all, it was just a small one. To say that it was the main concern is incorrect. The US was very concerned about a general expansion of regional interests by the Soviet Union but oil was only a very small part of that.

The US was concerned as much about relations Saudi as with Israel. It wasn't as if they saw Israel as a permanent meddling centre. If anything, Truman was concerned about regional disruptions as a result of the new state and was quite critical of British involvement (of the Arab-disrupting kind such as firmly supporting a Jewish state) because of the chance it might give the USSR in improving Arab relations. So, to say that Israel was a position created by the US and Britain from which they expected to be able to manipulate oil reserves of Arab countries is a bit of a stretch to say the least. In a lot of cases involvement with Israel has hurt this area of interest and Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower were not unaware of that side of becoming involved with any kind of support for Israel.

I forgot to comment.. You also said:


they're getting what basically amounts to a shitty tip for the oil that has built America's 12 trillion dollar annual economy

This is certainly not the case anymore and hasn't been for a long time. Not since before the 60s nationalizations and the formation of OPEC.

This is still the case in places like Nigeria and Angola though, where oil production is high and oil refineries are few.

[Madrigal]

I think the New York Times offered the best piece of advice in one of their opinionated articles.


Is that quote from Times Select, or accessible to anyone that signs up free of charge? (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=10304)

[bergenski]

First of all, what? And secondly, what?

If you'd like I'll explain that I was joking and also that historically most cultures have been anti-semitic. It may not have been right but they as a race and religion have suffered at the hands of almost every race and religion they have come into contact with. Maybe its because they acted like that God loved only them as a people, maybe because they were oh so sure that they were 'promised' a certain bit of land and so it was naturally theirs, or maybe its just because everyone loves to have someone or thing that they can blame or vilify and the Jews were easy targets to envy and hate.

Oh, and how was my joke "NF"?
Sorry, misunderstood.

[SensEye]

Saw this quote on CNN:


"We are ready for it -- war, war on every level," said Nasrallah, soon after Israel's military reportedly hit his home and destroyed Hezbollah's headquarters in southern Beirut.
Yeah, right. Kinda reminds me of ol' Saddam and his 'mother of all battles' bs. The Lebanese are not going to come out on top of this.

It's not that I don't think Israel isn't over doing it and being a bit of a bully, however, to a certain extent might makes right. If there is some 6'8 280 lb thug in a bar who is being an obnoxious prick towards me, I understand that if I get in his face about it I will likely get the snot beaten out of me. It's not fair, but that's the way it is. Discretion is often the better part of valor.

Lebanon can't win in a violent confrontation with Israel. They should just accept the fact that Israel is there and isn't going to leave. And Israel is tougher than they are. Negotiation is their best strategy.

While I feel both sides are pursuing less than wise approaches to dealing with this situation, I feel the Lebanese strategy of provoking Israel is the least wise. It's hard for me to feel sympathy towards the party I think is acting in the least intelligent fashion.

[KuJo]

While I feel both sides are pursuing less than wise approaches to dealing with this situation, I feel the Lebanese strategy of provoking Israel is the least wise. It's hard for me to feel sympathy towards the party I think is acting in the least intelligent fashion.

yeah im going to have to agree that provoking Isreal is very bad decision.

[Eli]

I wonder what the US response would have been if India had begun to bomb Pakistan's infrastructure after the train bombings this week.

[JBHunt]

Saw this quote on CNN:

Yeah, right. Kinda reminds me of ol' Saddam and his 'mother of all battles' bs. The Lebanese are not going to come out on top of this.

It's not that I don't think Israel isn't over doing it and being a bit of a bully, however, to a certain extent might makes right. If there is some 6'8 280 lb thug in a bar who is being an obnoxious prick towards me, I understand that if I get in his face about it I will likely get the snot beaten out of me. It's not fair, but that's the way it is. Discretion is often the better part of valor.

Lebanon can't win in a violent confrontation with Israel. They should just accept the fact that Israel is there and isn't going to leave. And Israel is tougher than they are. Negotiation is their best strategy.

While I feel both sides are pursuing less than wise approaches to dealing with this situation, I feel the Lebanese strategy of provoking Israel is the least wise. It's hard for me to feel sympathy towards the party I think is acting in the least intelligent fashion.

I think the war is more aimed at Hezbollah than the Lebanese as you put it. A sizeable chunk of Lebanese are Christians.

[SensEye]

I think the war is more aimed at Hezbollah than the Lebanese as you put it. A sizeable chunk of Lebanese are Christians.True.

To a certain extent I imply that Hezbollah exists with the implicit approval of the Lebanese people, so they bear more than a little responsibility. I realize the official government position is that they can't control Hezbollah but I suspect they don't try very hard. I believe they don't try very hard because if they did the government would lose the support of the man on the street.

[coffeezombie]

I wonder what the US response would have been if India had begun to bomb Pakistan's infrastructure after the train bombings this week.
Probably not a particularly positive one, but we acted similarly when Afghanistan hid Bin Laden, of course, and not many Americans had a problem with that like they do with Iraq.

[Jacque]

The problem with collective punishment is, if taken to the extreme, you end up punishing yourself.

Still, I find it amazing that reporters can quote Isreal's policy of making the people of Southern Lebanon suffer--imposing a price--for the presence of Hezbollah with a stolid face. The Isreali government, appearantly, has minted suffering into a currency.

If the world had cared only for their own people, their own citizens, or their own tribe, no one would have blinked an eye at the Holocaust. Now it is a nation of Jews that closes their eyes to everyone. And though the world could never replace what was lost to them, it wasn't much to give the American Indians what was already theirs, a few undesirable stretches of land. But to give what belonged to others, was not a gift but a conflict. The UN did not give the Jews a peaceful state, they gave them a constant struggle. Only courage can rescue them--not the type of courage that asks for lives to be shed, for your father or your siblings to march into uncertain fortunes, but for sacrifices that end in false dreams when one gives up that which more dear to you than your own life and the lives of those around you.

[wildcat]

they dont want to live side by side. thats the whole reason the region is in turmoil, its not the governments, its the fucking people.
Not true. Just three decades ago they lived side by side in peace. I lived years in the area. It was very different those days. You could go in and out of West Bank. There was no border, no tanks, and very few soldiers.
It was a mistake to accept Gaza back from Egypt. It was a mistake to accept Arafat and settle him there. It was a mistake to colonize the West Bank and Gaza.
Israel is the showcase of democracy. The weak governments needed the support of the extremist groups to stay in power. The extremists have had a wonderful chance to engage in blackmail for two decades now.
The Palestinians refused to understand that Israel was determined to stay a Jewish and a European state. They declined the offer of peace.

This does not give Israel right to commit war crimes.

[Lurker]

I still can't figure out why the lives of a handful of Israelis matter more than the lives of [who knows?] Lebanese citizens. Same thing with Iraq and the United States. 50,000 dead Iraqi citizens versus a couple of thousand dead U.S. soldiers -- the comparison is absurd, especially considering that the U.S. started the war in the first place. Apparently we are back to the old "brown people don't matter as much" bit. (If we ever left it in the first place)

Anyway, Israel needs to get over identifiying as The Victim. The country has a massive chip on its shoulder to think it even has a right exist in the first place. The Palestinians were knocked out of the way so Jews could have a safe sanctuary after WWII, but what thought was given to the rights of Palestinians to their own land? Two wrongs doesn't make a right. Frankly, the victim complex is getting a little old. Israel has no right to bulldoze over other people's rights any more than other people have the right to bulldoze over their's.

[LongSilence]

If we're fair there was a fair bit of alteration of national borders during the last century and certainly not of all of it was based on any particular racial or "legal" ideals. The face of Eastern Europe was adjusted extensively as was that of the Far East. Both saw the infulence of empires wax and wane, various countries expand, contract and split not to mention countless victims to genocide and mass transportation.

It's hard enough for democratic countries to ensure that they're not disregarding the self-determinism and welfare of all their citizens [just have a look at how many movements demanding self-govenment there still are in the West], let alone those that are still in the grip of less 'progressive' governments. Personally, I fear that it will be many decades before the world even comes close to seeing war as a 'useful' means of getting people what they want. Particularly when what they seek is vengeful "justice".

One vital question is: What could the Israelis do in order to get back their soldiers? What could the US do to effectively 'bring Osama to justice'? Regardless of the reprecussions sometimes people just won't be able to accept that doing nothing and not standing up and fighting is a viable option. At least while they know that there is no International body that can effectively "police" the globe.

[Lurker]

If we're fair there was a fair bit of alteration of national borders during the last century and certainly not of all of it was based on any particular racial or "legal" ideals. The face of Eastern Europe was adjusted extensively as was that of the Far East. Both saw the infulence of empires wax and wane, various countries expand, contract and split not to mention countless victims to genocide and mass transportation.

It's hard enough for democratic countries to ensure that they're not disregarding the self-determinism and welfare of all their citizens [just have a look at how many movements demanding self-govenment there still are in the West], let alone those that are still in the grip of less 'progressive' governments. Personally, I fear that it will be many decades before the world even comes close to seeing war as a 'useful' means of getting people what they want. Particularly when what they seek is vengeful "justice".

All good points, but that still doesn't explain specifically why some people lives are valued more than others. There is definitely a trend toward elevating the value of a white christian or jew's life over that of others.


One vital question is: What could the Israelis do in order to get back their soldiers? What could the US do to effectively 'bring Osama to justice'? Regardless of the reprecussions sometimes people just won't be able to accept that doing nothing and not standing up and fighting is a viable option. At least while they know that there is no International body that can effectively "police" the globe.

What can the Lebanese do to restore the lives of their dead citizens?

How do you know that the US really wants to "bring Osama to justice?" That seems naive. With him being MIA, the US has an excuse to continue meddling with the Middle East. Besides, Osama is just the tip of the iceberg. If he died, another Islamic fundamentalist would take his place. It's kind of like killing ants. You kill one, but there are thousands of replacements standing in line.

The real issue is deeper than a handful of individuals causing trouble; they are just figureheads, they give people a tangible enemy. Millions of people are pissed off - VERY pissed off. Why? What is the root of their anger? If they are being done an injustice (and I believe they are), how can it be righted? I doubt the answer is to stomp on even more of them.

[LongSilence]

You must admit that a great number of the US populace DID want to see the perpetrators caught and punished after 9/11. It was the strength of this desire that gave the current US government the "justification" it needed to declare war on Afghanistan in order to destroy the Taliban. And, if we're honest, quite a bit of the West sympathised with the invasion.

There's still the lingering mentality that the World must be protected from megalomaniacs and insurgents. There was a great deal of effort to paint Osama as this century's Hitler, a man that would not stop until he had completed his conquest of the world. I mean, the same vilification tactic was merely transferred onto Saddam once organised Afghan resistance had been seemingly crushed. It's the 'Us and Them' syndrome which was largely necessary to cement the shaky alliance that was formed between the Allies in the Second World War. This continued to be used throughout the Cold War, although it began to break down (people beginning to question the justification behind Vietnam).

The difference now, if there is any difference, is that the nationalism is increasingly losing its influence, although it still has a significant power. And so the "War" requires more and more 'defensive internal policing' and more complicated global warfare. If it was just idealogical differences that seperated the "two" sides one might hope for an uneasy though restrained co-existence. But add the ever-present desire of the mighty to influence the rest of the world, not to mention the crucial factor of crude oil, and we have an almost inevitable clash on our hands.

In reality, the world still has nations that have different enough cultures (in different states of "sophistication") not to mention people with ambitions to keep global peace a distant dream. And There is no answer.

[Stoned_Rider]

Following its special session on July 13, 2006, the Lebanese government issued the following statement: "The government of Lebanon emphasizes that it is responsible for defending the homeland and its citizens, and for safeguarding their security and wellbeing. Likewise, it is [the government's] responsibility to extend its control over all of the Lebanese lands, to enforce its sovereignty, and to make its national decisions [concerning] foreign and domestic [policy]."

When asked whether this statement meant that the Lebanese army would deploy in southern Lebanon, PM Fuad Al-Siniora replied: "We did not discuss this issue."


Source: Al-Nahar (Lebanon), July 14, 2006.

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD120606

[Madrigal]

The uncertain question is Syria. No matter how effectively Israel seals the Lebanese coast, so long as the Syrian frontier is open, Hezbollah might get supplies from there, and might be able to retreat there. So far, there has been only one reported airstrike on a Syrian target. Both Israel and Syria were quick to deny this.

What is interesting is that it was the Syrians who insisted very publicly that no such attack took place. The Syrians are clearly trying to avoid a situation in which they are locked into a confrontation with Israel. Israel might well think this is the time to have it out with Syria as well, but Syria is trying very hard not to give Israel casus belli. In addition, Syria is facilitating the movement of Westerners out of Lebanon, allowing them free transit. They are trying to signal that they are being cooperative and nonaggressive.

The problem is this: While Syria does not want to get hit and will not make overt moves, so long as the Syrians cannot guarantee supplies will not reach Hezbollah or that Hezbollah won't be given sanctuary in Syria, Israel cannot complete its mission of shattering Hezbollah and withdrawing. They could be drawn into an Iraq-like situation that they absolutely don't want. Israel is torn. On the one hand, it wants to crush Hezbollah, and that requires total isolation. On the other hand, it does not want the Syrian regime to fall. What comes after would be much worse from Israel's point of view.

This is the inherent problem built into Israel's strategy, and what gives Hezbollah some hope. If Israel does not attack Syria, Hezbollah could well survive Israel's attack by moving across the border. No matter how many roads are destroyed, Israel won't be able to prevent major Hezbollah formations moving across the border. If they do attack Syria and crush al Assad's government, Hezbollah could come out of this stronger than ever.

Judging from the airstrikes in the past 24 hours, it would appear Israel is trying to solve the problem tactically, by degrading Lebanese transport facilities. That could increase the effectiveness of the strategy, but in the end cannot be sufficient. We continue to think Israel will choose not to attack Syria directly and therefore, while the invasion will buy time, it will not solve the problem. Hezbollah certainly expects to be badly hurt, but it does not seem to expect to be completely annihilated. We are guessing, but our guess is that they are reading Israel's views on Syria and are betting that, in the long run, they will come out stronger. Of course, Israel knows this and therefore may have a different plan for Syria. At any rate, this is the great unknown in this campaign.

(...)

We are in a relatively quiet spell (emphasis on quiet). Both sides have made their strategic decisions. Both know how the war will be fought. Hezbollah thinks it can give as good as it will get for a while, and will ultimately be able to regroup for a guerrilla war against the Israelis. Israel thinks it can immobilize and crush Hezbollah quickly and decisively and will be able to withdraw. Both sides know Syria is the wild card, and neither is quite sure how it will play its hand. One side is wrong in its expectations about the outcome. That's the nature of war.

Clipped from an article ("Red Alert: Getting Ready", July 15) by Stratfor (Strategic Forecasting).

[LongSilence]

That's a point- let's say Israel sees (or is forced to see) that it has completed its objectives and achieved justice for its military. I honestly don't know what would happen then. Would the army just say "Oh good, Hizbollah are defeated. Let's go home now. Sorry about having to kill so many of you"? Or is this a 'proper' invasion where people want their borders to change?

[Madrigal]

Hope you don't think this is spamming, here's a pretty good article from Stratfor (July 14) with a lot of background info on Hezbollah and the region. A bit of history and what led up to the current events. I love this stuff, anyone else have some articles, please post them.


Red Alert: Hezbollah's Motives

Hezbollah's decision to increase operations against Israel was not taken lightly. The leadership of Hezbollah has not so much moderated over the years as it has aged. The group's leaders have also, with age, become comfortable and in many cases wealthy. They are at least part of the Lebanese political process, and in some real sense part of the Lebanese establishment. These are men with a radical past and of radical mind-set, but they are older, comfortable and less adventurous than 20 years ago. Therefore, the question is: Why are they increasing tensions with Israel and inviting an invasion that threatens their very lives? There are three things to look at: the situation among the Palestinians, the situation in Lebanon and the situation in the Islamic world. But first we must consider the situation in Hezbollah itself.

There is a generation gap in Hezbollah. Hezbollah began as a Shiite radical group inspired by the Iranian Islamic Revolution. In that context, Hezbollah represented a militant, nonsecular alternative to the Nasserite Fatah, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other groups that took their bearing from Pan-Arabism rather than Islam. Hezbollah split the Shiite community in Lebanon -- which was against Sunnis and Christians -- but most of all, engaged the Israelis. It made a powerful claim that the Palestinian movement had no future while it remained fundamentally secular and while its religious alternatives derived from the conservative Arab monarchies. More than anyone, it was Hezbollah that introduced Islamist suicide bombings.

Hezbollah had a split personality, however; it was supported by two very different states. Iran was radically Islamist. Syria, much closer and a major power in Lebanon, was secular and socialist. They shared an anti-Zionist ideology, but beyond that, not much. Moreover, the Syrians viewed the Palestinian claim for a state with a jaundiced eye. Palestine was, from their point of view, part of the Ottoman Empire's Syrian province, divided by the British and French. Syria wanted to destroy Israel, but not necessarily to create a Palestinian state.

From Syria's point of view, the real issue was the future of Lebanon, which it wanted to reabsorb into Syria, or at the very least economically exploit. The Syrians intervened in Lebanon against the Palestine Liberation Organization and on the side of some Christian elements. Their goal was much less ideological than political and economic. They saw Hezbollah as a tool in their fight with Yasser Arafat and for domination of Syria.

Hezbollah strategically was aligned with Iran. Tactically, it had to align itself with Syria, since the Syrians dominated Lebanon. That meant that when Syria wanted tension with Israel, Hezbollah provided it, and when Syria wanted things to quiet down, Hezbollah cooled it. Meanwhile the leadership of Hezbollah, aligned with the Syrians, was in a position to prosper, particular after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

That withdrawal involved a basic, quiet agreement between Syria and Israel. Israel accepted Syrian domination of Lebanon. In return, Syria was expected to maintain a security regime that controlled Hezbollah. Attacks against Israel had to be kept within certain acceptable limits. Syria, having far less interest in Israel than in Lebanon, saw this as an opportunity to achieve its ends. Israel saw Syrian domination under these terms as a stabilizing force.

Destabilization

Two things converged to destabilize this situation. The emergence of Hamas as a major force among the Palestinians meant the Palestinian polity was being redefined. Even before the elections catapulted Hamas into a leadership role, it was clear that the Fatah-dominated government of Arafat was collapsing. Everything was up for grabs. That meant that either Hezbollah made a move or would be permanently a Lebanese organization. It had to show it was willing to take risks and be effective. In fact, it had to show that it was the most effective of all the groups. The leadership might have been reluctant, but the younger members saw this as their moment, and frankly, the old juices might have been running in the older leadership. They moved.

The second part of this occurred in Lebanon itself. After the death of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, outside pressure, primarily from the United States, forced a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. Now, do not overestimate the extent of the withdrawal. Syrian influence in Lebanon is still enormous. But it did relieve Syria of the burden of controlling Hezbollah. Indeed, Israel was not overly enthusiastic about Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon for just that reason.

Syria could now claim to have no influence or obligation concerning Hezbollah. Hezbollah's leadership lost the cover of being able to tell the young Turks that they would be more aggressive, but that the Syrians would not let them. As the Syrian withdrawal loosened up Lebanese politics, Hezbollah was neither restrained nor could it pretend to be restrained. Whatever the mixed feelings might have been, the mission was the mission, Syrian withdrawal opened the door and Hezbollah could not resist walking through it, and many members urgently wanted to walk through it.

At the same time the Iranians were deeply involved in negotiations in Iraq and over Tehran's nuclear program. They wanted as many levers as they could find to use in negotiations against the United States. They already had the ability to destabilize Iraq. They had a nuclear program the United States wanted to get rid of. Reactivating a global network that directly threatened American interests was another chip on the bargaining table. Not attacking U.S. interests but attacking Israel demonstrated Hezbollah's vibrancy without directly threatening the United States. Moreover, activities around the world, not carefully shielded in some cases, gave Iran further leverage.

