Is there a topic dealing with the Israel/Hezbollah conflict?

[GuilewasNK]

If not, then let this be the official topic. I didn't see anything here or in the off-topic board.

[yester]

If not, then let this be the official topic. I didn't see anything here or in the off-topic board.

Well, only that much. I was listening last time to KPFK (90.7 Los Angeles) and i am suprised to hear such words as Zionist's and Massmurder in regards to Israel.
Perhaps people don't know about the conflict at all, or just ignore the facts. Nobody even aks why it actually happens.
A very poor and sad discussion is going on.

[GuilewasNK]

My greatest fear is that no one will be able to look past the religious aspects of the conflict. This has the potential to draw a lot countires into the conflict.

[Eviltude]

As far as I know, some Lebanese soldiers of Hezbollah's crossed the border and somehow or another a battle broke out. 8 Israeli's were killed and 2 captured, and Israeli issued a warning and then started firing rockets and dropping bombs in beirut.

[alonzomourning23]

We could do so much to prevent such conflict if we just threatened to withhold funds from Israel if it gets too aggressive. This whole "we won't tell Israel what to do" bs doesn't work with the rest of the nations we deal with.

[elprincipe]

We could do so much to prevent such conflict if we just threatened to withhold funds from Israel if it gets too aggressive. This whole "we won't tell Israel what to do" bs doesn't work with the rest of the nations we deal with.

So are we to assume that, once again, according to you this situation is Israel's fault for existing?

[alonzomourning23]

It's Israel's fault for going ballistic. It is totally disproportionate and the intentional efforts to make life worse for civilians is criminal. They're a stable, powerful, democratic government, more should be expected from them. This isn't some nutcase dictator or a far right element, it is the government itself.

[Liquid 2]

It's Israel's fault for going ballistic. It is totally disproportionate and the intentional efforts to make life worse for civilians is criminal.I completely agree. I have family who are in Lebanon right now, and its god damn ridiculous that Israel bombed the airport so that they can't fly back to the US. My uncle (on my dad's side), for instance, had to drive way the fuck out to Jordan to be able to fly back, and my aunt (on my mom's side) still hasn't figured out what she's going to do.
Israel also bombed roads connecting Beirut to other parts of Lebanon, deliberately attacking infrastructure and civilians (23 civilians were murdered when they were trying to seek refuge).
But wait! There's more! Israel destroyed Palestine's only fully functional power plant, knocking out power for 45% of the population, affecting everything from sewage to business to people themselves.

Israel's just making things worse for themselves and everyone in the region.

[Metal Boss]

That must be pretty tough for you to have family there... Damn

[SpazX]

I always wondered why Israel felt bombing the shit out of everything solves their problems. I can see some strategic bombing of known hideouts and what not, but fuck.

[RedvsBlue]

It's Israel's fault for going ballistic. It is totally disproportionate and the intentional efforts to make life worse for civilians is criminal. They're a stable, powerful, democratic government, more should be expected from them. This isn't some nutcase dictator or a far right element, it is the government itself.

No shit. See the problem in this situation is that there's what's called a justified response and a reasonable response. Is Israel justified in making attacks in retaliation for what's been done? its debatable but probably because their action is in response to something that was done to them. Is it reasonable to bomb the shit out of a country because a terrorist organization is operating on that country's soil? Hell-fucking-no it isn't. It would be like a bouncer throwing a guy out of a bar for being to drunk, beating the shit out of him, shooting him, and then going to town on the guy's car. Is he justified in his respone? yeah because the other guy started it. Is that a reasonable response? Hell no it ain't.

Like LiquidNight said above, they're attacking anything and everything Lebanon for no good reason. Hezbollah is not the same thing as Lebanon. They are a terrorist group and political party rolled up into one that operates independently of the government. Do you see the U.S. attacking the Iraqi government and civilians everytime Al Qaeda takes a soldier hostage or attacks with a roadside bomb?

Israel reminds me of that kid in elementary school that would pick on every kid and try and get into fights with everyone but then as soon as someone stood up to that kid he'd say "I'm gonna get my brother to beat you up." America's the brother.

[Quillion]

No shit. See the problem in this situation is that there's what's called a justified response and a reasonable response. Is Israel justified in making attacks in retaliation for what's been done? its debatable but probably because their action is in response to something that was done to them. Is it reasonable to bomb the shit out of a country because a terrorist organization is operating on that country's soil? Hell-fucking-no it isn't. It would be like a bouncer throwing a guy out of a bar for being to drunk, beating the shit out of him, shooting him, and then going to town on the guy's car. Is he justified in his respone? yeah because the other guy started it. Is that a reasonable response? Hell no it ain't.

Like LiquidNight said above, they're attacking anything and everything Lebanon for no good reason. Hezbollah is not the same thing as Lebanon. They are a terrorist group and political party rolled up into one that operates independently of the government. Do you see the U.S. attacking the Iraqi government and civilians everytime Al Qaeda takes a soldier hostage or attacks with a roadside bomb?

Israel reminds me of that kid in elementary school that would pick on every kid and try and get into fights with everyone but then as soon as someone stood up to that kid he'd say "I'm gonna get my brother to beat you up." America's the brother.

I don't think you understand the situation completely. An analogy may help.

Hypothetically, there's a militant cultural group in Mexico that believes the America southwest rightfully belongs to their nation, and having it in the hands of a white-skinned group of people is intolerable. America is more than willing to co-exist with Mexico, but this group will only accept the destruction of America, at least the states in question. This intolerable hatred goes back at least sixty years, grounded in beliefs over two thousand years old.

This Mexican group functions within the country of Mexico, moving into politics and taking legitimate power, and is supported by elements in the government in guatemala and belize with munitions and supplies. Nothing is done by the Mexican government to prevent this group from arming, they even refuse to police the border with America.

To interrupt a working peace process this militant group strikes in an unprovoked raid across the US-Mexico Border, killing 8 American soldiers and taking 2 others hostage, with the intent of transferring them to Belize for toture and execution.

The Mexican government, by doing nothing to stop this group from operating, is condoning the actions it takes. Is the government of America not justified in striking methods of transportation to prevent the hostages from being taken to another nation, even striking the infrastructure itself to weaken this militant group's foundation?

[alonzomourning23]

Quillion, you are mixing up Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories. Your example applies to different ones at different times.

Though, in Gaza, it's not like Israel actually gave palestinians control over the air or borders, or stopped assisinations, or agrees to go back to 67 borders. And it's not like either the new Lebanese government or the Palestinians are militarily strong enough to do anything about these groups militarily, especially since they have public support from vast social networks and their fight against (and success in Lebanon) against the occupying forces.

And, while unfortunate and a mistake (for moderates, conflict always seems to result in the extremists emerging even stronger, which seems to be why they did this), the attack by Hamas was hardly unprovoked. Hezbollah's actions were though.

The conflict is also a little more than simply they're Jews, as they fought Jordan before Israel. The occupiers are largely Jewish now, but to say the Palestinians would be happy with a similar occupying force composed of Muslims doesn't have much merit.

[GuilewasNK]

I always wondered why Israel felt bombing the shit out of everything solves their problems. I can see some strategic bombing of known hideouts and what not, but fuck.

Probably for the same reasons that Hezbollah and Hamas feel bombings serve their ends. It's a vicious circle.

Unfortunately, when a terrorist organization can mobilize and operate "independently" from a government the civilians will pay a price in regards to retaliation. That doesn't make it right, but it seems like a lot of people are giving Hezbollah a free pass as if they had absolutely nothing to do with this at all. Israel is in the ultimate "damned if you don't, damned if you do" situation. I think the fact that Hezbollah went into Israel to capture the soldiers meant that you weren't going to get a mild response. I don't think any country in the world would sit for too long without doing something militarily if someone crosssed into their borders to capture soldiers. I do think Israel should have listened to the ceasefire request a little more closely, but until Hezbollah tones down their rhetoric I don't see the Israeli government taking it seriously. Hezbollah and Israel are both doing things that are wrong and damaging to civilians. I don't think either realize that this could explode into something catastrophically historic.

[alonzomourning23]

Part of it is Hezbollah is a radical element in Lebanese society and a minority party. They are too strong for Lebanon to do anything about and control an essentially autonomous area due to this. To hold them to the same standard as a democratically elected, stable government like Israel doesn't make much sense. And Israel has essentially in a massive military campaign over a small border skirmish.

The same goes in Gaza, as the factions that committed the action were outside the control of the ruling Hamas party or Fatah. They were controlled by extremists outside the country, likely to torpedo negotiations for peace.

[GuilewasNK]

Part of it is Hezbollah is a radical element in Lebanese society and a minority party. They are too strong for Lebanon to do anything about and control an essentially autonomous area due to this. To hold them to the same standard as a democratically elected, stable government like Israel doesn't make much sense. And Israel has essentially in a massive military campaign over a small border skirmish.


So hold them to no standard at all? That fact a radical element has that kind of leverage is very dangerous and is a big part of the problem.

Why wouldn't Lebanon ask for help from neighors or the UN in removing Hezbollah? It's because it would drive a wedge in that country that would start civil war. Yet another "catch 22". Hezbollah gives food and money to supporters and that will ensure loyalty.

I will say this, this is why democracy isn't a be all and end all solution in this world. Just because there is a democracy doesn't mean that things will be sunshine and lollipops. In an ideal world I wish we would have a strict policy of non-intereference, but that is an idealistic wish that will never happen (and is a dangerous position to take anyway). usually a third party that interject without be asked becomes the target. It's like that in personal conflict and international conflict alike.

[yester]

So are we to assume that, once again, according to you this situation is Israel's fault for existing?

See, that was the point i wanted to bring out.
In fact, it is not Israels fault at all. The Hisbolla does nothing else, than bombing civilians and shoot rockets. It possesses a real threat to Israel.
And not to forget the agenda of the Hisbolla/Hamas. There is no existing right for the state of Israel.
It just blows me away to hear in the radio that Israel is the problem and be a Massmurderer by bombing Lebanon.
(well maybe i standing alone with my view)

[Liquid 2]

It just blows me away to hear in the radio that Israel is the problem and be a Massmurderer by bombing Lebanon.
(well maybe i standing alone with my view)I personally consider it mass murder when civilians are given only 2 hours to leave town and are then bombed when trying to escape after the UN denied giving them refuge

[yester]

I personally consider it mass murder when civilians are given only 2 hours to leave town and are then bombed when trying to escape after the UN denied giving them refuge

So then you consider the Hisbolla/Hamas to be Massmurder too. They don't give a shit about civilians eihter.

[Liquid 2]

So then you consider the Hisbolla/Hamas to be Massmurder too. They don't give a shit about civilians eihter.I'm not saying Hezbollah and Hamas are right, but I'm saying that Israel, as a country, is being criminal in acting like the terrorists that they are defending themselves against.

[HumanSnatcher]

Israel reminds me of that kid in elementary school that would pick on every kid and try and get into fights with everyone but then as soon as someone stood up to that kid he'd say "I'm gonna get my brother to beat you up." America's the brother.

You so beat me to it, at least with a better analogy. To me it just seems that Israel always trys to start shit then pulls a Leeroy Jenkins and screams "its not my fault"

[rodeojones903]

Israel is trying to put an end to it though. By just retaliating a punch with a punch is not going to get attack on them to stop.

[alonzomourning23]

So hold them to no standard at all? That fact a radical element has that kind of leverage is very dangerous and is a big part of the problem.

The government isn't even 2 years old. If it had been strong enough to take action safely, or in existance for a long time, then you may have a point in regard to a massive attack against Hezbollah (though not against Lebanon as a whole). That's not the case here.

Hezbollah engaged in a small border skirmish, an assault of this size is not an appropriate response. And, to intentionally target civilians in response is not in any way justifiable, especially when the group that attacked is not even under the control of the government.

Hezbollah was created as a result of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. That invasion was to destroy Arafat and Fatah. In exile, not only did Arafat emerge even stronger, but Hezbollah continued to grow throughout the conflict. There's not reason to believe that this conflict will result in the goal Israel wants. There's no reason to believe that a former occupying power can wipe out a group permanently by engaging in the tactics that got it started. Israel does not have a history of being able to do that.

Why wouldn't Lebanon ask for help from neighors or the UN in removing Hezbollah? It's because it would drive a wedge in that country that would start civil war. Yet another "catch 22". Hezbollah gives food and money to supporters and that will ensure loyalty.

I will say this, this is why democracy isn't a be all and end all solution in this world. Just because there is a democracy doesn't mean that things will be sunshine and lollipops. In an ideal world I wish we would have a strict policy of non-intereference, but that is an idealistic wish that will never happen (and is a dangerous position to take anyway). usually a third party that interject without be asked becomes the target. It's like that in personal conflict and international conflict alike.

Well, there's also the history of occupation (Israel and Syria) in Lebanon, inviting a new force in to kick out a force that was crucial in liberating your country is also a tricky thing to do.

But, while I personally think that Hezbollah wanted a response and at most Israel should have made a smaller, localized, response, I do not think Israel has any right to begin such a massive, nationwide, attack. They are destabilizing the opposition to Hezbollah in the process. Any short term improvement will likely be overshadowed by the long term risks. That seems to happen a lot when Israel behaves like this.

Lebanons democratic government was young and improving, along with their infrastructure. Democracy is not a magical cure, it takes time, effort, economic well being and luck. Israel is damaging the possibility at a stable Lebanon in the long term due to short term issues.

[munch]

But, while I personally think that Hezbollah wanted a response and at most Israel should have made a smaller, localized, response, I do not think Israel has any right to begin such a massive, nationwide, attack. They are destabilizing the opposition to Hezbollah in the process. Any short term improvement will likely be overshadowed by the long term risks. That seems to happen a lot when Israel behaves like this.



What you are getting at here is a question of symmetric vs. asymetric threats. In the position Israel is in, they can not afford to respond symetrically; they have to respond in assymetry. A small localized response would not have worked because Israel wants to send a message that if you mess with us we will go raise the stakes.

That's not supporting Israel, but a bitter truth due to their precarious nature in the Middle East.

[GuilewasNK]

The Lebanese PM wants a ceasefire yet Hezbollah vows to ramp their attacks up even further. How can Israel accept a ceasefire from the Lebanese government when Hezbollah doesn't recognize that desire from the PM themselves? If Israel were to accept a ceasefire without assurances that Hezbollah will honor it, that has the possiblity of putting Israel in a passive position while Hezbollah still plans further attacks or abductions.