In addition, it allowed Iran to reclaim its place as the leader of Islamic radical resurgence. Al Qaeda, a Sunni group, had supplanted Iran in the Islamic world. Indeed, Iran's collaboration with the West allowed Tehran to be pictured among the "hypocrites" Osama bin Laden condemned. Iran wants to become the dominant power in the Persian Gulf, and one part of that is to take away the mantle of Islamic radicalism from al Qaeda. Since al Qaeda is a damaged organization at best, and since Hezbollah pioneered Islamist terrorism on a global basis, reactivating Hezbollah made a great deal of sense to the Iranians.

Hezbollah's Position

Syria benefited by showing how badly it was needed in Lebanon. Iran picked up additional leverage against the United States. Hezbollah claimed a major place at the negotiations shaping the future of Palestinian politics. It all made a great deal of sense.

Of course, it was also obvious that Israel would respond. From Syria's point of view, that was fine. Israel would bog down again. It would turn to Syria to relieve it of its burdens. Israel would not want an Islamic regime in Damascus. Syria gets regime preservation and the opportunity to reclaim Lebanon. Iran gets a war hundreds of miles away from it, letting others fight its battles. It can claim it is the real enemy of Israel in the Islamic world. The United States might bargain away interests in Iraq in order to control Hezbollah. An Israeli invasion opens up possibilities without creating much risk.

It is Hezbollah that takes it on the chin. But Hezbollah, by its nature and its relationships, really did not have much choice. It had to act or become irrelevant. So now the question is: What does Hezbollah do when the Israelis come? They can resist. They have anti-tank weapons and other systems from Iran. They can inflict casualties. They can impose a counterinsurgency. Syria may think Israel will have to stay, but Israel plans to crush Hezbollah's infrastructure and leave, forcing Hezbollah to take years to recover. Everyone else in Lebanon is furious at Hezbollah for disrupting the recovery. What does Hezbollah do?

In the 1980s, what Hezbollah did was take Western hostages. The United States is enormously sensitive to hostage situations. It led Ronald Reagan to Iran-Contra. Politically, the United States has trouble handling hostages. This is the one thing Hezbollah learned in the 1980s that the leaders remember. A portfolio of hostages is life insurance. Hezbollah could go back to its old habits. It makes sense to do so.

It will not do this while there is a chance of averting an invasion. But once it is crystal clear it is coming, grabbing hostages makes sense. Assuming the invasion is going to occur early next week -- or a political settlement is going to take place -- Western powers now have no more than 72 hours to get their nationals out of Beirut or into places of safety. That probably cannot be done. There are thousands of Westerners in Beirut. But the next few days will focus on ascertaining Israeli intensions and timelines, and executing plans to withdraw citizens. The Israelis might well shift their timeline to facilitate this. But all things considered, if Hezbollah returns to its roots, it should return to its first operational model: hostages.

[Stoned_Rider]

Here's an article from Al Sharq Al Awsat (http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=5639)(London-based Middle East Newspaper)
The Proxy War

15/07/2006

Until even a week ago the conventional wisdom was that there is not going to be another major war in the Middle East involving Israel. Now even the most optimistic observers are no longer sure. Meeting in Saint Petersburg this weekend, the leaders of the G-8 may try to stop a broader war, almost at the last minute. But, can they?
The reasons why a broader war may be in the cards are not hard to fathom. Israel, facing what is a pincer operation by both Hamas in the occupied territories and the Hezbollah in Lebanon believes it is facing an existential threat.

This does not mean that either Hamas or Hezbollah, or their combination, would be in a position to defeat Israel militarily. However, both are capable of pursuing a low intensity war against Israel virtually forever. And that, like all low intensity wars, would aim at breaking the spirit of the enemy, persuading more and more Israelis that their homeland is not a place in which to have a normal life and raise children, and that their best bet is to head for safe havens elsewhere. Low intensity war is also bad for any nation's economy. People cannot think of long-term investments when the see missile raining on them. The effects of low intensity war on Israel are even more strongly felt because of the country's demographic disadvantage. Living under the threat of suicide attacks is hardly an encouragement for making babies.

At the opposite side of the fight, Hamas and Hezbollah are also facing existential threats, as they know that Israel is determined to destroy them as political organisations.

Israel has refused to recognise the Hamas-led government and has succeeded in organising what amounts to an international quarantine against it. If Hamas ends up by tearing up its own charter and recognising the legitimacy of Israel's existence, it would spell its own doom as a radical Islamist movement. If, on the other hand, it persists with its no compromise stance it will be seen by many Palestinians as responsible for all the hardship they now suffer. Hamas in government is quite different from Hamas as an independent movement.

As for Hezbollah almost all of its prestige, or whatever is left of it, is based on the myth that it defeated the Israelis and drove them out of occupied southern Lebanon. At the same time Hezbollah is the target of United Nations resolution 1559 that demands its dissolution as an armed group. Hezbollah without arms would become just another Lebanese political party, garnering around 20 per cent of the votes.

The Hezbollah faces another, perhaps bigger, problem: it must develop its policies within a broader strategy worked out by the Islamic Republic in Tehran and the Baa'thist government in Damascus. As a result, it cannot simply decide to defuse the situation in the hope of keeping its military organisation intact. Iran, coming under growing pressure on the nuclear issue, is desperately looking for a diversion. And what better diversion than a mini-war that could keep international attention focused on the Israel-Lebanon-Palestine triangle? Syria, for its part, could profit from a limited war, between Israel and Hezbollah, by pointing out that its own presence in Lebanon had been a stabilising force and that efforts to exclude it from the Lebanese scene have generated greater instability.

In a sense, therefore, what we are witnessing is the opening shots in a proxy war between the Islamic Republic and Syria on one side and Israel on the other. As for Lebanon, it is, as so many other times in the past, being used by rival regional and international powers as a battlefield in which the Lebanese people are regarded as collateral damage at best.

Everyone knows that the Lebanese government does not have the power to implement Resolution 1559 and disarm the Hezbollah. Everyone also knows that Lebanon is not yet strong enough to ward off pressure and intervention from outside powers, this time Syria and the Islamic Republic.

The big question is this: will the Islamic Republic and Syria allow Israel to destroy Hezbollah's war machine and disarm its militia?

If Tehran and Damascus sit back and watch while Israel dismantles their principal asset in Lebanon, would they not lose all credibility as sponsors of radical movements in the Middle East and beyond? Would President Mahmoud Ahamdinejad who has vowed to wipe Israel off the map start his presidency by sitting back and watch Israel wipe Hezbollah's militia off the Lebanese chessboard? And what would the Assad regime look like if it did nothing to prevent Hezbollah, the bastion of Syrian influence in Lebanon, being broken in the current round of fighting? To be sure, Syria still has some Maronite allies in Lebanon. But these allies are there because Hezbollah is there. Once Hezbollah is out of the equation as an armed group, watch for Michel Aoun and others running in all directions in search of new protectors.

The Irano-Syrian strategy, especially since Ahmadinejad's decision to make the destruction of the Jewish state a priority of his administration, would encourage those in Israel who insist that it should seize the current opportunity for breaking the Hezbollah's war machine even in the face of a broader war. In doing so Israel could claim that it was simply helping Lebanon implement Resolution 1559.

The stakes have been raised beyond anyone's expectation.

If Israel backs down now and ends its campaign without disarming the Hezbollah it would, in effect, hand Iran and Syria an unexpected victory. This would also spell the end of Lebanon's new democratic government and the return in force of Syrian and Iranian influence in Lebanon. At the other end of the spectrum in Palestine, such an Israeli retreat would give a badly hurt Hamas a second lease of life and greater vigour to pursue its radical strategy. If, on the other hand, Israel removes the Hezbollah from the Lebanese scene it would be the turn of the leaderships in Tehran and Damascus to come to terms with a major strategic setback that could encourage their internal enemies. What is certain is that this conflict will not end until one side wins and another side loses. The G-8 may try to postpone decision-time for a bit longer. But it is hard not to see that there are two visions of the Middle East, one backed by the United States and its allies, including Israel, the other promoted by Iran and Syria and their surrogates.

Since a synthesis of the two is not possible, even the G-8 may realise that they cannot prevent a broader regional war.

[Stoned_Rider]

July 18th 2006

IRANIAN REACTIONS

Iranian Leader Ali Khamenei on Iranian TV, July 16: Hizbullah Will Not Be Disarmed

On July 16, 2006, Iranian leader Ali Khamenei gave a speech, aired on Iranian TV. The following are excerpts (translated by MEMRI TV, see: http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1193 )

Khamenei: "The Zionists would like Lebanon to be meat between their teeth, so they could do to it whatever they want, whenever they want.

"Today, the strong arm of the Lebanese resistance and the Lebanese Hizbullah has prevented this nightmare of the Zionists from coming true. This is why the American president says Hizbullah must be disarmed. Yes, of course this is what you want. Of course this is what the Zionists want. But this will not happen.

"The Lebanese people value Hizbullah and the resistance, because they know it is this strong arm that has prevented the Zionists from doing whatever they want, whenever they want, to Lebanon."

Man in crowd: "Hizbullah is victorious. Israel is doomed."

Crowd: "Hizbullah is victorious. Israel is doomed?"

Khamenei: "Well, this is what I am saying too."

Kayhan Editor: The Annihilation of the Zionist Regime is Not Only a Religious and National Duty, but a Universal Human Duty; The Whole World Must Be Made Unsafe for the Zionists, [Including] Their Political and Commercial Centers. This Does Not Require the Governments' Approval

"The city of Haifa lies 35 kilometers [sic] from the Lebanese border, and the distance [from the Lebanese border] to Nazareth is about 50 kilometers. Tomorrow will come the turn of Herzliya, Natanya, and Tel Aviv... The Muslim peoples must not allow this conflict to remain within the boundaries of the region. The Zionists are dispersed in many places around the world, and it is not so difficult to locate and get [our] hands on them. The entire world can and must be made unsafe for the Zionists, [including] their political and commercial centers. This does not require the governments' approval... The fateful day may have begun, and fierce revenge on the barbaric Zionists is underway, Allah willing."

LEBANESE REACTIONS

Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah on Al-Manar TV, July 16
http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1194

"But in this matter, I say to you: Do not worry about what the Israeli war machine can destroy. All we wish is that the wounded be healed, and that the living have a long and healthy life. As for what is being destroyed - with the help of Allah, and by cooperation with the Lebanese state... We too, as an interested party, are determined to be serious in rebuilding what is being destroyed.

"I tell you, without going into details now, that we have friends who are also serious in this, and who have a very great ability to help us with pure, clean, and honorable money, and without any political conditions.

"There is nothing to worry about regarding the rebuilding of our country. What is important is that we persevere now and emerge victorious from this battle...

"We place our trust in Allah. When I am turning now to the Arab and Islamic peoples, I am not doing so to ask them to save us or give us aid. No. We, Allah be praised, are fine. We are in a very strong position, and we are at the beginning of a confrontation on which we pin great hopes.

Lebanese Daily: There is No Alternative but to Extend Lebanese Sovereignty Over All Lebanese Territories
An editorial in the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal called for extending Lebanese sovereignty over all Lebanese territories: "A declaration saying that Lebanon has a sovereign government is the only way out [of the crisis]... The primary goal must be to stop the [Israeli] aggression, and in order for the aggression to end, there is no alternative but for the state to extend its sovereignty over its territories and to be the only one to speak in the name of the country...

"If the price that must be paid for stopping the aggression is the extension of the state's sovereignty over all Lebanese territories, then that is the cheapest price, and it cannot be compared with the prices that have been paid up until now or to the price [that it is liable to pay] if the aggression continues..."


SYRIAN REACTIONS
Syrian Information Minister Muhsin Bilal: "Syria Supports the Struggle of the Lebanese National Resistance Against the Israeli Aggression"

Syrian Information Minister Muhsin Bilal said: "In any case of attack, we will respond with the strength and in the manner appropriate to the [nature of the] enemy... Syria supports the struggle of the Lebanese national resistance against the Israeli aggression... The Israeli aggression is losing and the resistance will triumph..."

Bilal added: "Victory will be on the side of the truth, and the victors will be those fighting for truth, justice, liberty, and the holy [places]. We seek truth and justice, and believe in our right and in our land..."


http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD120806

[cryingmime]

All Together now...

Ebony, and Ivory
live together in perfect harmony
side by side on my piano keyboard, oh lord, why don't we?



r

[charred_heart]

Here's an article from Al Sharq Al Awsat (http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=5639)(London-based Middle East Newspaper)


The Hezbollah faces another, perhaps bigger, problem: it must develop its policies within a broader strategy worked out by the Islamic Republic in Tehran and the Baa'thist government in Damascus. As a result, it cannot simply decide to defuse the situation in the hope of keeping its military organisation intact. Iran, coming under growing pressure on the nuclear issue, is desperately looking for a diversion. And what better diversion than a mini-war that could keep international attention focused on the Israel-Lebanon-Palestine triangle? Syria, for its part, could profit from a limited war, between Israel and Hezbollah, by pointing out that its own presence in Lebanon had been a stabilising force and that efforts to exclude it from the Lebanese scene have generated greater instability. way off base. Iran inciting a military strike on Israel would make the nuclear program issue a small diversion. Iran cannot risk open war with Israel and the U.S without any allies.
Israel had reason to believe none of it's neighbours would react to it's operation in Gaza. Previous wars proved to the Arab governments that Israel's militiary is superior and the Israelis have spent years policing international waters for smuggled weaponry into the region. Israel's miltiary was confident no substantial militiary technology was in the hands of underground armed groups. Hezbollah did this on their own, as their army is not on the same class as Israel's.

Wether Iran and Syria will take advantage of the situation, time will tell.

Hezbollah must have realised from the fact that Gaza has no Jewish settlers and from the ferocity of the retaliation against the kidnapping (of an Israeli soldier) that this will be Israel's new policy against any act perpetrated by palestinians from Gaza. Hezbollah is sending a message to Israel that if they wish to operate in this way they will be met with the kind of attacks Hezbollah can manage.
Israel's operation in lebanon right now is to ensure that Hezbollah's reaction will be a one off.

[Ivy]

All Together now...

Ebony, and Ivory
live together in perfect harmony
side by side on my piano keyboard, oh lord, why don't we?


Yeah, that's all well and good until Hezbullah buys the rights to all of Israel's songs.

[charred_heart]

hmmm, I think Israel is banking on Hezbollah caving in to the demands of the people of Lebanon. Deaths in south Lebanon are past the hundred mark.

[Dom]

'All is Vanity and Grasping for the wind'.

It's a mess, it wont go away, and it's not solveable. Blair's international force, charged with policing the borders, would have to have rules of engagement that allowed them to enforce the border.

All this would do is give the Extreme Islamists even more excuse, as we know Hezbolah would test this force by firing over the border, the force would have to respond and the extremists get to say that the International Community are supporting and defending Israel and thus help radicalise even more people.

I hate to say it, and I know the result would be bloody, but I've come to the conclusion that maybe the international community should just butt out and let them get on with it. Of course the problem is the oil in the region.....

How do you get two people groups who have fought for centuries if not millennia to finally lay down their guns, and put violence behind them???

We can't no one can until they choose too, so we should just butt out and wait till they want to.

Oh and can someone explain the morality of Military Aid to me cos I'm way confused about that too!?

[Architectonic]

We can't no one can until they choose too, so we should just butt out and wait till they want to.

Butting out is something that we should have learnt from certain other wars....

[Stoned_Rider]

Damn, I sure hope this is not true!!


Ma'an: Nasrallah Will Give Tel Aviv Residents One Hour to Flee
01:00 Jul 19, '06 / 23 Tammuz 5766
by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz


Arab press sources close to the Hizbullah say that residents of Tel Aviv will be given one hour to flee before the terrorist group launches a barrage of missiles at the city.


The unnamed sources are quoted by the Palestinian Authority-based news agency Ma'an as saying:

"The Lebanese resistance is preparing a retaliation parallel to Israel's military actions. Hassan Nasrallah will address the people of Tel Aviv and warn them to evacuate the city within one hour. As soon as the delay ends, hundreds of heavy missiles will start landing in the city, which has been divided into squares in order to let damage reach every inch of the city. An estimated 500 missiles are expected to land in Tel Aviv in a short period of time."

The Arab sources further said that the Hizbullah has been very careful in cultivating its public image, in order to increase the surprise effect of the planned barrage on Tel Aviv.
http://israelnn.com/news.php3?id=107746

[Dom]

Damn, I sure hope this is not true!!


http://israelnn.com/news.php3?id=107746

I'm pretty certain it isn't.

If this happens you can expect a massive escalation from Israel. I mean major, tanks in Beriut style and prob on the way to damascus..

[Xander]

One harsh thought crosses my mind.

Pull out and let them do whatever. No-one will stop fighting and no-one seems to have a great enough respect for life to fear death so there is little point attempting anything else.

There is the argument that these are actions carried out by an extreme faction but this faction itself is within the community and yet it would seem that the only time anyone wants to do anything is when they can strike back. Revenge seems to be the motivator here not peace. If the people turned on the extremists and threw them out then both sides may be able to get somewhere. The cost of this may of course be a war within the people but if they don't stand up to them then who do they expect to do so? How do they see it as being resolved.

Errm on another thought, does the heat effect peoples thoughts or something cause you'd have to be a little bit dense not to realise that force is making things worse. That applies ot both sides of this one equally.

[charred_heart]

One harsh thought crosses my mind.

Pull out and let them do whatever. No-one will stop fighting and no-one seems to have a great enough respect for life to fear death so there is little point attempting anything else.

There is the argument that these are actions carried out by an extreme faction but this faction itself is within the community and yet it would seem that the only time anyone wants to do anything is when they can strike back. Revenge seems to be the motivator here not peace. If the people turned on the extremists and threw them out then both sides may be able to get somewhere. The cost of this may of course be a war within the people but if they don't stand up to them then who do they expect to do so? How do they see it as being resolved.

Errm on another thought, does the heat effect peoples thoughts or something cause you'd have to be a little bit dense not to realise that force is making things worse. That applies ot both sides of this one equally.You have to put on your Old Testament glasses to really get what's going on.
and I mean that it's really f*cked up

[Dom]

You have to put on your Old Testament glasses to really get what's going on.
and I mean that it's really f*cked up

You ain't wrong here....

That's the problem, there is no solution.........

[Xander]

You ain't wrong here....

That's the problem, there is no solution.........
Rebuild when they have finished wiping each other out. A furious and destructive creature can be interesting and could be vital to the world but in the end if you cannot keep it safe from itself then perhaps nature knows best.

[Dom]

Rebuild when they have finished wiping each other out. A furious and destructive creature can be interesting and could be vital to the world but in the end if you cannot keep it safe from itself then perhaps nature knows best.

but what if neither are strong enough to wipe the other out? they continue to fight, with pauses to catch breath, indefinately.....

Or until the aquire weapons powerful enough taht eveyroen has to get involved, or one side will continue to blow up random people to get the to get involved one way or the other....

[Xander]

but what if neither are strong enough to wipe the other out? they continue to fight, with pauses to catch breath, indefinately.....

Or until the aquire weapons powerful enough taht eveyroen has to get involved, or one side will continue to blow up random people to get the to get involved one way or the other....
The problem is that other places are used to being flexible and this lot interpret flexibility however they like.

Reliability is the key.
Say nothing and shoot every trouble maker there is or is about to be.
Only put up signs saying trouble makers will be shot.
Shoudl sink in after 200 years or so. Hopefully by then they will have forgotten the previous issue.

(This is tongue in cheek and not 100% serious.)

[Dom]

The problem is that other places are used to being flexible and this lot interpret flexibility however they like.