The democratic government is what helped Hezbollah gain such influence in Lebanon in the first place. That is why I am not in favor of anymore democracy experiments in the middle east. The only way the region will improve is if they settle things with as little outside influence as possible. Having ideals thrust upon regions (especially regions in which religion shapes most policy) is a poor strategy. The people have to be able to get democracy themselves for it to really mean anything.

[Ikohn4ever]

I am not a fan of what Israel's doing, but they really dont have any options. All of you complaining about Israel arent really talking about other options. No other countries would stand for another country's political party coming into your borders and taking your men. Also are they supposed to just let themselves be shelled with rockets and gunfire while the process continues.


There is no real easy answer to end this, but all I know is Israel is able to pull out and stop firing when they want, but I know it is not the same with Hez.

I dont know where this is going to end, but I really dont see an end in sight, and I just worry about how far its going to esculate to.

[Quillion]

The government isn't even 2 years old. If it had been strong enough to take action safely, or in existance for a long time, then you may have a point in regard to a massive attack against Hezbollah (though not against Lebanon as a whole). That's not the case here.

Hezbollah engaged in a small border skirmish, an assault of this size is not an appropriate response. And, to intentionally target civilians in response is not in any way justifiable, especially when the group that attacked is not even under the control of the government.

Hezbollah was created as a result of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. That invasion was to destroy Arafat and Fatah. In exile, not only did Arafat emerge even stronger, but Hezbollah continued to grow throughout the conflict. There's not reason to believe that this conflict will result in the goal Israel wants. There's no reason to believe that a former occupying power can wipe out a group permanently by engaging in the tactics that got it started. Israel does not have a history of being able to do that.



Well, there's also the history of occupation (Israel and Syria) in Lebanon, inviting a new force in to kick out a force that was crucial in liberating your country is also a tricky thing to do.

But, while I personally think that Hezbollah wanted a response and at most Israel should have made a smaller, localized, response, I do not think Israel has any right to begin such a massive, nationwide, attack. They are destabilizing the opposition to Hezbollah in the process. Any short term improvement will likely be overshadowed by the long term risks. That seems to happen a lot when Israel behaves like this.

Lebanons democratic government was young and improving, along with their infrastructure. Democracy is not a magical cure, it takes time, effort, economic well being and luck. Israel is damaging the possibility at a stable Lebanon in the long term due to short term issues.

So you're talking about appeasement? What are the long term effects if Hezbollah is allowed to strike with no response at all? They won't stop, and the lack of resistance would just embolden them further. Lebanon won't become stable at all with armed militias functioning autonomously inside their borders.

If the Lebanese government wants Israel to not attempt to solve the problem, they should solve the problem themselves. It doesn't help that other nations are supporting this militia either.

[RedvsBlue]

So you're talking about appeasement? What are the long term effects if Hezbollah is allowed to strike with no response at all? They won't stop, and the lack of resistance would just embolden them further. Lebanon won't become stable at all with armed militias functioning autonomously inside their borders.

If the Lebanese government wants Israel to not attempt to solve the problem, they should solve the problem themselves. It doesn't help that other nations are supporting this militia either.

And bombing Lebanese civilian buildings such as the airport solves the problem?

Why is it so difficult for people to accept that almost any time it comes to Israel, both sides are at fault?

[GuilewasNK]

And bombing Lebanese civilian buildings such as the airport solves the problem?

Why is it so difficult for people to accept that almost any time it comes to Israel, both sides are at fault?

Probably for the same reason why it is difficult for some to admit the terrorists overract AS WELL as the Israeli force. It happens a lot when a situation is this political and emotional.

The reason they are bombing the infrastructure is to cripple Hezbollah. But, it's a lose/lose situation. They are bombing airports and roads to primarily cutoff the outside support to Hezbollah, but it does affect innocents who want to escape. It's not like bombing the base of another army because terrorists just don't have designated basesand that sort of thing. For all the talk of restraint not being used by Israel, they have actually shown more than they are given credit for (so far). They could easily turn Lebanon into a parking lot at anytime if they really wanted to. Heck, even Hezbollah can still turn it up a notch if they want.

I did see where France and the US are trying to come up with some evacuation plan (to Cyprus IIRC) but it will be tough. If anything, a ceasefire from both sides to evacuate civilians would be a good starting gesture but the rhetoric is getting worse and will make that difficult.


On a side note, if the big oil companies in the US want to still make money in the future, they need to get in on the ground floor in regards to alternative fuels, especially ethanol. They have the money to develop these fuels, that way we don't need to feel the pinch at the drop of every damn conflict. Hell, the government could even give them incentives to develop it. We are going to need it a LOT sooner than later.

.

[alonzomourning23]

The democratic government is what helped Hezbollah gain such influence in Lebanon in the first place.

Hezbollah is widely viewed as the reason Israel ended its occupation. When they advanced to the border they set up an entire social organization, providing schools, hosptials etc. to the population. That's why it has support, not due to democracy. Israel's initial attack led to its creation, and Israel's withdrawal gave it immense power in Lebanon.

What you are getting at here is a question of symmetric vs. asymetric threats. In the position Israel is in, they can not afford to respond symetrically; they have to respond in assymetry. A small localized response would not have worked because Israel wants to send a message that if you mess with us we will go raise the stakes.

Which is exactly what Hezbollah wanted. They wanted to force a confrontation, since they believed it to be inevitable anyway. Attack on purely Hezbollah targets would weaken them, while causing damage to their support for causing the return of Israel. But targetting other areas and civilians play into the hands of Hezbollah. An attack of Hezbollah, not civilians, not Lebanon, would do the most to harm Hezbollah.

So you're talking about appeasement? What are the long term effects if Hezbollah is allowed to strike with no response at all? They won't stop, and the lack of resistance would just embolden them further. Lebanon won't become stable at all with armed militias functioning autonomously inside their borders.

If the Lebanese government wants Israel to not attempt to solve the problem, they should solve the problem themselves. It doesn't help that other nations are supporting this militia either.

How is it appeasement to strengthen the government? That can only have a negative impact on Hezbollah. There's nothing the government can currently do here, they are not strong enough. All attempts should be made to strengthen them, that's the only long term way to rid Israel of the threat of Hezbollah (or any group that would take its place). Military action was already tried and didn't do it.

[Ikohn4ever]

Hezbollah is widely viewed as the reason Israel ending its occupation. That's why it has support, not due to democracy.



Which is exactly what Hezbollah wanted. They wanted to force a confrontation, since they believed it to be inevitable anyway. Attack on purely Hezbollah targets would weaken them, while causing damage to their support for causing the return of Israel. But targetting other areas and civilians play into the hands of Hezbollah.



How is it appeasement to strengthen the government? That can only have a negative impact on Hezbollah. There's nothing the government can currently do here, they are not strong enough. All attempts should be made to strengthen them, that's the only long term way to rid Israel of the threat of Hezbollah (or any group that would take its place). Military action was already tried and didn't do it.



all what you said is fine and all but kind of solution do you have right now. They kidnap Israeli citizens, and will still attack even if there was a cease fire. Should they just sit back and have rockets fired into their country? What is your peaceful solution. I am dovish by nature, but there is a time when you cant just sit back and have a cease fire when the other group doesnt honor it.
Its easy to took about best case scenario and what they should do, but this isnt the time for that right now.

[alonzomourning23]

I've long been in favor of international forces controlling the border between Palestine and Israel, and would support that here. But I don't see that happening.

The best solution, in my mind, is to release some Palestinian prisoners, like Barghouti (author of the prisoners document), who will strengthen the moderates and increase the chance for negotiations, and his popularity among the population will make it difficult for the extremist factions to resist without harming their image. Israel must also make this offer public, as a behind the scenes offer does no damage to their image if they reject it. I feel that would be a nightmare for the extremists, since the capturing of soldiers was designed to torpedo the very actions Barghouti, Fatah, Haniyeh (and the moderate side of Hamas) were encouraging.

And agreement should be reached with Lebanon to allow international forces to patrol the border between Israel and Lebanon. Then aid to Lebanons military should be increased, with the condition that they would reign in Hezbollah. They are not in the position to agree to totally disarm it at this point, but it would set the groundwork for future actions to that effect.

Again though, I don't see this happening.

[CaseyRyback]

Releasing prisoners in trade for captured soldiers sets a horrible precedent. If they know this tactic will work, what makes you think that the same thing will not happen in the future?

[GuilewasNK]

Releasing prisoners in trade for captured soldiers sets a horrible precedent. If they know this tactic will work, what makes you think that the same thing will not happen in the future?

I agree.

All that does is justify the Hezbollah's actions as a legitmate bargining tool.

[alonzomourning23]

Releasing prisoners in trade for captured soldiers sets a horrible precedent. If they know this tactic will work, what makes you think that the same thing will not happen in the future?

Well, the precedent was already set years ago.

But the extremists behind the attacks wanted to stop peace negotiations. By releasing prisoners who are popular with the public, and strongly support negotiations, you are harming the extremists. You are taking actions that bolster what the attack was trying to stop.

Does it increase the potential of another soldier being captured? Not nearly as much as doing something along the lines of what has been called for (releasing women and children), but more so than not doing anything. But it strengthens the moderates and reduces the ability for extremists to implement their agenda, and essentially causes the attempted prisoner swap to backfire. And if you make the offer public, they'd have a hard time refusing it.

But reducing long term conflict, which bolstering the moderates has the potential to do, will also reduce the potential for future soldiers being captured.

The prisoner swap I propose deals with the situation in Gaza, doing one with Hezbollah would be harmful.

[Quillion]

I believe Russia has already said they may be willing to send soldiers in a peacekeeping force to the border with Lebanon. Give them command, and send troops from a few more nations as well.

Hezbollah would not attack a force composed of mostly Russian troops.

[GuilewasNK]

Hezbollah would not attack a force composed of mostly Russian troops.

I dunno. I find it odd that Russia is eager to send troops for any reason.

[elprincipe]

Well, the precedent was already set years ago.

But the extremists behind the attacks wanted to stop peace negotiations. By releasing prisoners who are popular with the public, and strongly support negotiations, you are harming the extremists. You are taking actions that bolster what the attack was trying to stop.

Does it increase the potential of another soldier being captured? Not nearly as much as doing something along the lines of what has been called for (releasing women and children), but more so than not doing anything. But it strengthens the moderates and reduces the ability for extremists to implement their agenda, and essentially causes the attempted prisoner swap to backfire. And if you make the offer public, they'd have a hard time refusing it.

But reducing long term conflict, which bolstering the moderates has the potential to do, will also reduce the potential for future soldiers being captured.

The prisoner swap I propose deals with the situation in Gaza, doing one with Hezbollah would be harmful.

You've gone off the deep end on this one, alonzo. What you are advocating is Israel release women arrested when trying to blow up Israeli citizens in cafes in exchange for Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hamas militants who attacked an Israeli checkpoint in Israeli territory. All your solutions involve giving the terrorists what they want and then somehow they'll stop hating the Israelis, stop trying to blow them up, stop attacking into Israeli territory and kidnapping soldiers, stop firing rockets at civilian areas on purpose, etc.

[AYATOLA]

My view on this situation is simple, Israel needs to learn that through their attacks they are merely playing into many hands and PR traps that have been set for them. The response that Israel has sent is their choice, but an extremely stupid one at that. Disabiling the infrastructure and economy of a nation will only get all its citizens to hate you.
So what hands is Israel playing into? The hands of a movement that has been chanting Israeli War crimes, Israeli killing of the innocent, Israeli and US hate and utter disdain for “Arab lands”. Israeli has merely fueled a fire that will come back to burn and western influence in the mid-east, why? Because it is no secret that the west supports Israel and allows them to do as they please. So When I see politicians (both democrats and republicans) here in the states saying “let Israel decide” or “Israel should respond this way” my heart goes out to the guy in Iraq that is there not because of his politics but because of patriotism is now going to have to deal with even more PO’ed insurgents and extremists. I am surprised at the restraint shown by other terror factions, and if unified these faction could IMO dominate the mid-east (entirely different topic I know).
So what needs to be done? Israel has to play the victim. That is the only way you will win the moderates in the mid-east. Playing the bully will only get you more bloodshed and more hate. The Christians and other religious affiliations, in lebanon cannot be happy with current Israeli actions. If Israel doesn’t win the people of the international community Lebanon will be Israel’s Iraq (given it does go to war).


It’s my opinion that Iran did initiate this attack but know it seems that the US (particularly the US media) is trying to tie Iran and pull Iran Militarily into this conflict.

“the missels fired upon the Israel where Iranian made”

So the fuck what, the missles that have been dropped on palistineans and know Lebanese where made by Uncle Sam. This correlation is so biased that it is depressing at best.

It’s no lie that Israel is backed and funded by the US so why can’t a part of lebanon’s govn’t be funded by Iran?

Because it’s a “terrorists” organization? Who is to define terrorists as Alonso has already pointed out Hezbollah was born from the whom of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and has evolved into an organic component of shite society through not only Lebanon, but the mid-east.

Because they attack civilians? Hasn’t Israel done the same not only now but in the past as well?

Just my thoughts, I hate the idea that biased media leads to biased opinion but it is a sad truth even for me. Who is to blame at the end of all this? Its every players fault from the US to Iran, this has been building up and to quote all the media outlets “Israel has been planning this for 5 years” 5 years of planning to destroy a nation, 5 yrs of planning and all both sides can do is bomb civilians? 5 years of planning and centuries lack of common sense humanity. We as people are fuck-ed at best.

[alonzomourning23]

I don't understand something. On thursday Israel called on Lebanon to deploy forces to control Hezbollah, and followed that up by bombing Lebanese air bases. New reports indicate that Israel attack 2 more of the Lebanonese governments military bases. I see no rational explanation for that, if you assume that Israel's only goal is to destroy Hezbollah and free soldiers. How do you call for a nation to reign in a militant group while simultaneously attacking its military capabilities?

You've gone off the deep end on this one, alonzo. What you are advocating is Israel release women arrested when trying to blow up Israeli citizens in cafes in exchange for Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hamas militants who attacked an Israeli checkpoint in Israeli territory. All your solutions involve giving the terrorists what they want and then somehow they'll stop hating the Israelis, stop trying to blow them up, stop attacking into Israeli territory and kidnapping soldiers, stop firing rockets at civilian areas on purpose, etc.


I think you need to reread my posts. I said release Barghouti and his like. Release the powerful moderates, the opposition to the extremists. if, in Iraq, we had al-sistani as a prisoner and Muqtada Al-Sadr goes and captures 2 soldiers and demands the release of women prisoners. Instead, we offer up Al-Sistani and a few others with similar viewpoints. Would he really refuse that offer? Wouldn't he be almost forced to accept considering his position among the population? With Al-Sistani free, does that help or hurt the more extremist elements in Iraq?