Reliability is the key.
Say nothing and shoot every trouble maker there is or is about to be.
Only put up signs saying trouble makers will be shot.
Shoudl sink in after 200 years or so. Hopefully by then they will have forgotten the previous issue.

(This is tongue in cheek and not 100% serious.)

LOL

I was about to say they hadn't forgotten the previous issue in about 4000 years so far.... but heck.....

Shoot everyone!

[NoahFence]

Dragging up an earlier thought in this thread, I disagree that Israel's actions are like the US's actions in Afghanistan.

What happened in Afghanistan was that we demanded cooperation from the government in rooting out terrorists hiding in their territory. They refused, so we said "Well let us come in and do it ourselves." They refused that as well, so we said, "You shouldn't refuse or we'll declare war, remove you, and do it ourselves anyway." They still refused so we did exactly that.

What is happening in Lebanon is that Hizbollah shot some rockets over the border and the Israelis IMMEDIATELY began shelling the place with artillery and air strikes, striking any building that could possibly contain Hizbollah and taking out bridges, the airport, power grids, etc.

I'm not saying Hizbollah is right...they're a bunch of radical terrorists and I consider them to be criminals and they should all be shot for their murderous acts.

But let me ask you this. If a bunch of rowdy Rednecks in El Paso fired a couple mortar rounds over the border into Mexico, would Mexico have the "right to defend itself" by carpet bombing all of southern Texas, blowing up Dallas International, and making holes the size of tractor trailers in I-10? I think most would consider that an act of war, however many Mexicans died in the initial mortar attack, and we'd be well within our rights to smack the crap out of Mexico for their actions. We're responsible for internal US security and would be at fault if we did not immediately track down and arrest those responsible for the initial attack.

The problem is that the Lebanese government is a big fat slug with no teeth. They are incapable of policing their own citizens, and a group that is basically the Arab Mafia has control of the southern half of their country and has heavy influence on their government as well. The correct solution to this would have been for the Israeli government and Lebanese government to band together to wipe out Hizbollah in southern Lebanon, treat them like a criminal syndicate like they are. (I don't actually think this would ever happen, because Israel has its head up its twitchy, tight little ass, but that would be the appropriate course of action)

Israel has increased Hizbollah's legitimacy 1000000fold by reacting like they have. They have made Hizbollah the de facto rulers of Lebanon by treating this as an act of war, which only a government can issue, and responding with acts of war themselves.

I don't give a fuck about the Hollocaust. It was terrible, yes, but it should not be part of this current context. Some bad shit that happened sixty years ago does not give the Israelis the right to blast half a million civillians into refugees and utterly cripple the entire economy of Lebanon. PARTICULARLY when said civilians were not among those committing the attrocities of sixty years ago.

The Israelis are the bullies, now. Hizbollah are criminals and should be stopped, but Israel is just as bad IMO. The thought that they have nukes gives me cold sweats sometimes.

[Dom]

The thought that they have nukes gives me cold sweats sometimes.

Me too

[Xander]

...see above...
Spot on. I agree completely.

[nomir_dva]

Dragging up an earlier thought in this thread, I disagree that Israel's actions are like the US's actions in Afghanistan.

What happened in Afghanistan was that we demanded cooperation from the government in rooting out terrorists hiding in their territory. They refused, so we said "Well let us come in and do it ourselves." They refused that as well, so we said, "You shouldn't refuse or we'll declare war, remove you, and do it ourselves anyway." They still refused so we did exactly that.

In that case, the U.S. presented Afghanistan with an absurd choice. What sovereign country is going to allow a foreign army to enter it to make war with a terrorist organization? Aside from that, I'm sure the Taliban could see that its days were numbered whether it cooperated or not.


But let me ask you this. If a bunch of rowdy Rednecks in El Paso fired a couple mortar rounds over the border into Mexico, would Mexico have the "right to defend itself" by carpet bombing all of southern Texas, blowing up Dallas International, and making holes the size of tractor trailers in I-10? I think most would consider that an act of war, however many Mexicans died in the initial mortar attack, and we'd be well within our rights to smack the crap out of Mexico for their actions. We're responsible for internal US security and would be at fault if we did not immediately track down and arrest those responsible for the initial attack.

That's hardly an analogous situation. If those rednecks, who were official members of the militant wing of a major American political party, gathered several thousand fighters, set up dozens of artillery positions, and started indiscriminately shelling the Mexican side of the Rio Grande, infiltrated Mexico, captured and killed several Mexican troops, and destroyed a tank that went to pursue them back across the border, then Mexico would certainly have a right to retaliate. Israel is not carpet bombing southern Lebanon; if they were, the Lebanese casualties would be in the thousands.


The problem is that the Lebanese government is a big fat slug with no teeth. They are incapable of policing their own citizens, and a group that is basically the Arab Mafia has control of the southern half of their country and has heavy influence on their government as well. The correct solution to this would have been for the Israeli government and Lebanese government to band together to wipe out Hizbollah in southern Lebanon, treat them like a criminal syndicate like they are. (I don't actually think this would ever happen, because Israel has its head up its twitchy, tight little ass, but that would be the appropriate course of action)

Why are you blaming only Israel for the unlikelihood of the two nations banding together to destroy Hezollah? Until recently, Lebanon was occupied by Syria, which, as far as I know, has close ties to the terrorist group. Given the importance of Hezbollah in the Lebanese government and Syria's probable continuing influence on that government, it would not be in Lebanon's interest to pursue that course of action, even if it could.

I do find it troubling that the nation of Lebanon is suffering the consequences of the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, but given the complicated arrangement of nation-states and transnational groups that sometimes have powerful influence over the governments of those nation states and military capabilities greater than the states themselves, I do not see any alternative. Either Israelis are going to die, or Arabs are, and both sides are trying to ensure that it is the other who does.


Israel has increased Hizbollah's legitimacy 1000000fold by reacting like they have. They have made Hizbollah the de facto rulers of Lebanon by treating this as an act of war, which only a government can issue, and responding with acts of war themselves.

I don't see a viable alternative for the Israelis. Which Arab nations would cooperate with Israel to destroy Hezbollah and similar groups?


The Israelis are the bullies, now. Hizbollah are criminals and should be stopped, but Israel is just as bad IMO. The thought that they have nukes gives me cold sweats sometimes.

Hezbollah or Hamas with nukes would be far worse.

[Dom]

Hezbollah or Hamas with nukes would be far worse.

I also agree with this.... :unsure: I'm getting confused, gald I don't have to make any decisions on it!

[charred_heart]

Israel is not carpet bombing southern Lebanon; if they were, the Lebanese casualties would be in the thousands.yeah, they're only in the hundreds. Are you saying it would only be wrong if Israel committed genocide?

[Dom]

yeah, they're only in the hundreds. Are you saying it would only be wrong if Israel committed genocide?

No I think he is saying let not accuse Israel of Genocide until it has commited Genocide.

Describign the attacks as carpet bombing is not right either is it?

[ptGatsby]

If those rednecks, who were official members of the militant wing of a major American political party,


To extend this further... If the US tried calming down this militant group and offered them a couple of seats in a democracy to have their views heard... under the condition that they give up terrorism...



Israel is not carpet bombing southern Lebanon; if they were, the Lebanese casualties would be in the thousands.


I'd be curious why Israel has chosen to bomb north Lebanon though... Or basic infrastructure, like rail ports, airports and bridges.

It'd be like bombing New York and Washington's airports and ports.

All this when Lebanon decided to order their army not to retaliate and to provide humanitarian aid to the civilians being hurt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/5177932.stm



Given the importance of Hezbollah in the Lebanese government


What importance is this, exactly?



I do not see any alternative.


The only alternative is to bomb all across the country, at civilian targets? That's the solution to terrorism!?



I don't see a viable alternative for the Israelis. Which Arab nations would cooperate with Israel to destroy Hezbollah and similar groups?


But popular opinion is going to rest on killing civilians? Or maybe they think that killing women and children will reduce the number of terrorists? It didn't work for the last 30 years of Israel endorsing the murder of Arabs...

You want to tie Syria and Lebanon together? You want Lebanon to actually endorse terrorism... again? They were one of the only countries willing to do what they could to end it - they handed over key members to the US, etc.

That is what is happening...

[Ivy]

The only alternative is to bomb all across the country, at civilian targets? That's the solution to terrorism!?


When they deliberately set up shop in the middle of heavily populated civilian areas for that very reason, I'm not sure what the alternative for Israel would be. Ground troops? There would likely still be civilian casualties.

This subject makes me really, really uncomfortable and scared. I find myself able to argue for and against all the different factions and I can't come to any conclusions, so I try not to think about it or talk about it too much, considering they don't really need my input.

[ptGatsby]

When they deliberately set up shop in the middle of heavily populated civilian areas for that very reason, I'm not sure what the alternative for Israel would be. Ground troops? There would likely still be civilian casualties.


I'm sorry, this is ridiculous. I can accept that there will be collateral damage, but this is not the case. Israel is punishing Lebanon. This does not justify attacking ports, commerce areas, bridges, airports, fuel tanks.

None of these are being used by the terrorist group that exists in a defacto state +80km away. They do not fuel their tanks from these places, they do not ship weapons. They do not launch fighters from the airports. They are now under blockade.

Lebanon cannot continue to be uninvolved at this point. They are waiting for international support to help their displaced and commercial crisis. They have shown incredible restraint against an enemy that continues to attack those uninvolved.

In the long run, that government will be replaced by one friendly to terrorism. It will become another satellite of Syria, or some other country. Again.

At this point, roughly 250 odd people have died in Lebanon, with an estimate of 14 of them being combatants.

[charred_heart]

In a conflict, if one side has no alternative that can ensure no civilian casualties deaths would be regrettable but understandable. For a side to deliberately target civilians (http://in.news.yahoo.com/060715/137/65x2e.html) when it's irrelevant to subduing their foe, is inexcusable. It is said that true power is to show mercy when one is victorious. Now I understand that true evil is to show no mercy when one is victorious.

[Madrigal]

But popular opinion is going to rest on killing civilians? Or maybe they think that killing women and children will reduce the number of terrorists? It didn't work for the last 30 years of Israel endorsing the murder of Arabs...

Yes, it is politically myopic at best and completely senile at worst. They believe that by inflicting a collective punishment on Lebanon (similar to the US Neocon desire to punish states that "harbour" terrorism) they will lead the Lebanese population to politically disown Hezbollah, for the destruction that its actions entail.

None other than Hezbollah, that is recognized by shi'ite masses as the only movement capable of making Israel retreat as it did in the past. A shi'ite movement that represents more than half of the Lebanese population. This is no group of cells, no al-Qaeda; it's a popular, grass-roots resistance organization that has done much in the past to earn the respect of the Shi'ite people (building hospitals, schools, standing up to Israel to a degree that most other organizations have not).

Just as Israel has failed to stop the popular movement that is Hamas, it will fail to crush Hezbollah. Much more than a few hundred would have to die. Even if such a massacre could possibly take place, Israel's very existence as a State and it's US military and political backing will continue to imply arab resistance in a variety of ways. As long as Israel exists on occupied territories, as a US stronghold in the Middle East.

Israel would have to completely isolate Lebanon in order for a ground invasion to inflict a lasting damage on Hezbollah's ability to attack. But they can't even do that; Hezbollah may retreat to Syria and regroup there. There is no military invasion on Lebanon that can successfully eliminate Hezbollah, or the general arab resistance to Israel in the long term.

Up to now, all we are witnessing is the political radicalization of the arab masses in favour of Hezbollah, and against the arab governments that condemn Hezbollah's actions (Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, who wish to avoid an increase in Shi'ite political influence across the Middle East, and especially in Iraq).

[NoahFence]

I'm not saying Israel should sit back and let the militants lob rockets at them without response.

I'm saying that Israel should confine its attacks to legitimate targets.

If a farmer lets militants use his house as a staging ground and weapons depot, he's complicit. Chances are good he's not "Letting" them do anything. You gonna tell these guys "no"? They'll kill you. But if the farmer dies when his house gets blown up, frankly I place the responsibility for his death at the feet of the militants. Hiding behind civilians is as bad as (or worse than) targetting them directly, and I don't see how you can let them get away with it without encouraging them to do it all the time.

Blowing up houses at random because they are in a region where militants are operating is terrorism in its own right.


In that case, the U.S. presented Afghanistan with an absurd choice. What sovereign country is going to allow a foreign army to enter it to make war with a terrorist organization? Aside from that, I'm sure the Taliban could see that its days were numbered whether it cooperated or not.

Notice first that we asked them to do it themselves. They could have gone with the passive aggressive approach, said "Sure bud!" and then done nothing. They chose to tell us "No, we won't." On the off chance that the problem lay in their inability to catch these criminals, we offered to do it for them, which they also refused. Did they say "Not you...let the UN get them out."? No. It was obvious to the entire world that the Taliban was actively protecting the terrorists, which makes them complicit.

As for what country would allow us to run a military operation on their soil...um...Kossovo? Kuwait? Kenya? Just for starters.

And those rednecks, for the most part, ARE members of the militant wing of a major American political party :P (sorry, couldn't resist that shot...it was all I could do to resist accusing you of supporting the Taliban LOL but that's a cheap shot well below the old belt)

Israel has known that Hizbolla has been gathering rockets and small arms just across the border for TWELVE YEARS. In all that time, they have not said a damn thing, nor made demands of Lebanon that they do something about it, appealed to other Arabs to make Lebanon see reason, etc (if someone knows of any such demands I'd love to hear it, I've looked around and found nothing but that doesn't mean nothing's there to be found). The only reason I can think of to wait silently with their fingers on the trigger is so they can make an example of Lebanon to prove to the world that they are not to be trifled with.

[Stillwater]

Much is made about how Hez is a proxy for Iran and Syria, while the Israeli military machine is bought and paid for by the US. About 2 billion USD a year goes directly to the Israeli military from United States taxpayers. Perhaps an itemization of that on everyones paystubs would increase awareness.

Another way out: if Israel is formally charged with war crimes, then the United States is forbidden by its own law to provide military aid.



Flashback May 2006: Bush vows US to jump into the fight if Iran attacks Israel (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/23/us.mideast/index.html)

So if Iran is already getting the blame for the attacks, where are we on the timetable?

[Dom]

This subject makes me really, really uncomfortable and scared. I find myself able to argue for and against all the different factions and I can't come to any conclusions, so I try not to think about it or talk about it too much, considering they don't really need my input.

Me too......

[Dom]

In a conflict, if one side has no alternative that can ensure no civilian casualties deaths would be regrettable but understandable. For a side to deliberately target civilians (http://in.news.yahoo.com/060715/137/65x2e.html) when it's irrelevant to subduing their foe, is inexcusable. It is said that true power is to show mercy when one is victorious. Now I understand that true evil is to show no mercy when one is victorious.

So it only takes 60 years for us to pretend we never terror bombed anyone?

How we can sit here and judge, when we are not surrounded by states that would love to see us destroyed, when we know the governments of those states almost certainly assist the NGO's doing the fighting, wherever they can get away with it?

How can we say we understand the pressure Israel feels? And how can any of us say we understand how the Arab world feels either? A nation you hate, that has held millions of your religous brothers in cramped sub human conditions, who always over reacts with a military paid for by you know who? How can we know what that is like?

I have heard so many people on this very site, defend the allies use of the Atomic bomb, and here we are critising a nation that frankly could flaten Beruit if they wanted too?

Let he who hath no sin, cast the frist stone... there is civilian blood staining all our freedoms....

[charred_heart]

So it only takes 60 years for us to pretend we never terror bombed anyone?

How we can sit here and judge, when we are not surrounded by states that would love to see us destroyed, when we know the governments of those states almost certainly assist the NGO's doing the fighting, wherever they can get away with it?

How can we say we understand the pressure Israel feels? And how can any of us say we understand how the Arab world feels either? A nation you hate, that has held millions of your religous brothers in cramped sub human conditions, who always over reacts with a military paid for by you know who? How can we know what that is like?

I have heard so many people on this very site, defend the allies use of the Atomic bomb, and here we are critising a nation that frankly could flaten Beruit if they wanted too?

Let he who hath no sin, cast the frist stone... there is civilian blood staining all our freedoms....both sides are doing the same thing, to the utmost of their capabilities (EDIT:I stand corrected. Israel is the big cat toying with the little mouse in this scenario). This is how it is at present, but what about when Israel was fighting it's first wars? Their tactics were completely new to the region during that period, and I am saying this because I am equating Israel with a soveriegn nation, not a power hungry empire with no respect for weak nations*
*The Turks

[Magajy]

What is happening in Lebanon is that Hizbollah shot some rockets over the border and the Israelis IMMEDIATELY began shelling the place with artillery and air strikes, striking any building that could possibly contain Hizbollah and taking out bridges, the airport, power grids, etc.



Sorry wrong order. The correct order is:

1. hezbollah kidnap 2 isreali soldiers in order to force israel into a prisoner swap

2. israel starts bombimg Lebanon, holding the gov responsible, demmanding the release of its soldiers

3. Hezbollah then starts firing rockets into isreal in response to the air raid

4. isrealthen says the soldier release is no longer its priotity; destroying hezbollah is

5. it all gets murky, tit for tat, tit without tat and tat with no tit.

[NoahFence]

Sorry wrong order. The correct order is:

1. hezbollah kidnap 2 isreali soldiers in order to force israel into a prisoner swap

2. israel starts bombimg Lebanon, holding the gov responsible, demmanding the release of its soldiers

3. Hezbollah then starts firing rockets into isreal in response to the air raid

4. isrealthen says the soldier release is no longer its priotity; destroying hezbollah is

5. it all gets murky, tit for tat, tit without tat and tat with no tit.

Pretty sure the initial attacks were centered on the location where they believed the prisoners to be held, which didn't strike me as being more than "heavy handed". I still felt it was wrong, but I couldn't exactly call it "Shocking." I wasn't exactly shocked by their actions in Gaza either, but in that instance their retaliation was confined to Gaza, and Hamas IS the palestinian government.

It was only when the rockets started flying south that they started mashing infrastructure all over southern lebanon with no regard to civilian casualties. This is not in any way destroying Hezbollah...if that is their goal, their actions are completely counterproductive. They are making Hezbollah stronger.

My condemnation of Israel does not concern the actions of others, it concerns their actions only. I condemn Hez too, but that doesn't seem to shock anyone. I am ashamed that Israel is an ally of my country.

Oppression and violence do not deter hatred. Ever.

And for the record, I think what we did to Nagasaki and Hiroshima was utterly deplorable. There were plenty of military targets available that would have had the same impact.

[LongSilence]

If we're honest, there's never going to be an effective to way to destroy Hezbollah quickly with Syria next door. Israel is undoubtedly not helping itself but when there are people living with the freedom to indulge and express such hatred in an unpoliced country you're not going to be able to do much that 'works' at all.

The most effective way to deal with people with conflicting cultures and interests has historically been the 'Imperial' way: invade, conquer, exert authority, integrate, educate and then perhaps you can think about letting them do things their way. Its the tried and tested way to undermine extremist politics. There is another way though- if you can get people to become dependent on each other for economic and literal survival then you're on the right track. Or on the other hand you can give people someone or something else which they hate more than their current enemies...

[Stoic]

Sorry wrong order. The correct order is:

1. hezbollah kidnap 2 isreali soldiers in order to force israel into a prisoner swap

2. israel starts bombimg Lebanon, holding the gov responsible, demmanding the release of its soldiers

3. Hezbollah then starts firing rockets into isreal in response to the air raid

4. isrealthen says the soldier release is no longer its priotity; destroying hezbollah is

5. it all gets murky, tit for tat, tit without tat and tat with no tit.

Israel has kidnapped 9,000 Palestinians. I think it's unfair to say that Hezbollah kidnapping 2 Israel soldiers is what started this.

[nomir_dva]

yeah, they're only in the hundreds. Are you saying it would only be wrong if Israel committed genocide?

Of course I am not sayint that. What I am saying is that if the Israelis were conducting indiscriminate area bombing, the situation would be far worse. If such a concept is meaningful, I think that at least somewhat precise bombing of specific targets is less deplorable than strategic bombing of the sort pursued by the Western Allies during the Second World War.


I'd be curious why Israel has chosen to bomb north Lebanon though... Or basic infrastructure, like rail ports, airports and bridges.

I neither understand nor condone Israel's decision to bomb the Lebanese infrastructure. That said, it is not a strategy unique to Israel.


What importance is this, exactly?

Hezbollah controls a signifcant proportion of the Lebanese parliament and apparently has popular support.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5555771


The only alternative is to bomb all across the country, at civilian targets? That's the solution to terrorism!?

I see no alternative to military action inside Lebanon. Again, I do not understand what seaports have to do with that. Wikipedia claims about 350 Israeli civillian causialties compared to 1300 on the Lebanese side - this is not a once-sided conflict: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict

Military incursions into foreign countries invriably result in civillian causialties, and I readily agree that this tends to increase support for terrorist groups - something that I think is very clear in Iraq. But I still do not know what else Israel could have done. The original Hezbollah attack was not an isolate incident. Rocket fire from across the Lebanese border did not just begin two weeks ago.

[PenguinHunter]

Just as Israel has failed to stop the popular movement that is Hamas, it will fail to crush Hezbollah.

Added to this as a sidenote -

Not only does Israel not stop these movements, it seems to have a bad habit of creating them.

The Israeli government financially supported Hamas (then still a militant wing of the Muslim Brotherhood) up until the mid 1980s as a counterweight to the PLO. Hamas (and the MB ) was seen as a wholesome kind of organization because of its religious nature and its extensive support of various social systems in Palestine and throughout the arab world. Basically nurtured up until the first Intifada.

Then in 1982 we get the invasion of the Lebanon and a much more strengthened Hizbollah as a result.

I tried to find a good free article to link. This is the best I got in a few minutes of searching:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10456.htm

[charred_heart]

I was just overhearing one of my co-workers who is trying to send a roaming account mobile phone with a Syrian guy in the hopes that it can reach his relatives in Beirut.

I can't imagine what he must be going through...

[PenguinHunter]

I was just overhearing one of my co-workers who is trying to send a roaming account mobile phone with a Syrian guy in the hopes that it can reach his relatives in Beirut.

I can't imagine what he must be going through...

Yeah things suck.

One of my Lebanese friends' parents went to sell some property just before the whole thing started.

Their likely buyer bolted and now they are stuck there for a while I guess. Fortunately they are ok at the moment but what a headache for them and my friend.

My Aunt's Lebanese neighbors went to do pretty much the same thing and are now stuck out there too.

[Dom]

Israel has kidnapped 9,000 Palestinians. I think it's unfair to say that Hezbollah kidnapping 2 Israel soldiers is what started this.

Hilarious!

[Dom]

I was reading some more on this conflict on the BBC and it just seems awful, with the probably escalation and all...

It's about time we gave the un it's own armed forces, and removed the veto's in the security council.....

[wildcat]

If you want peace, you do not take a side.

[Dom]

If you want peace, you do not take a side.

Well, thats fine, If you wan tpeace 'for yourself' do not take a side. If you want peace in general, so that the oil producing region of the middle east is nicely productive, then something needs to be done.

Not to mention Palestein/Israel is used as some weird justificaiton for blowing up people on trains in Spain, and Britian neither of which have ever given Isreal Millitary Aid.

The choice isn't between choosing a side or peace, the choice is between choosing freedom or peace....

[LongSilence]

What is this suddenly powerful UN force supposed to do? Occupy the whole Middle East? Or just invade countries that are fighting? The last century proved that you can topple a power fairly easily, but its a much trickier business making sure you get the right kind of people in charge afterwards or that you don't just plunge a country into civil war.

You could say that Iraq was some of the West 'taking action'. Would the Middle East see it as much less of an invasion if it was the largely Western Capitalist UN coming in?

[zhang_bob]

Not to mention Palestein/Israel is used as some weird justificaiton for blowing up people on trains in Spain, and Britian neither of which have ever given Millitary Aid.
This is debatable, it depends if you consider supplying Israel with arms as "Millitary Aid."

[Xander]

This is debatable, it depends if you consider supplying Israel with arms as "Millitary Aid."
We also buy them from Israel. It's a surprisingly good industry in Israel. They are looking into next generation weaponry almost as fast as the US!!

[wildcat]

Well, thats fine, If you wan tpeace 'for yourself' do not take a side. If you want peace in general, so that the oil producing region of the middle east is nicely productive, then something needs to be done.

Not to mention Palestein/Israel is used as some weird justificaiton for blowing up people on trains in Spain, and Britian neither of which have ever given Isreal Millitary Aid.

The choice isn't between choosing a side or peace, the choice is between choosing freedom or peace....
Israel and the Palestinians are just as guilty. To take a side is to give justification for the war. If you take a side you take a side for the war. Hence you are guilty for the death of every victim.

[Dom]

This is debatable, it depends if you consider supplying Israel with arms as "Millitary Aid."

We sell them to them. And we sell them to 'bad' guys too, or does no one remeber the arms to iraq stuff??

[Dom]

Israel and the Palestinians are just as guilty. To take a side is to give justification for the war. If you take a side you take a side for the war. Hence you are guilty for the death of every victim.

But what if you put a muti national force under UN control in to enforce borders agreed by un security council resolutions, you are not taking sides then are you? Well other than the international community's side.

[zhang_bob]

Israel and the Palestinians are just as guilty. To take a side is to give justification for the war. If you take a side you take a side for the war. Hence you are guilty for the death of every victim.
I don`t believe anyone can be neutral.



A transcript (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11669) of me and Claverhouse, on neutrality. (Copied below)


Freigraf Claverhouse: I don't dislike you. (to headfonez)

Master Zhang Bob: :wtf: You must like headfonez then.

Freigraf Claverhouse: I didn't say that.

Master Zhang Bob: But you said you don`t dislike headfonez, so you must therefore like headfonez to some degree.:)

Freigraf Claverhouse: Does the concept of neutrality mean nothing to you ?

Master Zhang Bob: I am of the belief that it is impossible to be one hundred per cent neutral. I think it is like the advertising slogan for Marmite, " You either love it or hate it."

Freigraf Claverhouse: What about the concept of not giving a toss ?

Master Zhang Bob: As Bush would say "you are either with me or against me." So if you do not give a toss about him, you must be with him.

Freigraf Claverhouse: Bush was imitating Christ again. Bush is a borderline retard.

Master Zhang Bob: You must be against him.

Master Zhang Bob: I thought he would just let Bin Laden kill him if he was imitating Christ.

Freigraf Claverhouse:That's quite profound. I like to think one nice thought each day just to get it over with. Thank you.

[ptGatsby]

Hezbollah controls a signifcant proportion of the Lebanese parliament and apparently has popular support.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5555771


Forgive me for not listening to NPR, their streaming causes my computer headaches.

The civil wing controls 18% of the government's seats. The full alliance block controls less than 28%. Of those, support is not very forthcoming (they are allied with the Christian block).

The actions of the military wing do have popular support... because they rebuilt the damage and defended Lebanon from the previous Israel invasion.

I guess you could call that significant, though what I see is not 'significant' as much as it will be after the next election. Least, I'd give it, at the current rate, a 75% chance of them gaining significant seats in the next election. I expect Israel to cut off relations with lebanon (~15% chance of them getting majority, alliance or not) and the cycle to descend back into what it was before they were involved in politics.



I see no alternative to military action inside Lebanon.


I'm not so much against that... I'm against the collective punishment part. That's, to me, unforgivable.

(Un)Fortunately, most of the world feels the same. Stuff like Sabra and Shatlia sure doesn't help... and the political corruption along and moral bankruptcy that comes with it.



Wikipedia claims about 350 Israeli civillian causialties compared to 1300 on the Lebanese side - this is not a once-sided conflict: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Is...banon_conflict


Updates are ongoing, of course, but at this time;


Lebanese
Al Jazeera reports, as of morning on 20 July "More than 300 people have now been killed and 500,000 displaced during the week-long conflict"[50]
Associated press reports, as of 18 July 226 people killed.[51]
AFP reports the number of killed in the Israeli raids, as of 19 July, more than 300 people have been killed, while more than 480 people have been wounded.[52]
BBC News reports the number of killed in the Israeli raids, as of 19 July, "270 Lebanese ? mostly civilians".[53]
Bloomberg Television reports the number of killed by Israel, as of 19 July, to be more than 250 people, and between 500 to 600 people injured.[54]
[edit]
Israeli
14 Israeli soldiers were killed, 2 captured, and 21 more wounded.[1]
15 civilians have been killed, Eight in Haifa city on 16 July, while another 500 civilians were treated in hospitals, 11 of whom were seriously injured.[55]


So rough estimates are 250-300 lebanese civilians killed, 15 Israeli civilians.
Roughly 500 injured (lebanese) vs Roughly 500 wounded, 11 critical (Israeli).

Wounded being hard to measure since the medical conditions are very different (there is no 'scale' of severity reported, where death is rather absolute).

And of course, its infrastructure that is being destroyed, so its worth looking at the displacement factors too.

Regardless, The civilians are being killed because of the targets being selected. If it was collateral damage, I wouldn't be quite so... vocal. However, civilians are being targeted indirectly because of the targets being selected.



But I still do not know what else Israel could have done. The original Hezbollah attack was not an isolate incident. Rocket fire from across the Lebanese border did not just begin two weeks ago.


If they had no choice, then everything that follows is set, would you agree? Because every time they do this, it escalates. It breeds terrorism. They align another country (one working hard on progression, one finally breaking out of the foot of Syria and Iran) against Israel.

Why do you think Hezbollah jumped from declining seats (12, 10, 8... now 23 in 2005) to a huge increase? I suspect it can be nearly entirely put at the hands of invading Gaza.If they get majority, Lebanon becomes a second Iran.

So, assuming they had to do this, then they must think that this is an acceptable cost.

I'd like to see these groups dismantled, not strengthened. However, this obviously won't happen in our lifetimes... If anything, this is going to escalate to something incredible... especially that Iraq is now also going to become a sister state to Iran.



The original Hezbollah attack was not an isolate incident. Rocket fire from across the Lebanese border did not just begin two weeks ago.


*shrug* I say the same thing when people say this in my life... "If that was your only choice, enjoy the result".

We all have choices. They all have effects. You pick the best one, even if it is negative, and you deal with the consequences. If this is there best choice, then... What can I say?

I find most politicians (and group leaders!) have no problem making those decisions when its not them and their family at risk. Its the people that get to 'enjoy the result'. On both sides!

[Magajy]

Israel has kidnapped 9,000 Palestinians. I think it's unfair to say that Hezbollah kidnapping 2 Israel soldiers is what started this.


Yeah, that given. I was just quoting the way popular media reports it, while point out to "force Isreal into a prisoner exchange". There are thousands of Palestinians and Lebaneese prisoners in Isreali Jails. No one seems to be concerned about their status.

I don't see how Isreal can achieve it's stated aim of rooting out hezbollah in Lebanon, they are lebaneese people, even if they have external backing [as if isreal does not have any]. One half the population is shi'ite and most of them have sympathies for hezbollah; how can you root that out? For isreal to achieve its aim it looks it it will have to pipe out Lebanon off the map.:sadbanana: . ...hold on. that sounds like ... iran to isreal. The difference might just be one just talked and the other is implementing.

[NoahFence]

I liked The Daily Show's explanation of Israel's strategy here. It was to bomb Lebanon so hard that it cracked in two, then pick up the southern half and shake it until their captured soldiers fall out.

[Heleuiski]

I liked The Daily Show's explanation of Israel's strategy here. It was to bomb Lebanon so hard that it cracked in two, then pick up the southern half and shake it until their captured soldiers fall out.

Hah!

[Johnny]

Israel and the Palestinians are just as guilty. To take a side is to give justification for the war. If you take a side you take a side for the war. Hence you are guilty for the death of every victim.

Which deaths are you guilty for, and which war do you give justification for?

You've taken a side here, you know.

[Johnny]

If you want peace, you do not take a side.

If you don't take a side, how can peace be desired?

[NoahFence]

I'm not sure if this is what Wildcat meant, but ordinarily, to achieve peace, you must be on BOTH sides.

[Johnny]

I'm not sure if this is what Wildcat meant, but ordinarily, to achieve peace, you must be on BOTH sides.

What if one side exists to destroy the other side? How can you be on both sides then?

[NoahFence]

By convincing them to change their reason for existance?

[Heleuiski]

I think you mean that in order to achieve peace you must see the situation from both points of view and work towards compromise?

[bergenski]

I wish people wouldn't make this out to be about two Israeli soldiers. The abduction is a symbolic attack against Israel and represents the enemy as a whole. So the counterattack is not about two soldiers but about eliminating the ongoing threat to ensure no leverage is gained in such an aggressive move.

[Heleuiski]

I wish people wouldn't make this out to be about two Israeli soldiers. The abduction is a symbolic attack against Israel and represents the enemy as a whole. So the counterattack is not about two soldiers but about eliminating the ongoing threat to ensure no leverage is gained in such an aggressive move.

I agree, but the attack against Israel came from Hezbollah not from the Lebanese government. Are you suggesting that because the attack came from The Lebannon everyone there must pay?

[Heleuiski]

I mean that's like suggesting that everyone in Ireland should be bombed to crap because the IRA operates from there.

[bergenski]

I agree, but the attack against Israel came from Hezbollah not from the Lebanese government. Are you suggesting that because the attack came from The Lebannon everyone there must pay?
Of course not, but if they hide their weapons among civilians (which Israelis would never do) and have strongholds in Beirut (and, incidentally, a seat in the Lebanese government), then of course Lebanon is going to suffer. Israel should try to have a better PR campaign so the attacks don't appear to be so graphic.

[charred_heart]

Of course not, but if they hide their weapons among civilians (which Israelis would never do) and have strongholds in Beirut (and, incidentally, a seat in the Lebanese government), then of course Lebanon is going to suffer. Israel should try to have a better PR campaign so the attacks don't appear to be so graphic.What about striking with rockets at buses full of fleeing Lebanese villagers, how can you justify that?

[aether]

It's sad, the Lebanon. They had begun to rebuild Beirut when this occurred. I have no other comment, nevertheless. The middle east conflict is too overwhelming for me to try to understand it at this point.

[coffeezombie]

I don't think the Lebanese government is doing much to stop Hezbollah, though, which makes them partially culpable for what is going on. Nevertheless, it does not justify the retribution to innocent civilians being conducted presently by Israel.

[Johnny]

I think you mean that in order to achieve peace you must see the situation from both points of view and work towards compromise?

O.k. but this doesn't work when one team's goal is to destroy the game rather than play it.

Hezbollah's mission is to wipe out Israel altogether, not make peace with Israel, not defeat Israel in a tennis match, not play or participate with Israel in any endeavor. Compromise isn't an option to choose from. There is no "two points of view" to consider.

Hezbollah will stop their warfare and terrorist activities when the last living Israeli is pushed out into the sea...or they will surrender or be killed.

Plenty of people practice Islam here in the States without this compulsion to kill Zionists. Nobody cares! Maybe the Middle East needs to weed out the psychopaths rather than divert their destructive behavior towards Israel?

[ptGatsby]

Plenty of people practice Islam here in the States without this compulsion to kill Zionists. Nobody cares! Maybe the Middle East needs to weed out the psychopaths rather than divert their destructive behavior towards Israel?


Even psychopaths needs the right environment... and not very many of the leaders seem very psychopathic, from what I can tell. That would require an overtly selfish personality. Its nice rhetoric to call them that, but its not accurate.

I'd also be curious of your views on the PIRA then... They seemed to have changed their views? And what of all the terrorist groups that were anti-American in South america...? What do you make of Lebanon helping the Americans deal with their operations in the ME recently?



There is no "two points of view" to consider.


Yes, there is. It is this attitude that prevents peace. It is this attitude that says 'there is no alternative'. It is this attitude that allows both sides to use the same rhetoric over and over. It is this attitude that turns a blind eye to the conditions and environment leading up to these events.

There is another side. No, its not pleasant. No, its not moral. But there is a side. A failure to understand that is a failure to understand the problems... and a failure to find a solution.

These groups must be dismantled, not killed. You cannot kill an ideology with violence. Americans, of all people, should understand that!

[wildcat]

But what if you put a muti national force under UN control in to enforce borders agreed by un security council resolutions, you are not taking sides then are you? Well other than the international community's side.
Why do you think the UN can enforce the borders? Is it likely they can do it?
Isreal has an awesome war machinery; both Hamas and Hezbollah are armed by foreign powers.

It is ironic that Israel, Palestine and Lebanon represent the democracy in the ME. Hence they are an easy prey for the war lords. Of the three, only Israel has something you can call a national army.

Why did Carter and Clinton fail the negotiations?
They were not neutral. Israel is the client nation.

The negotiator has to be neutral. If you take a stand, everything is lost. The negotiator does not listen: he pretends to listen in a hard ear. In truth he does not listen. The minute he starts to listen, he has failed.

[wildcat]

I don`t believe anyone can be neutral.



A transcript (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11669) of me and Claverhouse, on neutrality. (Copied below)


Freigraf Claverhouse: I don't dislike you. (to headfonez)

Master Zhang Bob: :wtf: You must like headfonez then.

Freigraf Claverhouse: I didn't say that.

Master Zhang Bob: But you said you don`t dislike headfonez, so you must therefore like headfonez to some degree.:)

Freigraf Claverhouse: Does the concept of neutrality mean nothing to you ?

Master Zhang Bob: I am of the belief that it is impossible to be one hundred per cent neutral. I think it is like the advertising slogan for Marmite, " You either love it or hate it."

Freigraf Claverhouse: What about the concept of not giving a toss ?

Master Zhang Bob: As Bush would say "you are either with me or against me." So if you do not give a toss about him, you must be with him.

Freigraf Claverhouse: Bush was imitating Christ again. Bush is a borderline retard.

Master Zhang Bob: You must be against him.

Master Zhang Bob: I thought he would just let Bin Laden kill him if he was imitating Christ.

Freigraf Claverhouse:That's quite profound. I like to think one nice thought each day just to get it over with. Thank you.
Thanks for the post, it was very witty. The Freigraf and you are the most witty posters in this forum. And when the two of you witty together, it is all the more fun.

[Dom]

Why do you think the UN can enforce the borders? Is it likely they can do it?
Isreal has an awesome war machinery; both Hamas and Hezbollah are armed by foreign powers.

It is ironic that Israel, Palestine and Lebanon represent the democracy in the ME. Hence they are an easy prey for the war lords. Of the three, only Israel has something you can call a national army.

Why did Carter and Clinton fail the negotiations?
They were not neutral. Israel is the client nation.

The negotiator has to be neutral. If you take a stand, everything is lost. The negotiator does not listen: he pretends to listen in a hard ear. In truth he does not listen. The minute he starts to listen, he has failed.

Yes I know, the UN can't enforce the border at the moment hence why I suggested it is equiped with a large force, but in all honesty I knwo this 'ideal' is naive.

I thought Clinton did quite well at Oslo, He was atleast more neutral than Bush is, and he was a master at walking a tight rope, and drawing a consencous from people.

The problem is both sides are entrenched, and probably only democracies to try to gain western approval, palestein to keep the aid it was getting, before they elected hamas. And the US would have a harder time justifying giving military aid to Isreal if it wasn't a Democracy...

It is the entrenched nature of the problem, I mean could you ever see a negotiated solution to the Jerusalem issue? Or the confiscated/stolen palestinian property? The right for refugess to return? I don't see anyone finding enough common ground between the two sides to negotiate a solution to these issues...