Do you think the extremists in Hamas that ordered the attack would be pleased with the release of moderates who want negotiations and coexistance?

You won't get them to stop hating Israel any time soon, and you shouldn't expect that. I don't understand how you could live in Palestine and not hate Israel, look at what goes on there. At the same time I don't understand how you can live in Israel and not hate Hamas (at least assuming you are among the religious majority in the 2 areas). There's not much you can do barring some magical change.

But moderation and coexistance is reasonable, bolstering the strength of the moderates helps accomplish that.

[elprincipe]

It’s my opinion that Iran did initiate this attack but know it seems that the US (particularly the US media) is trying to tie Iran and pull Iran Militarily into this conflict.

“the missels fired upon the Israel where Iranian made”

So the fuck what, the missles that have been dropped on palistineans and know Lebanese where made by Uncle Sam. This correlation is so biased that it is depressing at best.

Selling arms to legitimate nation-states is a lot different than giving them to terrorist organizations with the purpose of attacking civilians. The point being made when people say the missiles are Iranian-made is that Iran is arming Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, to attack Israeli civilians (and military obviously).

It’s no lie that Israel is backed and funded by the US so why can’t a part of lebanon’s govn’t be funded by Iran?

We give aid to Israel, just like we give to a lot of other countries (including Arab countries). That doesn't mean we control their government. Additionally, as you note below, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

Because it’s a “terrorists” organization? Who is to define terrorists as Alonso has already pointed out Hezbollah was born from the whom of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and has evolved into an organic component of shite society through not only Lebanon, but the mid-east.

I'll define the terrorists for you: those who intentionally attack civilians in an effort to affect policy through terror.

Because they attack civilians? Hasn’t Israel done the same not only now but in the past as well?

Obviously, Israel is hardly an innocent party given their history and certain current policies.

Just my thoughts, I hate the idea that biased media leads to biased opinion but it is a sad truth even for me. Who is to blame at the end of all this? Its every players fault from the US to Iran

I don't understand how Hezbollah attacking Israel and Israel attacking Lebanon in response is the U.S.' fault. Please explain. You even admit that Iran basically started this conflict, so I fail to see why it's our fault.

[alonzomourning23]

I don't understand how Hezbollah attacking Israel and Israel attacking Lebanon in response is the U.S.' fault. Please explain. You even admit that Iran basically started this conflict, so I fail to see why it's our fault.

The u.s. is failing to use its power. It has the capability to influence Israel, both because Israel relies on us to protect it (we constantly veto resolutions against them), and all the funding we give them. The u.s. is refusing to do anything when it's well within their power, power they'd utilize if it was any other nation.

It's not the fault of the u.s., but failing to at least attempt to reign Israel in is the u.s.'s fault.

[RedvsBlue]

The u.s. is failing to use its power. It has the capability to influence Israel, both because Israel relies on us to protect it (we constantly veto resolutions against them), and all the funding we give them. The u.s. is refusing to do anything when it's well within their power, power they'd utilize if it was any other nation.

It's not the fault of the u.s., but failing to at least attempt to reign Israel in is the u.s.'s fault.

We've used the veto just within the last week to protect Israel actually. The security council voted to condemn their actions and America was the only veto but since all it takes is one, it got shot down. You know Israel might as well have a seat on the security council, we pretty much do whatever they want anyway.

[Eviltude]

So the little title on MSNBC Reads: "Hezbollah: We welcome World War III" Are they trying to get their nation blow to bits? I mean really, when is the last time there were troops opposing America on American soil? Hell, whens the last time they were in North America? I'm not saying that it won't be a big deal if we do end up involved in this mess but they are likely going to get the worst of it.

PS - Israeli women are hot.

[munch]

So the little title on MSNBC Reads: "Hezbollah: We welcome World War III" Are they trying to get their nation blow to bits? I mean really, when is the last time there were troops opposing America on American soil? Hell, whens the last time they were in North America? I'm not saying that it won't be a big deal if we do end up involved in this mess but they are likely going to get the worst of it.

PS - Israeli women are hot.

I'm pretty sure it was during the war of 1812, unless you don't count the raids pancho villa made.

[GuilewasNK]

So the little title on MSNBC Reads: "Hezbollah: We welcome World War III" Are they trying to get their nation blow to bits? I mean really, when is the last time there were troops opposing America on American soil? Hell, whens the last time they were in North America? I'm not saying that it won't be a big deal if we do end up involved in this mess but they are likely going to get the worst of it.

PS - Israeli women are hot.

I don't understand the logic in Hezbollah wanting to welcome "World War III" unless they have a HUGE ace up their sleeve that we know nothing about. Even martyrdom of every Hezbollah member wouldn't make any sense.

[trq]

Selling arms to legitimate nation-states is a lot different than giving them to terrorist organizations with the purpose of attacking civilians. The point being made when people say the missiles are Iranian-made is that Iran is arming Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, to attack Israeli civilians (and military obviously).

For the record, the missles are Chinese-made, and then sold to Iran. So by that logic ... China is arming Hezbollah? It's obvious Iran has its fingers in the pie, but I'd hesitate to use that as evidence.

We give aid to Israel, just like we give to a lot of other countries (including Arab countries). That doesn't mean we control their government. Additionally, as you note below, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

We certainly don't control Israel. Does anyone recall them getting nukes without our permission? No, if anything, it's the other way around. And it's not some "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" crapola, either. The fact is, the pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee is one of the largest lobby groups in the US, and at one point, was the single largest, beating out the gun lobby and the tobacco lobby.

I'll define the terrorists for you: those who intentionally attack civilians in an effort to affect policy through terror.

Right. So that would include Israel. Somehow, I don't think over 240 dead Lebanese civilians are just "collateral damage" accidents, especially given Israel's track record.

Obviously, Israel is hardly an innocent party given their history and certain current policies.

Right. Which is a good reason it might be smart for us to stop supporting them unilaterally.

[miker8]

So the little title on MSNBC Reads: "Hezbollah: We welcome World War III" Are they trying to get their nation blow to bits? I mean really, when is the last time there were troops opposing America on American soil? Hell, whens the last time they were in North America? I'm not saying that it won't be a big deal if we do end up involved in this mess but they are likely going to get the worst of it.

PS - Israeli women are hot.

Actually it would make sense to them. Lets say America invades/attacks Iran (which hosts the branch of Hezbollah quoted above) or they attack us and we retaliate or even if we intervene in some other muslim country. Sure any of those countrys would topple just as quickly as Saddam's government in Iraq. I doubt such terrorist groups would care about the loss of life in their homeland and there would still be the same problem as in Iraq only on a much larger scale. In addition any more aggression against muslim countries would cause nearly all muslims in the region to view this attack as a "war agains Islam" (many already do). You would have the local insurgency plus muslims from across the region swarming in to fight for their religion. In time, America would have to abandon the entire region because regardless of manpower and military might history has shown us that a dedicated insurgency can always beat the strongest military given enough time. This would make "World War II" fit easily into their goal as it would get America and by association Israel out of the region and rally all muslims in the region to their cause. I do however think the term "World War III" is an overstatement unless they have some joint defense deal with North Korea or China (which is highly unlikely). If America does enter another war however I can see North Korea or China acting up because our attention and manpower is elsewhere. What better time to invade Taiwan or do who know what North Korea wants to do than when the U.S. is tied up in another losing war. I think most of the Iran and North Korean problems today are due to the fact that they know that the U.S. is in a bad position to back up their words due to the war in Iraq.