[wildcat]

If you don't take a side, how can peace be desired?
Iran chose a president who is even more fanatic than the governing priesthood.

Israel chose the war criminal Sharon. Now they have a nobody who desperately tries to fit in his shoes.

The Palestinians chose Hamas to lead them.

Do you take a side in a madhouse?
I never took a side. You did.

[Dom]

These groups must be dismantled, not killed. You cannot kill an ideology with violence. Americans, of all people, should understand that!

Did we not kill Nazism with violence?

Did we not fight WW2 as a conflict of ideaology, that almost spilled over into war with the USSR?

Democracy vs Facism vs Communism?

We only stopped cos we knew Stalin could stomp us in 1945, and he only stopped cos he had no idea you had no more nukes.

But the Ideaologies fought to win, no negotiated solution was available there, appeasement failed remember?

And sure ther are a few Neo Nazi's but the ideaology is mostly wiped out...

[Dom]

Iran chose a president who is even more fanatic than the governing priesthood.

Israel chose the war criminal Sharon. Now they have a nobody who desperately tries to fit in his shoes.

The Palestinians chose Hamas to lead them.

Do you take a side in a madhouse?
I never took a side. You did.

Couldn't we just 'statement' a nation..... You are all mad and thus unfit to rule yourselves, self rule will be devolved after you have proven you are capable of rational governance?

And let the UN govern them in the mean time?

All this bloody respect for a nation's soverignty when they show no respect for anyone elses?

[zhang_bob]

And let the UN govern them in the mean time?
Who is them?

[wildcat]

Yes I know, the UN can't enforce the border at the moment hence why I suggested it is equiped with a large force, but in all honesty I knwo this 'ideal' is naive.

I thought Clinton did quite well at Oslo, He was atleast more neutral than Bush is, and he was a master at walking a tight rope, and drawing a consencous from people.

The problem is both sides are entrenched, and probably only democracies to try to gain western approval, palestein to keep the aid it was getting, before they elected hamas. And the US would have a harder time justifying giving military aid to Isreal if it wasn't a Democracy...

It is the entrenched nature of the problem, I mean could you ever see a negotiated solution to the Jerusalem issue? Or the confiscated/stolen palestinian property? The right for refugess to return? I don't see anyone finding enough common ground between the two sides to negotiate a solution to these issues...
There exists absolutely no acceptance from the Israeli side for the Palestinian refugees to return in Israel proper, ever. It is not difficult to understand why it is so. The Jews have every right to be concerned about their safety.

Israel was willing to give the West bank and the Gaza strip to the Palestinians. Israel was even ready to give away half of Jerusalem. Israel could not agree for the proposition that the Palestinian refugees with their descendants be allowed to return to Israel proper. The request was unrealistic. It would have meant the annihilation of Israel as a Jewish state.

Arafat did take a step or two in the right direction. He was willing to go further. It was tragic that Bush became president at a critical time. The new president shunned Arafat because of moralistic grounds. Bush accepts Putin though: he is a war criminal in a very much larger scale than Arafat ever was.

[Shimpei]

Perhaps off-topic:
This is a pic I took at the Israel-Lebanon border a few years ago.
On the bottom of the pic there're two stones in which Isaiah 2,4 is carved in Arabic and Hebrew:

They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore.

Still seems a nice dream.

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/border.jpg

[wildcat]

Who is them?
The ungovernable.

[wildcat]

O.k. but this doesn't work when one team's goal is to destroy the game rather than play it.

Hezbollah's mission is to wipe out Israel altogether, not make peace with Israel, not defeat Israel in a tennis match, not play or participate with Israel in any endeavor. Compromise isn't an option to choose from. There is no "two points of view" to consider.

Hezbollah will stop their warfare and terrorist activities when the last living Israeli is pushed out into the sea...or they will surrender or be killed.

Plenty of people practice Islam here in the States without this compulsion to kill Zionists. Nobody cares! Maybe the Middle East needs to weed out the psychopaths rather than divert their destructive behavior towards Israel?
Israel and Palestine are both beleagured nations.
See life as it is for a change.

[wildcat]

This picture of Shimpei illustrates the point I could not convey with words.
Thank you Shimpei, well done.

[Dom]

There exists absolutely no acceptance from the Israeli side for the Palestinian refugees to return in Israel proper, ever. It is not difficult to understand why it is so. The Jews have every right to be concerned about their safety.

Israel was willing to give the West bank and the Gaza strip to the Palestinians. Israel was even ready to give away half of Jerusalem. Israel could not agree for the proposition that the Palestinian refugees with their descendants be allowed to return to Israel proper. The request was unrealistic. It would have meant the annihilation of Israel as a Jewish state.

Arafat did take a step or two in the right direction. He was willing to go further. It was tragic that Bush became president at a critical time. The new president shunned Arafat because of moralistic grounds. Bush accepts Putin though: he is a war criminal in a very much larger scale than Arafat ever was.

As I said, I always though Oslo was a good starting place...

But one side or the other always seems to throw in an unreasonable never going to happen demand.

Like "free all palestinian prisoners.."

[Dom]

This picture of Shimpei illustrates the point I could not convey with words.
Thank you Shimpei, well done.

Yes, a dream...

I ponder if that very symbol has been hit in the current conflict?

It would be very sad if it had been.

[zhang_bob]

But one side or the other always seems to throw in an unreasonable never going to happen demand.

Like "free all palestinian prisoners.."I thought we did that with the Good Friday Agreement. Why can`t Israel and Palestinians do it?

[Stoned_Rider]

EXILED preacher of hate Omar Bakri has begged the Royal Navy to rescue him from war-torn Beirut. :D:D

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006330629,00.html

[wildcat]

I thought we did that with the Good Friday Agreement. Why can`t Israel and Palestinians do it?
Israel and the Palestinians are not the players. The players reside elsewhere.

[Dom]

EXILED preacher of hate Omar Bakri has begged the Royal Navy to rescue him from war-torn Beirut. :D:D

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006330629,00.html

Indeed, The Sun would love that story....

[wildcat]

What if one side exists to destroy the other side? How can you be on both sides then?
Both sides exist to destroy the other side.

The former President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari, ended the civil war in Namibia, Yugoslavia and Indonesia. He was succesful in tasks that were generally thought impossible to handle. It was interesting to learn the documents of his negotiations. He used to talk with one party at a time. In each negotiation he implicitly gave to understand his sympathies lie with the other party. He never yielded an inch.

Bush has never understood about the negotiating process. He is happy his entourage can dictate for him.
The war lords are happy on both sides.

Are the Jews welcome in a country club in Texas?
No.

Read the last speeches of Eisenhower. He was an insider.

Bush never made a single decision. He was never in charge. He picked an entourage to decide for him.

The entourage reminds me of the German Nazi administration .
An entourage of friends with their own deals with oil and arms.

[Johnny]

Are the Jews welcome in a country club in Texas?
No.

I didn't know this wildcat thanks for the tip!

[Johnny]

Israel and the Palestinians are not the players. The players reside elsewhere.

What a relief! For a second there, I thought Israel was playing for survival.

[floid]

In a machiavellian society the best figurehead is an empty head.

[charred_heart]

EXILED preacher of hate Omar Bakri has begged the Royal Navy to rescue him from war-torn Beirut. :D:D

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006330629,00.htmlhopefully that will prove to those who listen to him of how sleazy he really is. If he's so adamant about killing infidels, well what's he doing asking them for help?

Stoned_Rider, I would have thought you knew enough about the state of young arabs in Europe to know that they can be misguided by people like Omar Bakri rather than to accuse them all of being terrorists. Anyway, I won't get into a discussion about the subject. What's happening in Lebanon has me too preoccupied...

[peter pan]

Israel sure carries a big stick, huh?
Every man and woman serves in their military


They follow the hornet practice - ie throw a stone at the hornets nest -
The price paid will be one you will never forget and if you were fooish to try and rip down the hornets nest because you did'nt like the warning - yes they have nukes

[wildcat]

What a relief! For a second there, I thought Israel was playing for survival.
Do not be pathetic.

[Johnny]

Do not be pathetic.

Does this mean my country club membership has been revoked?

[wildcat]

Does this mean my country club membership has been revoked?
are you Jewish?

[Shimpei]

are you Jewish?

is it relevant?

[charred_heart]

Are the Jews welcome in a country club in Texas?
No.Is anyone without blue blood European ancestry welcome in a Texan country club? Does anyone care?

[wildcat]

Is anyone without blue blood European ancestry welcome in a Texan country club? Does anyone care?
Grace Kelly could not enter the Country Club in Philadelphia. Kelly is a wrong family name. I read that a Finnish diplomat was thrown out of the Country Club in Washington because his name was Berg. Wrong name. The waspies are name conscious.
Georges Simenon lived a long time in America and he entered a Country Club. It is incredible. But Georges was half Flemish. Maybe he carried his family genealogy with him or something.
There are many people who care. They have written books about their caring. It does not seem to help.

[wildcat]

is it relevant?
It is not relevant to me. I am not a waspie. Johnny is a member of a country club. Does it mean that he is a waspie?

[zhang_bob]

are not the players. The players reside elsewhere.
Maybe if they had more action in the bedroom department they would not be miserable bastards.:)

Are you trying to say peace is not in Israel and the Palestinians hands?

[tinribz]

Next door’s lodger swears and throws bricks over the fence every time you go in your garden, it has been going on for years. You don’t speak with the owner or lodger because you had a fist fight with them both – and won – a few years back.

What are the options? Complain to the authorities and insist the lodger is forced to move out or kept under control. Build a bigger fence. Or, or smash down the fence, kick in the door, charge in to the house with a baseball bat and beat up the lodger and landlord’s kids.

Which is going to help resolve the situation?

[wildcat]

Maybe if they had more action in the bedroom department they would not be miserable bastards.:)

Are you trying to say peace is not in Israel and the Palestinians hands?
I lived in Israel on and off throughout the 70s. It was peaceful then. But that was before Syria and Iran started meddling in the affairs of Lebanon, the West bank and Gaza.

[wildcat]

Next door’s lodger swears and throws bricks over the fence every time you go in your garden, it has been going on for years. You don’t speak with the owner or lodger because you had a fist fight with them both – and won – a few years back.

What are the options? Complain to the authorities and insist the lodger is forced to move out or kept under control. Build a bigger fence. Or, or smash down the fence, kick in the door, charge in to the house with a baseball bat and beat up the lodger and landlord’s kids.

Which is going to help resolve the situation?
I went to all those places in the West bank five times over. No one threw stones there. In Jerusalem the Orthodox Jews threw stones at female tourists. Their skirts were short.
When Israel gave Sinai back to Egypt, Egypt did not want Gaza. They did not appreciate a problem in their hands. Israel offered to give the West bank back to Jordan. Jordan declined the offer. They did not appreciate a problem in their hands.
Egypt and Jordan saw what their Muslim brethren were up to.
The keys of the kingdom are not in the kingdom. You can lay waste the garden of the neighbour a thousand times. It is to no avail.

[wildcat]

In a machiavellian society the best figurehead is an empty head.
There was another empty head in Casablanca, but he did not have Condie.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

FYI, a graphic representation of the political alignment on the issue:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=699486

[wildcat]

FYI, a graphic representation of the political alignment on the issue:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=699486
I did not see the flags of Hezbollah and Hamas.

[dubbeltop]

A group of scientists found large quantities of 'red oil' in the bodies of the inhabitants in the middle east maybe thats the reason why peace is far and away in this and other regions in the world which are marked by extremes in terms of religion, social structure, wealth and military strength. Anyway its very interesting to watch the politicians like Ehud Barak and his hezbollah counterpart spinning the media and the media spiinning the public with images and words. Somehow its getting more and more difficult to get independent news. The middle east sounds like another Command and Conquerer game when I watch television. War is or has become an integral tool in the hands of not so smart politicians with the words terrorist and terrorism becoming household names. In the end its all about oil and gas.

[zhang_bob]

I lived in Israel on and off throughout the 70s. It was peaceful then. But that was before Syria and Iran started meddling in the affairs of Lebanon, the West bank and Gaza.Yes, is is compared to now. But what about The Yom Kippur War/1973 Arab-Israeli War and The Munich massacre.

[charred_heart]

A group of scientists found large quantities of 'red oil' in the bodies of the inhabitants in the middle east.'red oil' you say? Could it be the substance known as blood??

:wtf:

[JBHunt]

http://lebanonlive.blogspot.com/

[wildcat]

Yes, is is compared to now. But what about The Yom Kippur War/1973 Arab-Israeli War and The Munich massacre.
The Yom Kippur war was short and it led to peace with Egypt. Munich was planned by Arafat, who later got a Nobel. Both were isolated events.
What you have now is a civil strife that drags and drags on endlessly. You cannot move freely in the land any more. You are harassed, you are taken to the police station, you have to undress, your clothes and shoes are examined. Anyone is suspect. You have to be a sabra. Then you are accepted and clean.
And boring.

[JBHunt]

What happens after Israel withdraws? Will there infighting between the christian, sunni and shia militias?

[charred_heart]

What happens after Israel withdraws? Will there infighting between the christian, sunni and shia militias?nah

[Maniac]

Even psychopaths needs the right environment... and not very many of the leaders seem very psychopathic, from what I can tell. That would require an overtly selfish personality. Its nice rhetoric to call them that, but its not accurate. .

You don't have to be psychopathic or overtly selfish to be a sociopath. To believe that killing a nation of people because Allah wills it, whether commendably religious or not, can and most likely will lead to reproachable actions.

Call me a stereotyper, but the only language these extremists understand is force. If Israel backed down now, they would have put themselves in a much worse position. It's like in jail, the first day you get there, you gotta kill someone, or you're getting killed next. All of your diplomacy, negotiations and statesmanship don't work in the real world. I'd want to see you pull something like that off in prison, you'd be the first one dead. The ME is nothing more than a bunch of inmates, and in this prison, might makes right.

Look into history. Appeasement failed with Hitler, it failed with Palestine. It always fails. You can't bribe your enemy with money, when he thirsts for your blood.


Is anyone without blue blood European ancestry welcome in a Texan country club? Does anyone care?

Should I start talking about dhimmis?


Next door’s lodger swears and throws bricks over the fence every time you go in your garden, it has been going on for years. You don’t speak with the owner or lodger because you had a fist fight with them both – and won – a few years back.

What are the options? Complain to the authorities and insist the lodger is forced to move out or kept under control. Build a bigger fence. Or, or smash down the fence, kick in the door, charge in to the house with a baseball bat and beat up the lodger and landlord’s kids.

Which is going to help resolve the situation?

Your analogies are seriously lacking. What would you do if your lodger kidnapped your wife and kid? What would you do then?

[attila_the_hunny]

Call me a stereotyper

:lol:

[charred_heart]

Should I start talking about dhimmis?Yeah you should. Mention a few dhimmi clubs while you're at it will you?

The Europeans blamed the Jews for the plague in the middle ages so please don't start about things that happened 900 years ago.

EDIT: I did not mean to imply in my post that the Europeans are worse than anybody else or that they're wrong or anything like that. I was just trying to show that every culture has a past and all cultures made mistakes. The level of their success and staying power is an indication of how they have addressed their past and their mistakes. My wording was a knee jerk reaction to the condescending tone of the person I was replying to, which I considered totaly uncalled for (well unless he's a stereotyper that happens to be a member of a Texas country club ;) ).

[charred_heart]

bump.

[charred_heart]

Your analogies are seriously lacking. What would you do if your lodger kidnapped your wife and kid? What would you do then?I'd... kill all his relatives while he's holed up in some unknown location?

[ptGatsby]

I'd... kill all his relatives while he's holed up in some unknown location?


I think the better analogy is "kill all his neighboors cause they lived next to him" would be about right...

[Jacque]

I wonder if Syria pulling out of Lebanon last year in any way contributed to the unfortunate string events between Lebanon and Isreal.

Either:

A) The presence of Syrian troops left a mark in Lebanon in the form of Hezbollah, a domestic guerilla wing of Syria's military intentions more at liberty to act given its veiled connections to any responsible goverment(s). And by throwing out the Syrian military, the Lebanese government threw out the only force holding a leash on Hezbollah and quite ironically the only force willing to defend Lebanon's sovereign borders. Thus, inviting novel acts from Hezbollah and bold incursions from Israel.

B ) History is repeating itself.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1982/1101820927_400.jpg

March 1978: Israel invades to stop Palestinian attacks
1982: Full-scale invasion; Israel occupies Beirut; pro-Israel militias massacre Palestinian refugees
May 1983: Israel pulls back, but keeps "security zone"
February 1992: Israeli air strike kills Hezbollah leader
1996: Israel launches "Grapes of Wrath" raids on Hezbollah; 100 civilians die under Israeli shelling of UN base at Qana
May 2000: Israel withdraws troops from Lebanon
January 2004: Prisoners-bodies swap agreed between Hezbollah and Israel

[JBHunt]

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1982/1101820927_400.jpg

Phalangist pro-christian massacre from 1982.
You're right, looks like history will repeat itself.

[ptGatsby]

You don't have to be psychopathic or overtly selfish to be a sociopath. To believe that killing a nation of people because Allah wills it, whether commendably religious or not, can and most likely will lead to reproachable actions.


These people are even less likely to be sociopaths, in general. Sociopaths are normally diagnosed within a fixed environment - that is to say, most of these people have issues that stem from the military conflicts they have seen... this behaviour is trained more than an actual disorder.

I don't think they are exactly emotionally dampened people...



If Israel backed down now, they would have put themselves in a much worse position.


Like being surrounded by enemies, under constant terrorist threat, condemned by a large portion of the world...? But then it easy to say "it could of been worse" when you make a mistake...



It's like in jail, the first day you get there, you gotta kill someone, or you're getting killed next.


Well, if that happened, you'd never need to build a new jail! It'd be great... everytime someone new comes in, someone would be leaving.....



All of your diplomacy, negotiations and statesmanship don't work in the real world.


o_O

I'm glad the IRA didn't get resolved that way. I always wanted to visit Ireland.

And I'm certainly glad that the US decided to invade all of south america in the 50s. Its not like Puerto Ricans shot up congress or anything.

And its not like operations like Condor didn't cause terrorist acts against the us (Suggested reading: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0915979195/ref=sr_11_1/002-8244358-5992830?ie=UTF8 before the ME cascaded into such a situation).

Well, I'm glad all of your violence and force has worked so well in the real world.



Appeasement failed with Hitler, it failed with Palestine.


History does not start and end with Hitler.

Both Hitler and the Palestines were in an environment of a crushed people. This allowed nationalism (and racism, in both cases) to take over, for the leaders to exploit the injustices of the situations... Funny enough, removing those injustices worked wonders in most parts of the world. Japan and Germany after WWII were treated well and fairly. They both have moved way beyond where they were.

There is a gap between 'appeasement' and 'randomly shooting into a crowd to show how tough you are'.

[charred_heart]

Phalangist pro-christian massacre from 1982.
You're right, looks like history will repeat itself.the phalangists were massacring Palestinian refugees. I don't see religious violence happening in this scenario.

[JBHunt]

Why not?
There is a sizeable Christian group within Lebanon that wouldn't mind seeing hardline muslims disappear.

[charred_heart]

Why not?
There is a sizeable Christian group within Lebanon that wouldn't mind seeing hardline muslims disappear.It won't happen. If it does, then I'm wrong.

[tinribz]

Why not?
There is a sizeable Christian group within Lebanon that wouldn't mind seeing hardline muslims disappear.I would think most countries have people that feel that way, and vice versa.

I've noticed that the more graphic images are starting to appear on TV now, there has also been a lot of protesting reported in other countries. It would be nice to think that this will create real political pressure for a resolution across the world. The internet might contribute, I think blogs and the like humanise the victims and will help filter out the propaganda.

Israel obviously don't have the political maturity to solve anything on their own. The only way I can see any hope of long term resolution is by co-operation with an independent mediator. Starting with agreed borders and political legitimisation of the militias.

Their leaders are only human instead of violence they will begin to focus on political power and financials. When they get used to having that they will start playing by the rules to keep it.

It will take time maybe a generation to put the anger and revenge behind them at grass roots level. Prisoner amnesties as a reward for progress and ultimately military decommissioning should be the final aims, and it is not unprecedented. Lebanon's democratic process and modernisation had come on in leaps and bounds in recent years laying the ground work for it to begin.

You could be forgiven for thinking it was a consequence of Hezbollah actually winning seats and the start of legitimisation that resulted in Israel invading, driving in to Beirut and demolishing their head quarters. With the attacks on civilian infrastructure it is almost like they - or someone - wants to keep the attack, withdraw, stand-off, attack cycle in place.

I'm not a big conspiracy fan, politicians are 99% reactionary. But as money is the root of all evil then I would most likely lay any blame at the weapons dealer door rather than the oil industry, I think that is a red herring.

[Maniac]

I'd... kill all his relatives while he's holed up in some unknown location?
Now you're thinking like a suicide bomber! That's the spirit!



These people are even less likely to be sociopaths, in general. Sociopaths are normally diagnosed within a fixed environment - that is to say, most of these people have issues that stem from the military conflicts they have seen... this behaviour is trained more than an actual disorder. I don't think they are exactly emotionally dampened people...


My point is, you don't have to be crazy to kill. There doesn't have to be anything psychologically wrong with you to believe in the justified killing of innocent people. Since they believe so strongly in a higher power, and this higher power allows this killing of any perceived enemy, then by the transitive property, they have no qualms about doing this. My point was, in the context of such a belief, they are capable of doing any action, hence, they are sociopathic.



Like being surrounded by enemies, under constant terrorist threat, condemned by a large portion of the world...? But then it easy to say "it could of been worse" when you make a mistake...

So it's a mistake to act towards someone the same way they act towards you? Hezbollah doesn't only attack Israeli armymen, they attack civilians too. Israel has at least attempted to save Lebanese civillians by throwing pamphlets, giving warnings, etc. I doubt Hezbollah would do the same. Fight fire with fire I say. Why am I even arguing about this? You're comparing a terrorist faction to a government.



Well, if that happened, you'd never need to build a new jail! It'd be great... everytime someone new comes in, someone would be leaving.....

Straw manning my argument won't make it any weaker. The point is, in an environment such as jail, might makes right. You can cast all the o_O in the world at me, it won't change that fact. Talk to someone who went to jail, instead of making sarcastic comments out of your ass.


Well, I'm glad all of your violence and force has worked so well in the real world.

Sometimes peace is only found on the other side of war.


History does not start and end with Hitler.

I never said it does. Putting words in mouth? I work off real examples and human nature, not off of some idealized version of the way things "should be." If you have a bully in school, the more you give into his demands, the more he will ask for. It's a simple application of the fundamental driving force of human nature: greed.



There is a gap between 'appeasement' and 'randomly shooting into a crowd to show how tough you are'.

Oops, I meant that quote came from "ptGatsby". I completely forgot that giving warnings of evacuation and dropping pamphlets is synonymous with "randomly shooting into a crowd." *Goes to update his dictionary*

[charred_heart]

Now you're thinking like a suicide bomber! That's the spirit! nice try :rolleyes2


Oops, I meant that quote came from "ptGatsby". I completely forgot that giving warnings of evacuation and dropping pamphlets is synonymous with "randomly shooting into a crowd." *Goes to update his dictionary*

I wonder why they don't just leave? Could it be because that's how the Israelis took away the land from the Palestinians?

The Lebanese are much braver than any of us for that, they are not willing to abandon their land even risking death in the process. Prove to me that you're spineless by refuting that.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot, some do try to leave. They get shelled by the Israelis for doing that too.

[charred_heart]

My point is, you don't have to be crazy to kill. There doesn't have to be anything psychologically wrong with you to believe in the justified killing of innocent people. Since they believe so strongly in a higher power, and this higher power allows this killing of any perceived enemy, then by the transitive property, they have no qualms about doing this. My point was, in the context of such a belief, they are capable of doing any action, hence, they are sociopathic.you mentioned the word 'they' four times and the word 'kill' three times in that paragraph. Since you're a fundamental, I'll stop arguing with you.

[tinribz]

Oops, I meant that quote came from "ptGatsby". I completely forgot that giving warnings of evacuation and dropping pamphlets is synonymous with "randomly shooting into a crowd." *Goes to update his dictionary*

UN warning on Mid-East war crimes
"Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians," Ms Arbour said.
"Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable."

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5197544.stmI just saw pictures on the news of children in hospital after cars trying to leave civilian areas were being targetted by air strikes. And most of the routes are blocked by congestion anyway.

[Johnny]

It is not relevant to me. I am not a waspie. Johnny is a member of a country club. Does it mean that he is a waspie?

wildcat, I did not know you controlled country club memberships in Texas.

You surprise me with every post.

Of course Syria continues to meddle in Lebanese affairs, just as Iran does. Otherwise, how could Lebanon tolerate Hezbollah's use of their lands to provoke Israel, enter Lebanon's government, and be used as human shields to protect Hezbollah terrorists?

Lebanon would have chased them out a long time ago. Hezbollah is nothing without the financial and material support of Iran and Syria, which Lebanon's leaders did not mind coveting also until Israel had enough of Hezbollah's bullshit for the last 5 years.

[wildcat]

wildcat, I did not know you controlled country club memberships in Texas.

You surprise me with every post.

Of course Syria continues to meddle in Lebanese affairs, just as Iran does. Otherwise, how could Lebanon tolerate Hezbollah's use of their lands to provoke Israel, enter Lebanon's government, and be used as human shields to protect Hezbollah terrorists?

Lebanon would have chased them out a long time ago. Hezbollah is nothing without the financial and material support of Iran and Syria, which Lebanon's leaders did not mind coveting also until Israel had enough of Hezbollah's bullshit for the last 5 years.
And where is your jester hat? Forgot it in the club? Yes, the waspies control the membership. I am not the right brand. I forgot to come with the Mayflower. I am not the Main Line. I am not the Old Guard.

What can Lebanon do to Hezbollah? Nothing. They have no power. Lebanon is not Hezbollah. Do you condone war crimes?
Why should Lebanon covet the terrorists' money? They only lose with Hezbollah in the country. They lose the lucrative tourism. But since when have the civil servants a la Johnny understood anything about business?
Do you know where money comes from? Not from playing golf in a country club. Not from sitting in an air conditioned room with pedicured toe nails. Not speaking with a Texan drawl, a terrible twang.
jk :huh:

[NoahFence]

Do you know where money comes from? Not from playing golf in a country club. Not from sitting in an air conditioned room with pedicured toe nails. Not speaking with a Texan drawl, a terrible twang.

That can't be where it comes from. That's where it goes to.

[Maniac]

you mentioned the word 'they' four times and the word 'kill' three times in that paragraph. Since you're a fundamental, I'll stop arguing with you.

And that's supposed to mean???

[Maniac]

nice try :rolleyes2

I wonder why they don't just leave? Could it be because that's how the Israelis took away the land from the Palestinians?

It's so funny how the arab world keeps on saying that, as if the unabated repitition of lies can make something true. Israel was promised that land in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, way before the holocaust was a glimpse in anyone's eyes. Read about the countless reports of how Palestine was a desolate and uninhabited area, most famously reported by Mark Twain. It's not unlike 2 children, when one gets an ice cream, even if the other one hates ice cream, he wants it too.

You want to start arguing about ideologies? Watch this video, and then tell me which nation is being unfair to its people. This applies to you too tinribz, in response to your bbc article. Enjoy

www.fierj.org.br/vd/3yroldgirl.wmv

[Dom]

UN warning on Mid-East war crimes
"Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians," Ms Arbour said.
"Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable."

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/5197544.stm

A sure fireway to get the underdog's to hide their military kit in civilian area's.

Such 'nice' idealistic rules can't apply when one side doesn't see civilian targets as unacceptable.

I can't see Hez being bothered about only hitting military targets....

I agree the massive firepower that Israel wields, should coem with a similar level of restraint... but if someone was firing rockets at me... from an apartment building.... I'd fire back!

You reckon Ms Arbour wouldn't???

Everything is always messier in real life than they are in theory...

Now if you can find that israel did target civilians, without there being a resonable amount of suspicion that they were hiding military targets, then feel free to charge them with war crimes... oh and also NATO please? We even bombed the Chinese embassy to Serbia.....

Fundamentally the idea of a war crime is ridiculous, the whoel sale slaughter of civillians in WWII and naturally the holocaust is so far removed, from the collateral damage that happens in most conflicts these days.... 350-400 civilians is not ethnic cleasning, and even the numbers of civilians dead in Iraq, due to the coalition is not as high as it could be if they were free to target them indescriminately...

[charred_heart]

You want to start arguing about ideologies? Watch this video, and then tell me which nation is being unfair to its people. This applies to you too tinribz, in response to your bbc article. Enjoy

www.fierj.org.br/vd/3yroldgirl.wmv (http://www.fierj.org.br/vd/3yroldgirl.wmv)

let's argue about ideologies:

My point is, you don't have to be crazy to kill. There doesn't have to be anything psychologically wrong with you to believe in the justified killing of innocent people. Since they believe so strongly in a higher power, and this higher power allows this killing of any perceived enemy, then by the transitive property, they have no qualms about doing this. My point was, in the context of such a belief, they are capable of doing any action, hence, they are sociopathic.
you are basically referring to me and every muslim on the planet. You probably have a 'solution' for me as well don't you?

[ptGatsby]

My point is, you don't have to be crazy to kill. There doesn't have to be anything psychologically wrong with you to believe in the justified killing of innocent people.



My point was, in the context of such a belief, they are capable of doing any action, hence, they are sociopathic.


Sociopaths suffer from a psychological disorder. If you call them sociopaths, you are saying there is something psychologically wrong with them.



So it's a mistake to act towards someone the same way they act towards you?


Your actions should be a bit more than a mirror, yes. That's not to say you automatically should act different. No more than you should automatically act the same way.



Hezbollah doesn't only attack Israeli armymen, they attack civilians too.


Yah, and they are terrorists. I know that. If anything, they attack civilians far more than Israel. I'm not defending Hezbollah. I'm saying that Israel just empowered them. They just gave them control of the Lebanon government.

They just unified the Palestinians in Gaza and Hezbollah. They just gave Iran and Syria more tendrils.



Why am I even arguing about this? You're comparing a terrorist faction to a government.


A government is just as capable of being a terrorist group (by definition).

Collective punishment, by definition, would make Israel a terrorist nation. Its not much a stretch, considering things like Sabra and Shatila. In any case, there is something called state terrorism... Assassinations (12 recently, if memory serves me), bulldozing homes and shops... The argument is if Israel has a policy of collective punishment.




Straw manning my argument won't make it any weaker. The point is, in an environment such as jail, might makes right. You can cast all the o_O in the world at me, it won't change that fact. Talk to someone who went to jail, instead of making sarcastic comments out of your ass.


Heh, my dad has been working with jails and halfway houses for over 40 years. Gangs, organized crime, addicts... And of course, the regular joes.

My sarcasm was amusement, not an argument. I don't need to argue something like that. The world isn't jail... and if it is, Israel are the guards and the Palestinians the inmates. That pretty much justifies the violence the PLO and associates...



Sometimes peace is only found on the other side of war.


And sometimes peace is found only by talking. And sometimes peace isn't found. And sometimes war leads to genocide. And sometimes war is needed. And sometimes war is called terrorism.

There are lots of sometimes...



I work off real examples and human nature, not off of some idealized version of the way things "should be." If you have a bully in school, the more you give into his demands, the more he will ask for. It's a simple application of the fundamental driving force of human nature: greed.


Nothing to do with greed. What you are talking about has to do with ego and insecurity. Nor is greed the fundamental driving force of nature. Survival is. Greed is way down the list of human nature, after things like social acceptance and similar.

Maybe if the bully was trying to steal from you...

I don't work off some idealized version either. Not everything is idealized because I say "violence hasn't worked here..." and "Israel is also guilty of quite a few things" and "<Terrorist group> has gained significant political and military power since the invasion of Iraq and Gaza".

Its not an idealized view that these groups need to be dismantled using means other than direct violence. It has a very long history of working in the past, with terrorist groups.

These things are true. It hasn't worked in the past, it has made it worse. It will continue to make it worse.



Oops, I meant that quote came from "ptGatsby". I completely forgot that giving warnings of evacuation and dropping pamphlets is synonymous with "randomly shooting into a crowd." *Goes to update his dictionary*


That's kind of ironic, considering your original post;

It's like in jail, the first day you get there, you gotta kill someone, or you're getting killed next.

Life is not like jail. Politics is not like jail. Terrorist groups are not inmates (or guards). Nations are not... ah, forget it.

I'm that Israel knows that it should randomly kill some guy who didn't do anything to make sure those other guys don't do anything... Should invade cuba, I guess. That'll show how strong you are. Should I try that in the playground too? What about at work? Or on the bus, perhaps.

Not that it even works that way... you kill someone in jail, it better be a nobody. Cause if you kill a somebody, you are dead. No rhetorical "kill someone when you get in jail", a literal dead. Even a low level somebody, if you are new and a nobody... you are dead.

And that's what is happening. Pamphlets are not an excuse. They are psych-ops, nothing else.

The reason they are used is to induce a large scale behavioral change. You tell them who your enemy is (have you read the pamphlets?). You tell them what you are going to do. Then you inflict trauma. This is suppose to invoke a stockholme like syndrome, where a person 'breaks' down their original views and has a trained response (avoidance of further suffering).

In practice, it works on a bell curve. It simply flattens it so that there are more anti-terrorist and more terrorists. The reason this is continues to be done is because the statistics point to reduced support over the long haul. Which of course, makes sense. Unfortunately, the statistics can't measure the increase in terrorist. Makes it look like it works.

So yes, Israel is 'shooting into the crowd' by design. Pamphlets are not a warning, they are... as they have always been... a form of propaganda.

[ptGatsby]

I agree the massive firepower that Israel wields, should coem with a similar level of restraint... but if someone was firing rockets at me... from an apartment building.... I'd fire back!


I'll be sure to let them know that they shot first...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/middle_east_battle_for_south_lebanon/img/4.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/middle_east_battle_for_south_lebanon/img/6.jpg

Its the abstract layer "well, we think they were in this building..." that is a cause for concern.

That, and the bombing of airports, bridges, roads, civil services, depots...




Fundamentally the idea of a war crime is ridiculous, the whoel sale slaughter of civillians in WWII and naturally the holocaust is so far removed, from the collateral damage that happens in most conflicts these days.... 350-400 civilians is not ethnic cleasning, and even the numbers of civilians dead in Iraq, due to the coalition is not as high as it could be if they were free to target them indescriminately...


Is it ok to kill a civilian? What makes it ok kill 300-400? What makes it ok to kill 10,000? What makes it not ok to kill 100,000?

You said it;

as high as it could be if they were free to target them

That's why they are held to that standard. Because they can make it a very high number.

How many Israelis died before those 300-400? Wouldn't the same logic say that its ridiculous to condemn those acts, cause only a couple of dozen died?

[PenguinHunter]

It's so funny how the arab world keeps on saying that, as if the unabated repitition of lies can make something true. Israel was promised that land in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, way before the holocaust was a glimpse in anyone's eyes. Read about the countless reports of how Palestine was a desolate and uninhabited area, most famously reported by Mark Twain. It's not unlike 2 children, when one gets an ice cream, even if the other one hates ice cream, he wants it too.

You want to start arguing about ideologies? Watch this video, and then tell me which nation is being unfair to its people. This applies to you too tinribz, in response to your bbc article. Enjoy

www.fierj.org.br/vd/3yroldgirl.wmv

Britain implied two contradictory diplomatic pathways bewteen 1915 and 1917

In 1915-16 you have the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence which essentially promises Palestine as Arab national land.

Then the Sykes-Picot agreement, which was made in secret, goes back on this which is then followed by a final betrayal with the Balfour Declaration. The biggest problem in all of this was not the purchase of land, which, for the most part, was freely and legally sold by rich Arab landowners to Jewish settlers. The problem is a conversion of this land to a Jewish state. (A brief overview of all these agreements can be found in wikipedia.)

One can't portray this as a one-sided poor-Jews-they-were-promised-a-state kind of argument. They were never promised a state just a "national home." The difference is fine but still important to note. On top of that the Arab world saw Palestine as, through the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence as Arab land. Whether the Arab leaders at the time intended a different state of Palestine or not is certainly questionable but the movement towards a Jewish was more of a British diplomatic bungle than a legitimate and well thought out promise.

The point of this is that we can't really take a straight path with one side or the other here as you seem to be trying to do.

[tinribz]

It's so funny how the arab world keeps on saying that, as if the unabated repitition of lies can make something true. Israel was promised that land in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, way before the holocaust was a glimpse in anyone's eyes. Read about the countless reports of how Palestine was a desolate and uninhabited area, most famously reported by Mark Twain. It's not unlike 2 children, when one gets an ice cream, even if the other one hates ice cream, he wants it too.

You want to start arguing about ideologies? Watch this video, and then tell me which nation is being unfair to its people. This applies to you too tinribz, in response to your bbc article. Enjoy

www.fierj.org.br/vd/3yroldgirl.wmv (http://www.fierj.org.br/vd/3yroldgirl.wmv) http://www.passia.org/images/pal_facts_MAPS/dist_of_pop_jews_and_palestinians_1946.gif

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Partition-Armistice.gif

?

[Dom]

let's argue about ideologies:



My point is, you don't have to be crazy to kill. There doesn't have to be anything psychologically wrong with you to believe in the justified killing of innocent people. Since they believe so strongly in a higher power, and this higher power allows this killing of any perceived enemy, then by the transitive property, they have no qualms about doing this. My point was, in the context of such a belief, they are capable of doing any action, hence, they are sociopathic.

you are basically referring to me and every muslim on the planet. You probably have a 'solution' for me as well don't you?

Are you then saying every Muslim, on the planet, believes that Allah has permitted or allows the killing of perceived enemy's? even Innocents?

Because if you think Maniac is refering to every Muslim then that is because you assoicate Islam with his statement, which basically says that, these people think it's ok to kill innocents cos their God says so?

Pretty certain you didn't mean that!

[Dom]

I'll be sure to let them know that they shot first...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/middle_east_battle_for_south_lebanon/img/4.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/middle_east_battle_for_south_lebanon/img/6.jpg

Its the abstract layer "well, we think they were in this building..." that is a cause for concern.

That, and the bombing of airports, bridges, roads, civil services, depots...




Is it ok to kill a civilian? What makes it ok kill 300-400? What makes it ok to kill 10,000? What makes it not ok to kill 100,000?

You said it;

as high as it could be if they were free to target them

That's why they are held to that standard. Because they can make it a very high number.

How many Israelis died before those 300-400? Wouldn't the same logic say that its ridiculous to condemn those acts, cause only a couple of dozen died?


I see your point clearly, I just find the whole thing is very difficult to define.

If you want to argue it, I se it like this, lets say if the really went at it, Israel could have killed hundreads of thousands by now... next to that 300-400 looks pretty restrained.

Hezbollah have killed as many as they possibly can... which isn't many granted... but they are deliberately trying to kill as many civilians as they can.

Israel isn't trying to kill as many civilians as it can,

Yet Israel get the threat of war crimes thrown at them!

It just seems very odd, but I agree with everything you have said... they thing is I'm nto sure where the idea that civilians are all innocent came from?

I'm not trying to suggest it's wrong, I'd much rather live in this era, rather than the happy-go-slaughter era of the last few millienia....

I just find the whole idea of war crimes, as important, neccessary and horribly flawed....