[AYATOLA]

Selling arms to legitimate nation-states is a lot different than giving them to terrorist organizations with the purpose of attacking civilians. The point being made when people say the missiles are Iranian-made is that Iran is arming Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, to attack Israeli civilians (and military obviously).

so Israel "plans" for 5 years to bomb civilian locations in Lebanon and this legitimizes them how? You would figure after 5 years of planning that Israeli govn't would have used precision in their attacks so please give me a list of all the Hezbollah militants that take tickets and handle baggage at the airport.

this is only one instance of Israel blatant disregard for human life. And the US is fueling the beast that is Israel, and I hold the view that the Israeli govn't is the world’s largest terrorist organization.

As I have stated Hezbollah is not your two bit organization. they are a part of the political body of Lebanon and an organic component of the shite Muslim community. you see them as terrorists, the Lebanese and many Muslims (even moderates) see them as defenders against western/Israeli aggression and oppression.

In Israel’s attacks there has been no retaliation from the Lebanese govn't so who is to defend the people? Hezbollah to you might be terrorists, but I see them as minutemen.



We give aid to Israel, just like we give to a lot of other countries (including Arab countries). That doesn't mean we control their government. Additionally, as you note below, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

here's a list of the money we have given to Israel, not to mention bargain basement weapon and artillery prices.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

Now I am willing to bet we have not given a tenth as much to Arab nations.
And for the record "terrorist" doesn’t = terrorist.


I'll define the terrorists for you: those who intentionally attack civilians in an effort to affect policy through terror.

So as others have said, by your own definition Israel is a terrorist


Obviously, Israel is hardly an innocent party given their history and certain current policies.

Israel IMO is the biggest war criminal that will never be punished and will never be brought to trial. although I am a firm believer in karma so I know Israel's time is coming.



I don't understand how Hezbollah attacking Israel and Israel attacking Lebanon in response is the U.S.' fault. Please explain. You even admit that Iran basically started this conflict, so I fail to see why it's our fault.

the US and Iran are the outer rings of influence that can stop this conflict in a matter of hours if they wanted.
It's both sides fault for arming the other, both sides fault for allowing such attacks, and both sides fault for praising such attacks.

[AYATOLA]

Actually it would make sense to them. Lets say America invades/attacks Iran (which hosts the branch of Hezbollah quoted above) or they attack us and we retaliate or even if we intervene in some other muslim country. Sure any of those countrys would topple just as quickly as Saddam's government in Iraq.

You seem to underestimate Iran's militarty capabilities and the determination of Iranians to defend their homeland. I would reffer you to the Iran-Iraq war where with little to no military Iran's people held off a US funded and armed suddam. I do realize that you mention the aftermath would be tough, but please do not take Iran for Iraq and never take Iranians for arabs.

I do however think the term "World War III" is an overstatement

we can all thank Newt Geengriwch (sp) for that. He keyed the phrase on meet the press this past weekend.

[elprincipe]

I'm pretty sure it was during the war of 1812, unless you don't count the raids pancho villa made.

Nope, the Japanese took over two small Alaskan islands in World War II, so that is what we are looking for in answer.

[elprincipe]

so Israel "plans" for 5 years to bomb civilian locations in Lebanon and this legitimizes them how? You would figure after 5 years of planning that Israeli govn't would have used precision in their attacks so please give me a list of all the Hezbollah militants that take tickets and handle baggage at the airport.

The obvious response to this is Hezbollah, as many terrorist organizations are wont to do, bases itself in civilian areas. They are firing missiles at Israel from civilian neighborhoods. So, much like Hamas leaders congregate with average Palestinians on the street, there isn't much way to attack them without collateral damage in civilians. Of course, they prefer this, not valuing human life themselves and knowing that every civilian killed by Israel is a boon to them.

Israel bombed the airport because that is how Iranian rockets have been being delivered to Hezbollah, along with from Syria. However, IMO they shouldn't have bombed it because (1) it's a civilian airport and (2) it is hampering efforts of other governments to remove their citizens from the war zone, not to mention innocent Lebanese who want to flee. Obviously Hezbollah members, welcoming confrontation with Israel and all the death and destruction that comes with it, are not the ones that want to be flying out of there when the shit hits the fan.

this is only one instance of Israel blatant disregard for human life. And the US is fueling the beast that is Israel, and I hold the view that the Israeli govn't is the world’s largest terrorist organization.

I feel this assertion is ridiculous, even if I don't agree with some Israeli policies.

As I have stated Hezbollah is not your two bit organization. they are a part of the political body of Lebanon and an organic component of the shite Muslim community. you see them as terrorists, the Lebanese and many Muslims (even moderates) see them as defenders against western/Israeli aggression and oppression.

Terrorists attack civilians on purpose. Hezbollah = terrorists.

In Israel’s attacks there has been no retaliation from the Lebanese govn't so who is to defend the people? Hezbollah to you might be terrorists, but I see them as minutemen.

The Lebanese government doesn't have much capacity to respond. And they didn't start this, Hezbollah did. Funny how you credit them for "defending the people" when they are the ones who brought death and destruction to hundreds of innocent Lebanese (so far) with their terrorist attacks which sparked the whole international incident.

So as others have said, by your own definition Israel is a terrorist

See above.

Israel IMO is the biggest war criminal that will never be punished and will never be brought to trial. although I am a firm believer in karma so I know Israel's time is coming.

Nations cannot be war criminals. People can, though, so perhaps you should focus your anger on people like Ariel Sharon.

the US and Iran are the outer rings of influence that can stop this conflict in a matter of hours if they wanted.
It's both sides fault for arming the other, both sides fault for allowing such attacks, and both sides fault for praising such attacks.

The US government has not praised the attacks officially. I don't think Israel would stop even if we asked them to at this point either, much like I doubt we would heed calls for "restraint" from Russia with regards to our Afghanistan campaign after 9/11.

And FYI it's Newt Gingrich.

[alonzomourning23]

Terrorists attack civilians on purpose. Hezbollah = terrorists.


The exclusion of Israel from this is debatable. Does the military (not individuals) target, to kill, civilians on purpose? No. Do they target civilian areas, civilian infrastructure etc. to harm civilians? Yes.

Does terrorism require intentional killing or just intentional harm (even though you know this will lead to deaths, the death itself isn't desired) in your mind?

The Lebanese government doesn't have much capacity to respond.

Not debating the point, just pointing out that Lebanon has ordered their military not to respond to attacks, and Israeli has repeatedly attacked them, despite calling for them to deploy forces against hezbollah.

It's almost as if Israel is trying to provoke a response.

[yester]

to many quotas... :)
But i want to bring one important point out.
Why is the hezbollah fighting against Israel? Mm... to bomb civilian asses in caffees, shoppings and in public?
Or do they fight for Israel to disappear from the map altogether?
Also, if one would imagine what someone could done with all the money the Hezbollah gets from different arab nations (and iran), instead of puring it in weapons etc.
There could have been schools, jobs and many things more. And thats it is what the palestinians needs most. THe youth only know war, but not the pursue a life.
I think that there lays the truth and its there leaders whom like to send some more children in the death of a cause only they fall for.
And nobody should tell me, that it is necessary to buy weapons, because Israels bomb everday (before this war).
Why the Hamas/Hezbolla don't succeed in developing their country with all the money they get? Where does all the money go?

Its so easy to declare Israel as the main problem, at least for some.
Not to forget that Iran letting fight other people for their purpose.
And how come that the Hezbollah does not want to integrate their forces in the lebanon army, since there are a part of lebanon. Because they want to control whats happening in their terrotories.


Well, this is just my thought to this topic. But you have to dig for the truth.

[BodyShot213]

What else is new? Israel is killing innocent civillians over two soldiers. Ruin a country thats not respondsible and lets see how history judges you. Israel needs to get the shit kicked out of them.

[elprincipe]

What else is new? Israel is killing innocent civillians over two soldiers. Ruin a country thats not respondsible and lets see how history judges you. Israel needs to get the shit kicked out of them.

Are we forgetting the hundreds of rockets fired by Hezbollah at Israeli population centers and killed Israeli civilians? Yep, they should just stop defending themselves and let their second-biggest city have hundreds more rockets rained on it daily. :roll:

[elprincipe]

The exclusion of Israel from this is debatable. Does the military (not individuals) target, to kill, civilians on purpose? No. Do they target civilian areas, civilian infrastructure etc. to harm civilians? Yes.

Again, they target civilians areas because that's where Hezbollah is operating out of. It would be nice if terrorists wouldn't hide in hospitals, schools and mosques, but since they don't give a shit about people being killed (in fact, they welcome it), they operate right next to innocents. By your logic, then, should Israel sit back and take hundreds of missile hits to its cities by terrorists and not respond?

Does terrorism require intentional killing or just intentional harm (even though you know this will lead to deaths, the death itself isn't desired) in your mind?

I've defined terrorism (at least to me) already. You're splitting hairs because you think Israel is committing terrorist acts by attacking areas where rockets are fired at them from. I find that viewpoint laughable.

Not debating the point, just pointing out that Lebanon has ordered their military not to respond to attacks, and Israeli has repeatedly attacked them, despite calling for them to deploy forces against hezbollah.

It's almost as if Israel is trying to provoke a response.

The Israelis attacked the Lebanese military? Proof? Everything I've heard indicates they've attacked Hezbollah rocket-firing areas, Hezbollah leadership sites and infrastructure.

[alonzomourning23]

Again, they target civilians areas because that's where Hezbollah is operating out of. It would be nice if terrorists wouldn't hide in hospitals, schools and mosques, but since they don't give a shit about people being killed (in fact, they welcome it), they operate right next to innocents. By your logic, then, should Israel sit back and take hundreds of missile hits to its cities by terrorists and not respond?

They've been hitting roads, airports, power plants etc. things which have minimal impact on Hezbollah. They've been hitting everywhere. They're wiping out whole areas, leaving little but the shells of buildings in some areas. It seems that actions are designed to put maximum pressure on civilians in an attempt to cause them to turn against hezbollah.

By your logic, then, should Israel sit back and take hundreds of missile hits to its cities by terrorists and not respond?


There are ways to respond short of blowing up everything that moves, or everything that may be even remotely connected. Generally, just because the enemy drinks water doesn't mean you take out sanitation services. They're wiping out everything, and have made threats of sending lebanons infrastructure back 20-30 years. Also remember that this response came from a border skirmish, Hezbollah's missiles do not justify the massive response since they only come once the massive response was initiated. The missiles fired by both are equally immoral, but Israel has much more power. Who do you focus your attention on, the guy threatening to blow up a house or the guy threatening to blow up an apartment building? That's the case here, Israel is much more deadly.

But if terrorism does not require intentional killing (only intentional harm) then this is terrorism. I don't know your definition.

The Israelis attacked the Lebanese military? Proof? Everything I've heard indicates they've attacked Hezbollah rocket-firing areas, Hezbollah leadership sites and infrastructure.

Military jets attacked runways at the Rayak air base in the eastern Bekaa Valley, police said, and at the Qoleiat air base near the Syrian border in the north. Rayak, four miles west of the Syrian border, is home to the country’s main military air base and is military headquarters in eastern Lebanon....

"If the government of Lebanon fails to deploy its forces, as is expected of a sovereign government, we shall not allow Hezbollah forces to remain any further on the borders of the state of Israel," Peretz said.


http://www.caycompass.com/cgi-bin/CFPnews.cgi?ID=1014770

A Lebanese army source said Israeli warplanes attacked two army facilities near Beirut.

The source said there are casualties at the scene.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3277553,00.html

Israeli warplanes pounded an army barracks east of Beirut in an overnight raid in which 11 troops, including four officers, were killed and 40 injured, an army statement said Tuesday.

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060718-052333-8797r

[yester]

Its sad that nobody here quotes my point. Well, then we go over the war again...


[quote=alonzomourning23;2054864]They've been hitting roads, airports, power plants etc. things which have minimal impact on Hezbollah. They've been hitting everywhere. They're wiping out whole areas, leaving little but the shells of buildings in some areas. It seems that actions are designed to put maximum pressure on civilians in an attempt to cause them to turn against hezbollah.

You know, if you would ask the question, why they do bomb certain areas, you would know the answer.
OF course to wipe the infrastructur, so that no weapons get in lebanon at all. That would be the main reason for doing that.

Then again, the whole discussion roses around who actually has a right to bomb people anyway.
Well, the Israels not, since they get the blame anyway. So we could conclude that it is justified that the Hesbollah has the right to do, what they do.

[Veritas1204]

"I don't understand the logic in Hezbollah wanting to welcome "World War III" unless they have a HUGE ace up their sleeve that we know nothing about."

Simple. As long as they have access to the American press, they will be able to convince people who have no ability to consider the context of a situation to become emotionally enraged at their plight. Look at the CNN report filed a few days ago, where a Hezbollah soldier took a CNN cameraman around to show him all the apartment buildings destroyed by Israeli soldiers. This was intended to make people hate Israel for what they are told is excessive force;

except,

Hezbollah prides itself in the specific targeting of civilians, not unlike their Palestinian equivilant Hamas. Do I really need to post multiple links to articles who tell of this atrocious behavior? Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, not some fantasy minuteman group fighting the zionist pigs, like those on the left would have you believe. Hezbollah has been classified by the U.N. as such, just in case you don't want to take my word for it. Lest we forget THEY are the ones that initiated this conflict, not Israel.

To somehow imply that Israel, the ONLY stable democracy in the middle east, should simply allow groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to randomly kidnap and murder their troops at will is not only specious, but callous to boot. Those of you who decry Israel's actions in retaliating against these kidnap/murders should ask yourselves if you are truthfully upset that Israel is taking "extreme measures",

or, upset that Isreal had the odassity to defend themselves at all.

And so no one misunderstands my position, Israel is no saint in this mess either. But let's be honest, if the mexican terrorist group du jore dug a tunnel a 1/4 of a mile underground into Baha, CA and kidnapped and murdered our soldiers, I would think the last thing on any sane Americans mind would be enacting a prisoneer exchange.

As for the attacks on Lebanon, let us be truthful. It is no secret that Hezbollah commits random acts of terrorism on Israel, to the extent of which is well known by the Lebonese government. Up until now, the Lebonese government has done nothing to stem the tide of their terrorist ways. When given this reality, how is it so upsetting that Isreal feels it has no choice but to begin attacking the terrorists who want nothing more than to see them dead?