[Johnny]

What can Lebanon do to Hezbollah? Nothing. They have no power. Lebanon is not Hezbollah. Do you condone war crimes?

Lebanon could have asked for Israel's help, US' help 5 years ago when the IDF pulled out with UN oversight.

When we were attacked on 9/11, we asked for help from the entire world. We even asked for help before we entered Iraq.

How then can Lebanon's government have the power to ask for help now?

[ptGatsby]

If you want to argue it, I se it like this, lets say if the really went at it, Israel could have killed hundreads of thousands by now... next to that 300-400 looks pretty restrained.


Israel has nukes. Is it restraint not to turn the ME into glass? Following this, would 10,000 be restraint? 100,000? A million?



Hezbollah have killed as many as they possibly can... which isn't many granted... but they are deliberately trying to kill as many civilians as they can.


Yes, they are.



Israel isn't trying to kill as many civilians as it can, Yet Israel get the threat of war crimes thrown at them!


Is Israel a state? Is Hezbollah?

If Israel is innocent, perhaps they should mention that. Unfortunately both sides have lost their moral ground and sense of self. Both are fully militarized martyr systems...

Unfortunately, the price of being a state and being an international player involves respecting international law. At least somewhat, anyway.



It just seems very odd, but I agree with everything you have said... they thing is I'm nto sure where the idea that civilians are all innocent came from?


Civilians are innocent by default, otherwise they wouldn't be civilians.

ie: Are you guilty by association because you are British and responsible for the back door dealings and diplomatic failures of your government? Is an American guilty because he voted for Bush? Pays taxes that go to military aid to Israel? What about someone from Lebanon that pays taxes to a government that has members of Hezbollah (voted in!)? What about someone who comes home from work and doesn't report something because his family would be killed?

Its not all that easy... no question about it.



I just find the whole idea of war crimes, as important, neccessary and horribly flawed....


This is a very complicated situation. The terrorist groups cannot be fought conventionally... but they keep trying. Conventional attacks lead to more terrorism, to civilians... its a high price with no effect.

Hezbollah was a dying group. It was being marginalized since 1998. Its only recently that it became a powerhouse again. Why? Do you think the PIRA would of been gone now if Ireland had been shelled to the effect of those images?

[NoahFence]

Civilians are innocent by default, otherwise they wouldn't be civilians.

ie: Are you guilty by association because you are British and responsible for the back door dealings and diplomatic failures of your government? Is an American guilty because he voted for Bush? Pays taxes that go to military aid to Israel? What about someone from Lebanon that pays taxes to a government that has members of Hezbollah (voted in!)? What about someone who comes home from work and doesn't report something because his family would be killed?


Osama says... :thumbup: "Yes!"

Not only are you guilty, but your children will be guilty, and their children too, even if you move to North Korea and start gold farming on WoW.

This is one of a number of points I dispute with Old Man Bin Laden. While I will not say that an American is "Guilty" for having voted for Bush, I will say things like "is responsible for" and "got suckered", and possibly "could wake the hell up any old time".

[Maniac]

you are basically referring to me and every muslim on the planet. You probably have a 'solution' for me as well don't you?

So every muslim is a dormant brainwashed terrorist? You insult your own people.

If your belief in Allah was force-fed to you like that child, and is so strong to validate killing me because I'm a U.S. citizen, and that makes me an infidel, oh yes, I will do my best to make sure you die first. You can count on it.


Sociopaths suffer from a psychological disorder. If you call them sociopaths, you are saying there is something psychologically wrong with them.


The end result is the same as a sociopath, ie, capable of any action. Hence, they are equivalent to sociopaths, as perceived by actions, and not psychological differences. Better?


Yah, and they are terrorists. I know that. If anything, they attack civilians far more than Israel. I'm not defending Hezbollah. I'm saying that Israel just empowered them. They just gave them control of the Lebanon government.

Who's to say they didn't have control of the Lebanese government before? The Lebanese government sure did nothing to control them from occupying the southern border, against UN orders. Does that make Lebanon somewhat culpable? Yes. Does it put these response of Israel in a better light? Not by a lot.

This attack is not only in response to the abduction/killing of their soldiers, but is in response to all of the other things that they took sitting down. Not unlike a person who takes a lot of shit, and then on the one thing that breaks the camel's back, goes nuts on you, and you consider the response "disproportionate." But it's really not. Take for example the AMIA bombing in 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_Bombing), eerily "celebrated" this past week. There was no response to such an attack, at least nothing on the same scale as the attack itself.

In any case, if they tit for tat attacked back for every time their enemies attacked them, I doubt Hezbollah or Hamas would even exist today. It's because Israel is always on the defensive that this attack seems so out of place.

In any case, I doubt Israel is stupid enough to do something that will give more power to Hezbollah. If they did, then I'm sure Madrigal and her cohorts are throwing parties all over town right now.

Speaking of which, what really baffles me is how anyone can support Madrigal on this site. She talks of the U.S. being taught a lesson. This site is made by people living in the U.S. Did she support 9/11 also? It sure seems like it. I'm sure she definitely supported the AMIA bombing. And yet many U.S. citizens here speak of her as a friend. Honestly, I'm just baffled.


A government is just as capable of being a terrorist group (by definition).

Collective punishment, by definition, would make Israel a terrorist nation. Its not much a stretch, considering things like Sabra and Shatila. In any case, there is something called state terrorism... Assassinations (12 recently, if memory serves me), bulldozing homes and shops... The argument is if Israel has a policy of collective punishment.

Both sides are dirty. No one is every 100% clean. This is the real world, remember? It's really a lesser of two evils choice. I go with what's smart. The terrorist factions, if they had it their way, and if charred_heart had his way apparently, all of the U.S. citizens would be dead and six feet under. Israel doesn't. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

EDIT: I was reading more about Sabra and Shatila, and apparently after the events, 300,000 Israelis, 10% of the population, demonstrated against their own country, demanding answers. I've never seen a Palestinian riot demanding answers from their superiors/government(that's because the holy power that is Palestine never did anything wrong, right Madri? ;) ). However, I have seen them celebrating and throwing candies when 9/11 happened. Weird...


The world isn't jail... and if it is, Israel are the guards and the Palestinians the inmates. That pretty much justifies the violence the PLO and associates...


Playing the victim is always easy, but I doubt it justifies killing. The Palestinians wish for the death of Israel, and will not rest until "every jew is pushed out into the sea." Israel does not have such views against the Palestinians. Surprisingly, Israel funds a lot of Palestine. I personally wouldn't give money to my enemy. If the situation was reversed, and the Palestinians had the technological advancement of Israel, Israel, and perhaps the Jewish people living there, would have ceased to exist in 1948, maybe 1949. The fact that there are Palestinians still living and breathing and carrying out their lives should be testament enough, that Israel has, at least to a decent extent, expressed a good deal of restraint. They would not have received such treatment in kind.


Nothing to do with greed. What you are talking about has to do with ego and insecurity. Nor is greed the fundamental driving force of nature. Survival is. Greed is way down the list of human nature, after things like social acceptance and similar.

Then explain to me how killing yourself with bombs strapped to you fulfills the need for survival. Perhaps your psychology only works on people who are psychologically sane? What is the driving force of such a person?


Its not an idealized view that these groups need to be dismantled using means other than direct violence. It has a very long history of working in the past, with terrorist groups.

You have more faith than I do. If someone were committed to my destruction (as charred_heart apparently is), I wouldn't be worried about convincing him otherwise, I'd be worried about keeping myself alive. There's an application of the survival instinct.

[Maniac]

http://www.passia.org/images/pal_facts_MAPS/dist_of_pop_jews_and_palestinians_1946.gif

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Partition-Armistice.gif

?

And that's... your justification for brainwashing little kids... to kill? Woah there, just making sure where on the crazy scale to mark you down... * Goes to think * (So if 1 is normal and 10 is crazy, that would place tinribz at... damn I can't do this one in my head *goes to take out his calculator*...)

On a more serious note, you can show me all of the pictures you want, but that doesn't show anything. The question is, why were those lands seized? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

[Dom]

Israel has nukes. Is it restraint not to turn the ME into glass? Following this, would 10,000 be restraint? 100,000? A million?

Yes, I understand your point, I'm trying to see if you understand mine, I'm not trying to define a direct 'line in the sand' number that consititutes a breach of restrait or not, I'm merely trying to suggest that before we accuse Israel of widespread disregard for Arab life, we need to look at what they potential could do if they truly did have no regard for Arab life. If that were the case then thousands would be a more appropriate toll.



Is Israel a state? Is Hezbollah?

If Israel is innocent, perhaps they should mention that. Unfortunately both sides have lost their moral ground and sense of self. Both are fully militarized martyr systems...

Unfortunately, the price of being a state and being an international player involves respecting international law. At least somewhat, anyway.

I don't really think that NGO's have less responsibility to the people in the area's they work in than governments or in this case a state. I certainly think they should both be bound by the rule of law, you seem to be suggesting that Israel is bound by the rule of law where Hezbollah are not? Since when did any state respect or obey international law? China doesn't, North Korea doesn't, Iran doesn't, etc etc etc. The Us and Britian ignores it when they want RE Iraq (ok so the legality of that one is a bit murky but I'd much rather my nation didn't indulge in murky international dealings) The US wont even sign up to the international war crimes tribunal! So before we go point a finger at Israel and yelll rouge state at them, our own balance sheets are hardly clean. International law is rubbish, because there is no power that can enforce it. It's like a vicar in a bar room brawl.... all the moral authority but none of the actually authority. But I guess you can fit all that into your 'at least somewhat' caviate. My point is that jumping on the moral high ground about international law is ridiculous... It seems to me that war crimes need redefining, as the moment it seems like any type of conflict at all!

But back to the main point, NGO's still fall under the rule of law whether they like it or not, Hezbollah is Criminal.


Civilians are innocent by default, otherwise they wouldn't be civilians.

ie: Are you guilty by association because you are British and responsible for the back door dealings and diplomatic failures of your government? Is an American guilty because he voted for Bush? Pays taxes that go to military aid to Israel? What about someone from Lebanon that pays taxes to a government that has members of Hezbollah (voted in!)? What about someone who comes home from work and doesn't report something because his family would be killed?

Firstly, are you sure? What makes a civilian? because if we are still running on the outdate defination made in international treaties (which is what international law is based upon, after all there is no world court is there?) then civilians are non combatant. However, in Iraq, and in Lebabanon soem of the combatants, deliberately make themselfs up to look like civilians, fight from civilian locations.... in this case, all soem one has to do is hide the gun and violia outrage as there were no militants there!

Am I guilty for the backroom dealings... of course I carry some responsiblity, I live in a democracy were I holg the governement to account.... of course I share some of the guilty and responsibililty for my governments actions... They are my elected representatives... And so democracy fails, because unless more people, like me, accept the responsibility for the actions of those we placed in power, then there is authority without accountability and as a form of government it will fail. I'm not sure I understand your comment about a family being killed, what kind of situation are you talking about? Hezbollah, hiding stashes of guns in peoples homes? Israel then bulldozing them? I quite understand the families predictament, but if Lebabanon had a government that wanted to stop and disarm Hezbollah, and fullfil it's obligation to protect it's people, then there would be a force trying to resolve that kind of issue, but they don't they would rather let Hez fight and get teh internation flak while they do nothing to protect their people, from Israel and from Hez that make their civilians into targets.


This is a very complicated situation. The terrorist groups cannot be fought conventionally... but they keep trying. Conventional attacks lead to more terrorism, to civilians... its a high price with no effect.

Hezbollah was a dying group. It was being marginalized since 1998. Its only recently that it became a powerhouse again. Why? Do you think the PIRA would of been gone now if Ireland had been shelled to the effect of those images?

They keep trying because they see no other option, when someone wont talk to you about their greivence and is not prepare to compromise on it is throwing rockets your way, what would you do?

Israel shelled, because Hez abducted it's people and fired rockets like crazy, not the otherway round. And Hez isn't a powerhouse, as the figures in casulaties show.

In Ireland you had a situation where there was ever increasing hostility from the normal people to continued violence.... You had two governments who were prepared to compromise, and even talk to terrorists, and a lot of the funding and support the IRA was receiveing from overseas suddenly cut off. The two sides could be brought into a powersharing assembly.... there was compromise, and the solution only manifested it self, when both sides saw compromise as preferable to continued violence. Can you really see this happening with Israel and the Arabs?

[charred_heart]

And that's... your justification for brainwashing little kids... to kill? No. It shows that you were speaking from:
A )Ignorance of the facts
B )Deliberate omission of the facts

From the article you linked:

Theodor Herzl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl) at one time wrote that the indigenous population could be motivated to leave if they were given jobs in other countries
...
Jabotinsky wrote in The Iron Wall (1923) that an agreement with the Arabs was impossible, and that military force would be required to establish a Jewish state.
...
In another significant development during this time the British officer Charles Orde Wingate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orde_Charles_Wingate) (who supported a Zionist revival for religious reasons[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War#_note-3)) organized Special Night Squads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Night_Squads) composed of British soldiers and Haganah volunteers, which "scored significant successes against the Arab rebels in the lower Galilee and in the Jezreel valley"[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War#_note-4) by conducting raids on Arab villages. The squads were known for an excessive and indiscriminate use of force, much of which has been documented by Israeli academic Anita Shapira (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Shapira).


I heard a few stories about these raids. They struck late in the night, starting off by placing barrels filled with explosives next to the homes around the perimeter of the village. While the bombs go off and everyone is fleeing in a panic, someone with a bullhorn shouts out threats and warnings in arabic never to return, this is not their land. In the morning, the males are rounded up and shot while the women, children and the old are instructed to head off.


On a more serious note, you can show me all of the pictures you want, but that doesn't show anything. The question is, why were those lands seized? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War The article proves nothing, except that the situation in the middle east was highly complicated from the beginning.

[charred_heart]

Are you then saying every Muslim, on the planet, believes that Allah has permitted or allows the killing of perceived enemy's? even Innocents?That's what Maniac is saying.


Because if you think Maniac is refering to every Muslim then that is because you assoicate Islam with his statement, which basically says that, these people think it's ok to kill innocents cos their God says so?I believe Maniac is referring to Muslims in general because he was not specific, referring to those he was speaking of as 'they'. What does that mean? Sounds very clear to me: fascist rhetoric.


So every muslim is a dormant brainwashed terrorist? You insult your own people.Very clumsy attempt at middle eastern style provocation.



If your belief in Allah was force-fed to you like that child, and is so strong to validate killing me because I'm a U.S. citizen, and that makes me an infidel, oh yes, I will do my best to make sure you die first. You can count on it.Since that video represented Muslim idealogy to you, and since you believe all muslims deserve to die because they are homicidical sociopaths, I was counting on you to threaten to kill me.
Your posts have been very enlightening.

[Dom]

I didn't read the whole thing, just that one reply where your reply seemed odd, I didn;t think for a min you actualy thought that... I know I don't....

Wish I had a few more ideas on how to solve this one

[wildcat]

Lebanon could have asked for Israel's help, US' help 5 years ago when the IDF pulled out with UN oversight.

When we were attacked on 9/11, we asked for help from the entire world. We even asked for help before we entered Iraq.

How then can Lebanon's government have the power to ask for help now?
Whatever Lebanon did or did not it is irrelevant when we speak about the atrocities Israel committed. The civilians are not a government. An error in logic, my friend.
So you did not understand my point about the membership about the country club? I cannot believe this!
OK. I try again. You belong to a country club, and you are proud of it. I see. YOU ARE NOT A BIT CONCERNED THAT THE JEWS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN. Got it now? Thank you.


Edit: I should resign my membership in a club that does not accept Jews in. Should I not resign my membership I'd be guilty of being a willing participant in a race crime. Thank you again.

[Stoned_Rider]

Nasrallah:"For 23 years, we have been talking to our people, motivating them, talking about martyrdom, the honor of martyrdom, and the place of the martyrs. Do the Zionists, or those who encourage them, believe that I, or anyone in the Hizbullah leadership, fears martyrdom? We love martyrdom. We take precautions in order to prevent Israel from making any gains. But on the personal level, and as a personal aspiration, each and every one of us hopes to be destined to martyrdom at the hands of those people [i.e. the Jews] , the killers of the prophets and the messengers, and most hostile to the believers, as it says in the Koran."
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD121106

http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1200

How can there ever be a peace process with people whose motto is "You love life, we love death"?

Once again we see that the problem here is Islam. Hamas and Hezbollah (not to mention Iran) have been exposed for what they truly are: Islamic genocidal maniacs. Resistance movements my ass. How some people can still defend and show sympathy towards movements and regimes inspired by an ideology that openly calls for genocide is beyond me. People like Ahmadinejad are not making things up when they say that it is every muslim's duty to wipe out Israel and ALL Israelis worldwide, including their allies.

You don't have to believe me when I say that Islam calls for total genocide against Jews. Simply ask ANY, and I mean ANY, of your muslim friends about the following Hadith and watch in shock and amazement as they remain silent:

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour [i.e. Judgement Day] will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

[Maniac]

That's what Maniac is saying.

I am saying that? I mean, do you just fling attacks at someone because you can't read? You seem quite literate...


I believe Maniac is referring to Muslims in general because he was not specific, referring to those he was speaking of as 'they'. What does that mean? Sounds very clear to me: fascist rhetoric.

You see what you want to see and you believe what you want to believe because that would make my argument extreme - definition of straw man. Apparently your education has grossly misrepresented subjects such as logic and critical thinking, and perhaps have overemphasized blind faith and stupid clinging. Just a thought.

Fascist rhetoric? LOL. Good choice of words, considering the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem conspired with and supported the nazis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_arab_israeli_war). In any case, if that video is representative of the kind of education you yourself received as a muslim, then yes, I have qualms with you.

Let me requote

My point is, you don't have to be crazy to kill. There doesn't have to be anything psychologically wrong with you to believe in the justified killing of innocent people. Since they believe so strongly in a higher power, and this higher power allows this killing of any perceived enemy, then by the transitive property, they have no qualms about doing this. My point was, in the context of such a belief, they are capable of doing any action, hence, they are sociopathic.

If this is you, and your belief in Allah supercedes your reasoning facilities, and you would be willing to kill any perceived enemy, suspect or not, then yes, in the context of such beliefs, you are capable of not only killing, but of many other actions. Using something called "logic" (that's L-O-G-I-C), one would realize that such beliefs fall under the category of extreme, hence the term "extremists." (You see how they're almost spelled the same?) If you believe that most muslims are extremists, well then, apparently we have all underestimated the current situation, and against such coalitions, war is not only an option, but a necessity.


Very clumsy attempt at middle eastern style provocation.

Very stupid attempt at trying to answer with reason.


Since that video represented Muslim idealogy to you, and since you believe all muslims deserve to die because they are homicidical sociopaths, I was counting on you to threaten to kill me.
Your posts have been very enlightening.

As have yours. Apparently your education and logic cannot co-exist. But I digress...

I never said that video represented Muslim ideology to you. LOL, where do you get off? Do you misinterpret everything? Will you go stark raving mad if I start posting up cartoons? &lt;_&lt;

That video represents a government brainwashing its youth towards hatred, rejection, and hostility. Such a government, I contend, is being grossly unfair with its citizens.

If such a person, so brainwashed, has nothing but hate for you, how can you reason with such a person? I contend that trying to reason with such an individual would be hopeless, because they have been conditioned from childhood. If that were the case, I reiterate, war is not an option, but a necessity.

[Maniac]

No. It shows that you were speaking from:
A )Ignorance of the facts
B )Deliberate omission of the facts

From the article you linked:


I heard a few stories about these raids. They struck late in the night, starting off by placing barrels filled with explosives next to the homes around the perimeter of the village. While the bombs go off and everyone is fleeing in a panic, someone with a bullhorn shouts out threats and warnings in arabic never to return, this is not their land. In the morning, the males are rounded up and shot while the women, children and the old are instructed to head off.

The article proves nothing, except that the situation in the middle east was highly complicated from the beginning.

5 armies against one, not to mention that that one was not even established? And all you can come up with is "highly complicated"? :confused: (doesn't know whether to laugh or cry)

This post, and its shoddy replies, proves nothing but the fact that you're unwilling to look at the situation at hand with some critical thought and reasoning. You can throw all of the stories of Israel you want at me, that still won't give Palestinians the right to literally brainwash their citizens into war machines. Each side has suffered terrible losses, to go into a tit for tat with you will ultimately prove nothing (other than the fact that you have a lot of time on your hands).

The point is, the way I see it, the majority of the cycle of death and destruction is being perpetuated by Hamas, and by extension, a good portion of Palestine, because they brainwash their children into becoming hateful, vengeful, belligerent people. I don't see Israel brainwashing its children. How can one hope for peace when every following generation is the sum of the previous generations' hate and ill-will? Why should the whole world outside of the freakin Middle East care about Palestine, if it's doing this to itself?!

The U.S. is right in this respect, because what these people need is EDUCATION. Other nations may threaten them physically, but with their own people, their very wills, their very minds, are in danger of being lost. Now you compare the two...

EDIT: This applies to all extremist groups and extremist muslims, not only to Hamas/Palestine, as evidenced by post #238 above http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=362784&postcount=238. Does that include you charred_heart?

[Johnny]

Whatever Lebanon did or did not it is irrelevant when we speak about the atrocities Israel committed. The civilians are not a government. An error in logic, my friend.

No I rather think the problem here is that our goals are different.

My goal is to discuss and support peace between Israel and Lebanon, a peace that since Israel's pullout in 2001 under UN oversight has been compromised and nullified by Hezbollah's efforts to terrorize and kill Israelis...actions supported materially and financially by Syria and Iran...actions tolerated and even supported to some degree by Lebanese government and civilians.

Your goal is to shame Israelis and supporters of Israel's continued existence in the Mideast, IMO. I have no problem with Lebanon's continued existence, its rebuilding, its flourishing. The U.S. certainly has supported Lebanon's evolution to become an independent state, and were Lebanon not harboring a terrorist organization seeking the destruction of its neighbor Israel that flourishing would have continued today. Furthermore, your personal attacks against me in the form of accusations that I am an anti-semite or support or am a member of anti-semetic organizations, is not only not funny it's distracting from the thread topic.

Get yourself together, wildcat. Yes this is an emotional and passionate subject for many of us, but it's still worth focusing on the subject don't you think? If I still don't get you, if you're trying to be ironic or funny here and your point is not what I assess, and you still care to discuss, can we then do so plainly, literally, honestly?

Everyone knows Israel is supported by the U.S. Everyone knows that Israel has significant military power. Everyone knows that Hezbollah has provoked Israel to military response for 5 years. Everyone knows that Hezbollah seeks the destruction of Israel.

And everyone knows that Israel will come to the negotiating table where the US hosts talks for peace.

I blame Hezbollah for provoking Israel, for continuing to play games, for parading media around to see dead children that would otherwise not be dead for Hezbollah's restraint last week. Hezbollah uses the media, they use these children to generate hatred against Israelis, to bring support to their cause as liberators of a country that Israelis walked away from 5 years ago to meet UN demands for peace with them.

How many Hezbollah terrorists spoke of Lebanese children, of saving them, of throwing their bodies to shield them before Israel decided they had enough of Hezbollah's bullshit? Not one.

July 17, 2006, Hizbullah secretary general Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah called upon more Lebanese children to shield Hizbollah actions to destroy Israel:
http://www.alghaliboun.net/english/_previousinterv.php?filename=20060716194337


"You are a great people," he said of the Lebanese. "We can depend on you to save Lebanon from humiliation. Don`t worry about what is being destroyed, but we hope that the wounded will recover and that all the people will be safe."

I blame Syria and Iran for continuing to hate and fight against a country that will remain on the map as long as the US remains on the map. Israel is here to stay.

Germany is here to stay too. Despite its Nazi past, its killing of several million Jews and millions more Russians, the Allies did not have to exterminate every single German to bring peace to Europe. There is hope, I think, in this fact...in this history also.

Israel has and will come to the table to discuss peace with its neighbors. But Israel can't do it alone, and the U.S. cannot impose peace upon neighbors who harbor terrorist actions against Israel...unless we want to see war until only one side is left standing.

I don't want that. Lebanon doesn't want that. Syria doesn't want that. Iran doesn't want that. The U.S. doesn't want that. Therefore, it's time to recognize Israel.

From yesterday's PBS Newshour:


GWEN IFILL: Ambassador Kattouf, what would Secretary Rice like to achieve on a trip like this and what can she achieve?

THEODORE KATTOUF (Former State Department Official): Well, I think the administration goals are rather clear. They want to see Hezbollah become merely a social movement, a political party in Lebanon, but certainly not an armed militia, not a state within a state.

And for that reason, she's coming with the hope that she can fashion some kind of an agreement with the Lebanese government and various Lebanese factions to achieve that goal.

GWEN IFILL: Is it a realistic hope?

THEODORE KATTOUF: It's hard to say right now. If I were a betting man, I would perhaps bet against it because it's very, very hard to imagine Hezbollah willingly giving up its weapons. Israel will have to almost certainly send in a lot more ground forces if it truly wants to disarm Hezbollah.

...

HISHAM MELHAM (An-Nahar Newspaper): ...the United States is indispensable, whether people like it in the region or not. And that's why there has to be an American-supported international package that would have security aspects, economic aspects, political aspects, that would deal with some of the outstanding issues that Hezbollah's using as an excuse to maintain that status of a state within a state.

...You know, the Syrians know what they should do. I mean, I know that. But in the end, they are players on the ground, and they can still make life difficult for the new Lebanese republic government. And they can make life difficult for the United States and its allies.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec06/rice_07-24.html (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec06/rice_07-24.html)

[wildcat]

What you say about my goal is dead wrong.
Look Johnny, our perception of the thing is not so wide apart. I am not anti Israeli. I spent my best years in Israel. I have been a Zionist all my life.

I am not an anti-Israeli or anti America. Shame on you to think I am.

[Johnny]

Sorry, wildcat.

[Maniac]

Some interesting articles:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,428245,00.html


Until 2005, Islamism was able to successfully mislead the West into thinking that the "occupation" of Gaza and southern Lebanon was the cause of the terror attacks carried out against Israel. Now we know better: Islamism isn't out to change Israeli policy in the region, Islamism is out to completely eradicate the country of Israel. The same strategy is being used on a larger scale: The Middle East conflict is not the cause of Tehran's conflict with Western secularism. It is merely a convenient alibi.

And this "hate" wouldn't disappear were Israel to cease to exist -- the Islamist creed calls for the "World of Arrogance" to also submit to the Sharia, meaning this genocidal wave of hate should ultimately spread across the globe. In order to expedite this goal, the Iranian leadership indicated that thousands of suicide bombers would be sent out to targets across the world. The men and women of the Israeli military are currently fighting on the front lines against this apocalyptic program -- should we not at least consider offering our solidarity?



UN humanitarian chief accuses Hezbollah of ?cowardly blending? among civilians

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2006/July/middleeast_July545.xml&section=middleeast&col=


LARNACA, Cyprus - The UN humanitarian chief accused Hezbollah of ?cowardly blending? among Lebanese civilians and causing the deaths of hundreds during two weeks of cross-border violence with Israel.
The militant group has built bunkers and tunnels near the Israeli border to shelter weapons and fighters, and its members easily blend in among civilians.

Jan Egeland spoke with reporters at the Larnaca airport in Cyprus late Monday after a visit to Lebanon on his mission to coordinate an international aid effort. On Sunday he had toured the rubble of Beirut?s southern suburbs, a once-teeming Shiite district where Hezbollah had its headquarters.

During that visit he condemned the killing and wounding of civilians by both sides, and called Israel?s offensive ?disproportionate? and ?a violation of international humanitarian law.?

On Monday he had strong words for Hezbollah, which crossed into Israel and captured two Israeli soldiers on July 12, triggering fierce fighting from both sides.

?Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children,? he said. ?I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don?t think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men.?

?We need a cessation of hostilities because this is a war where civilians are paying the price,? said Egeland, before flying to Israel.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060723-093643-9501r.htm


While Israel continues fighting to secure its northern border, the Iranian government barely makes an effort to hide its support for Hezbollah. Yesterday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the United States and Britain "accomplices of the Zionist regime in its crimes in Lebanon and Palestine" and declared that, by going to war against Hezbollah, Israel "pushed the button of its own destruction." In Tehran, the government, which provides Hezbollah upwards of $100 million a year, has put up billboards paying tribute to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and declaring that it is the duty of Muslims to "wipe out" the Jewish state. And, over the weekend, in a display worthy of Hitler or Stalin (or Saddam Hussein in happier times), the Associated Press reported that Iranian officials in the city of Shiraz organized a demonstration by Iran's tiny Jewish community praising Hezbollah and calling for Israel's destruction.

With this ugliness as a backdrop, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrives in the Middle East today for meetings aimed at ending the violence in the region, with the primary focus on finding a viable plan for Lebanon's future. Thus far, the administration has performed admirably in fending off well-intentioned but utterly misguided calls for a premature ceasefire that would leave Hezbollah's military capabilities in place. Over the weekend, unconfirmed reports in the Israeli press suggested that Washington wants Israel to end its military campaign in Lebanon within one week. We trust that this is disinformation, and that Miss Rice and President Bush will quickly knock down such foolishness.
Some object to the Bush administration's approach, arguing that America should instead be an "honest broker" between Arabs and Israelis. But we need to be intellectually honest. The United States is not a neutral party; we are Israel's friend and ally in the war against radical Islam. That doesn't mean we agree with Israel all the time. But we cannot be neutral when Israel is fighting on our side against Islamofascism.
Any ceasefire that leaves Sheikh Nasrallah and his confederates in place as a serious fighting force capable of targeting Israel would be a defeat -- not only for Israel, but for the United States as well -- and Hezbollah would emerge emboldened and more dangerous.

[tinribz]

And that's... your justification for brainwashing little kids... to kill? Woah there, just making sure where on the crazy scale to mark you down... * Goes to think * (So if 1 is normal and 10 is crazy, that would place tinribz at... damn I can't do this one in my head *goes to take out his calculator*...)

On a more serious note, you can show me all of the pictures you want, but that doesn't show anything. The question is, why were those lands seized? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_WarYes I published the maps showing Arab populations in Palestine compared to Jewish and those showing the agreed Jewish territory and then the contrasting invaded territory in response to your video of a 3 year old Jew hater, not of course to your argument that Palestine was uninhabited and desolate and the Jews were ?promised? the land in some treaty.

And I'm crazy? Having read post #231 I rest my case.

I am sure Israel does want peace and I believe 90% of the Lebanese do too, the 10% will mostly be Israel's bitter victims and a hardcore of extremists you get in every society. But your attempts to justify killing and maiming women / children / civilians are pathetic. If your enemy is hiding behind a child then you find another way or call your self a terrorist. That simple.

Why were the lands seized? No doubt to subdue the enemy, sensible. The question is why was it looted, the indigenous civilians herded out and partitioned, and the land never returned. That was the fatal mistake in all this.

[Magajy]

I really find it suprising that people think that somehow the Palestinians and Lebaneese have no right at all to defend themselves, but Isreal does.

I personally don't have anything against Jews as a people, neither do I against any group or nation. But I don't know of any nation that will just lay back and rest after their country is taken over by foreingers that claim they used to live there thousands of years ago; be it Palestinians, Africans, Europeans or Asians. We fought Colonialisim in Africa, Asia and S. America.

If you look at the way Isreal was created after WWII, the aim was to create a 'Jewish state'. Now that is partly the problem. An ethnically 'pure' nation that will always have an overwhelming Jewish majority. The main problem is that this state is not going to be created on a virgin land but on land that people were living. And you expect these 'hosts' of this new nation to do nothing?

Poeple also make noises that Syria and Iran are supporting hezbollah; yet have no issues with US support for Isreal. What are your motives? Justice? Doesn't look like.

Every death of a human being is one too many, be it Jewish, Palestinian or otherwise. Muslims and Jews have lived peace fully in villages and towns for a long time in the middle east. When the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492, they were welcomed by the Ottomans. Crisis always sparks when there is injustice, namely expulsions, land grabbing etc.

We will see peace only when one party is exterminated or they both sit at a table and come to a FAIR solution, not one imposed by the US or anyone. But with Rice's talk of 'a new middle east' (supposedly imaged in Washington), the second more humane soultion has no chance in the near future.

We can point to one act or yet another and blame one party or the other for it, but this crisis is bigger than such single but connected acts. It is more about an overall issue of justice and fair play. We either accept that we are all human and should be fair to each other or make ourselves monsters by cleansing our neighbourhood of people we don't like.

[tinribz]

People also make noises that Syria and Iran are supporting Hezbollah; yet have no issues with US support for Israel. What are your motives? Justice? Doesn't look like.Supporting a group who's aims are to exterminate an entire ethnic group are a lot different to supporting one acting justifiably to defend its self. But is Israel doing that at the moment? That is the point.

[Magajy]

Nasrallah:"For 23 years, we have been talking to our people, motivating them, talking about martyrdom, the honor of martyrdom, and the place of the martyrs. Do the Zionists, or those who encourage them, believe that I, or anyone in the Hizbullah leadership, fears martyrdom? We love martyrdom. We take precautions in order to prevent Israel from making any gains. But on the personal level, and as a personal aspiration, each and every one of us hopes to be destined to martyrdom at the hands of those people [i.e. the Jews] , the killers of the prophets and the messengers, and most hostile to the believers, as it says in the Koran."
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD121106

http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1200

How can there ever be a peace process with people whose motto is "You love life, we love death"?

Once again we see that the problem here is Islam. Hamas and Hezbollah (not to mention Iran) have been exposed for what they truly are: Islamic genocidal maniacs. Resistance movements my ass. How some people can still defend and show sympathy towards movements and regimes inspired by an ideology that openly calls for genocide is beyond me. People like Ahmadinejad are not making things up when they say that it is every muslim's duty to wipe out Israel and ALL Israelis worldwide, including their allies.

You don't have to believe me when I say that Islam calls for total genocide against Jews. Simply ask ANY, and I mean ANY, of your muslim friends about the following Hadith and watch in shock and amazement as they remain silent:

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour [i.e. Judgement Day] will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."


And did you also study the history well enough to know that there were many jews that became muslims during the life of the prophet, lived, prayed and ate with him?

Look at the particular hadith you have mentioned, does it looks like an instruction? It is a prophecy, saying, before the end of the world there will be a war between Zionists and Muslims, simple. Just as he also prophecised that before the end of the world people will be able to travel by flying, and also that poeple will compete in a sport of building very tall buildings.

Islam says killing anyone with no just reason is absolutely wrong, and there are only three such reasons in Islamic Jurisprudence pricipal of which is murder, even so this has to be done by the state. Islams calls Jews and Christians people of the book refering to the Bible, and holds them in high esteem. Jesus was jewish, so were Moses, David, Aaron, Jonah, Joseph, Jacob, Solomon and many others, and a Muslim is not one if he has no love for them. Being Jewish is like being Irish, it is just a race.

However, Muslims are given a right to defend their life and property to the point of death, and if you die defending such, you have done nothing wrong.

Check your facts and don't brand a billion and half people on wishful thoughts.

[Magajy]

Supporting a group who's aims are to exterminate an entire ethnic group are a lot different to supporting one acting justifiably to defend its self. But is Israel doing that at the moment? That is the point.

Which of the two groups are you talking about; i.e. the one trying to exterminate the second. From where i stand it looks like the IDF is the one doing the extermination.

Hezbollah never existed before the Isreali occupation of Lebanon in the early eighties. I haven't heard them say the want to exterminate Jews, all they want is their land, to get their land they have to drive out the occupier, namely Isreal. And point out the difference most poeple miss, Isreal is not equal to Jews i.e Isreal <> Jews, Isreal != Jews.

And about self defence, do not the Palestinians have a right to defend them selves from occupation? And that doesn't include killing people in the process.

[PenguinHunter]

5 armies against one, not to mention that that one was not even established? And all you can come up with is "highly complicated"? :confused: (doesn't know whether to laugh or cry)

Again... unfortunately wikipedia, awesome as it is, encourages lazy research. The five armies against one does not equal hordes of Arabs against a tiny pocket of Jews.

Most of the Arab armies were squabbling amongst each other. All except the Arab Legion were ill-equiped, more of a gesture of support for the "arab cause" than actual useful army units. The numbers of Arabs and Jews in the 1948 war were roughly equal.

I suggest reading the following excerpt: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/Israel%20and%20the%20Arab%20Coalition%20in%2019481.html

Some quotes, because it is quite long:


As far as the military balance is concerned, it was always assumed that the Arabs enjoyed overwhelming numerical superiority. The war was accordingly depicted as one between the few against the many, as a desperate, tenacious, and heroic struggle for survival against horrifyingly heavy odds. The desperate plight and the heroism of the Jewish fighters are not in question. Nor is the fact that they had inferior military hardware at their disposal, at least until the first truce, when illicit arms supplies from Czechoslovakia decisively tipped the scales in their favour. But in mid-May 1948 the total number of Arab troops, both regular and irregular, operating in the Palestine theatre was under 25,000, whereas the Israel Defence Force (IDF) fielded over 35,000 troops. By mid-July the IDF mobilized 65,000 men under arms, and be December its numbers had reached a peak of 96,441. The Arab states also reinforced their armies, but they could not match this rate of increase. Thus, at each stage of the war, the IDF outnumbered all the Arab forces arrayed against it, and, after the first round of fighting, it outgunned them too. The final outcome of the war was therefore not a miracle but a faithful reflection of the underlying military balance in the Palestine theatre. In this war, as in most wars, the stronger side prevailed.[3]


Yet, the Jewish propaganda machine greatly exaggerated the size and quality of the invading forces. A typical account of the war of independence, by a prominent Israeli diplomat, goes as follows: ?Five Arab armies and contingents from two more, equipped with modern tanks, artillery, and warplanes ? invaded Israel from north, east, and south. Total war was forces on the Yishuv under the most difficult conditions.?[4]


The five Arab states who joined in the invasion of Palestine were Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq; while the two contingents came from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. All these states, however, only sent an expeditionary force to Palestine, keeping the bulk of their army at home.


The first round of fighting, from 15 May until 11 June, was a critical period during which the fate of the newly-born Jewish state seemed to hang in the balance. During this period the Jewish community suffered heavy causalities, civilian as well as military; it reeled from the shock of contact with regular Arab armies; and it suffered an ordeal which left indelible marks on the national psyche. For the people who lived through this ordeal, the sense of being me?atim mul rabim, the few against the many, could not have been more real. During this period, the IDF was locked in a battle on all fronts, against the five invading armies. The IDF had numerical superiority in manpower over all the Arab expeditionary forces put together, but it suffered from a chronic weakness in firepower, a weakness that was not rectified until the arrival of illicit arms shipments from the Eastern bloc during the first truce. The sense of isolation and vulnerability was overwhelming. And it was during this relatively brief but deeply traumatic period that the collective Israeli memory of the 1948 War was formed.[23]


This survey of Israel?s strategy and tactics in dealing with the Arab coalition in 1948 is not intended to belittle Israel?s victory but to place it in its proper political and military contest. And when one probes the politics of the war and not merely at the military operations, the picture that emerges is not the familiar one of Israel standing alone against the combined might of the entire Arab world but rather one of a remarkable convergence between the interests of Israel and those of Transjordan against the other members of the Arab coalition, and especially against the Palestinians

There are lengthy discussions of the various conflicting Arab views - especially those involving the King of Transjordan. This was written by Avi Shlaim, an Israeli and a Jew but, most importantly, a historian.