As for calling Israelis Massmurderers because they only gave the civilians a 2 hour warning to get the hell out of the city before they started killing terrorists, how about looking at your beloved Hezbollah? In the over 200 missle attacks on Israeli targets, have they given the citizens that they intentionally target (remember now, they don't hide this fact) any warning?

But I'm sure you just forgot to mention that point. I mean, you wouldn't be so ignorant in your hatred for the zionist Israel that you would create false dilemas with the intention of casting them as the terrorists, would you?

In closing, for all of you out there who are so quick to demonize Israel (while conveniently forgetting the fact that they were attacked first), think about this:

If Hezbollah or Hamas laid down their arms tomorrow, there would be no more conflict.

If Israel laid down their arms, there would be no more Israel.

V

[munch]

Nope, the Japanese took over two small Alaskan islands in World War II, so that is what we are looking for in answer.

The question was when was the last time someone invaded North America, not American territories.

[alonzomourning23]

I was avoiding this, since it's going to make it look like I support Hezbollah (which I don't), but you asked again, so here goes:

Why is the hezbollah fighting against Israel? Mm... to bomb civilian asses in caffees, shoppings and in public?

They believe that a confrontation with Israel was inevitable. It is an attempt to prove that guerrilla fighting can defeat Israel, and not just when Israel is already in your territory (as they essentially proved in Lebanon already).

This attack had been planned for a while, and situation in Gaza provided a perfect excuse to claim solidarity with Palestinians.

Hezbollah's suicide attacks have tended to be targetted at embassies and such. Embassy attacks are not quite as bad as targetting malls and such, and targets military bases (which they've done) is not errrorism. A few have been targetted at civilian areas, such as in settlements, which they view as part of the problem. But Hamas is the one that attacks things such as caffes and shopping centers. These attacks are committed because they have no way of engaging in traditional military means, due to the huge disparity in force. Unfortunately many see it as the only way to hit back at Israel.

There could have been schools, jobs and many things more. And thats it is what the palestinians needs most. THe youth only know war, but not the pursue a life.

They do. Hamas has an absolutely massive social network in Palestine, they run schools, hospitals, soup kitchens etc. things that the government does not have the money to do. Hezbollah does the same in south Lebanon, hezbollah social workers are even running some of the civilian bomb shelters in Lebanon.

Why the Hamas/Hezbolla don't succeed in developing their country with all the money they get?

Lebanon was developing, rather well actually. South Lebanon, which was largely an autonomous region controlled by Hezbollah, can't develop much anyway due to the international reputation of Hezbollah, but the situation in terms of poverty was improving.

As for Palestinians, you can't develop much you are repeatedly being raided, having missiles hit your street, checkpoints everywhere etc. You can't develop much with a situation like that. No business wants to invest there.

You know, if you would ask the question, why they do bomb certain areas, you would know the answer.
OF course to wipe the infrastructur, so that no weapons get in lebanon at all. That would be the main reason for doing that.

Bombing civilians infrastructure and disregard over civilian lives is a war crime. That is the excuse in practically every case. You can't just flatten a country.

Up until now, the Lebonese government has done nothing to stem the tide of their terrorist ways. When given this reality, how is it so upsetting that Isreal feels it has no choice but to begin attacking the terrorists who want nothing more than to see them dead?

They're not even 2 years old. Their military is a military on paper, not much more. They did not have the military capability to confront Hezbollah.

[elprincipe]

The question was when was the last time someone invaded North America, not American territories.

Alaska is part of North America, although you are correct it was not a state at the time of the invasion.

[elprincipe]

http://www.caycompass.com/cgi-bin/CFPnews.cgi?ID=1014770



http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3277553,00.html



http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060718-052333-8797r

Thanks for the links, I wasn't aware they were actively targeting the regular Lebanese army forces. Although now I hear the Lebanese army is going to fight side by side with Hezbollah, and if so that can't be good.

[Veritas1204]

These attacks are committed because they have no way of engaging in traditional military means, due to the huge disparity in force. Unfortunately many see it as the only way to hit back at Israel.


Soo...if I am reading your last post right, Hezbollah is not guilty of engaging in terrorism because they don' t have a military?

Ok. That means:

...sending hezbollah soldiers into Israeli cafes armed with nail bombs, killing women and children, is the ONLY way to fight back against Israeli forces?

...or targeting civilian hotels and other populous areas WELL OUTSIDE Israeli military zones is their LAST resort in fighting an Israeli army who pulled completely out of Lebanon over 14 years ago?

If it is too much to hope that you can see the outright partisan nature of this comment, hopefully those who read this can see how incredibly anti-semitic you arguement is. You opened your post by stating you didn't want to sound like you support hezbollah, but how are we to assume any different?

Israel maintains a superior military SOLELY because they are the ONLY stable democratic government in the midst of a sea filled with people who believe it is their destiny to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Given the tenor of attutides and feelings seen throughout the history of the middle east, can you seriously imply that they are not allowed the basic right to defend themselves in any and all ways possible? In short, Israel would not need the army they have if they were for instance located in mexico. The very fact that they have a supreme military is the only reason they are still a country.

But I think you know that, alonzo. That is why you justisfy terrorism against Israel, because in your view, they don't have a right to exist. And they wouldn't either, if it wasn't for the fact that they have one of the most feared militaries in the world. To you, that one pesky fact keeps Hezbollah and Hamas from their God-given right to annihlate every Jew and christian from the face of the earth.

So you present the laughable premis that it's ok for Hezbollah to kidnap soldiers of forign countries and murder innocent civilians. I mean, if Israel would only stop arming themselves, then Hezbollah wouldn't have to kill women and children mercilessly. If only Israel would make it a fair fight, then Hezbollah would honorably stop the intentional targeting of civilians and fight like a regular military. Who cares if that means the eventual destruction of the entire nation of Israel, they shouldn't make these poor misunderstood people resort to these tactics to defend themselves!

...If it's all the same to you, alonzo/ayatola, I'll side with the likes of EVERY OTHER Fuck ING NATION IN THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL and maintain that hezbollah and hamas are nothing more than terrorist scum who thought they could batter Israel into submission through terrorism, and that the two of you are just upset that this time, Israel decided to fight back.

Maybe the next time terrorists want to kidnap and murder Israeli's they will remember what happened here and stick to what they do best: killing their own innocent women and children.

and as for you alonzo&ayatola, you would be wise to tread lightly while commenting on this subject; your anti-semitism is showing.

V

[trq]

First off, you clearly didn't understand word one of Alonzo's post; take a deep breath and try again.

As for your specific points:

Israel maintains a superior military SOLELY because they are the ONLY stable democratic government in the midst of a sea filled with people who believe it is their destiny to wipe Israel off the face of the map.

If they don't want to be the only stable democracy in the region, they should consider not bombing the hell out of the infrastructure of other fledgeling democracies next door. Just a thought.

Given the tenor of attutides and feelings seen throughout the history of the middle east, can you seriously imply that they are not allowed the basic right to defend themselves in any and all ways possible?

Sure. Nobody is allowed to defend themselves in ANY and ALL ways possible. You don't shoot someone who gives you the finger. You don't blow up a cafe because someone took your land. And you don't kill hundreds of civilians over two kidnapped soldiers.

...If it's all the same to you, alonzo/ayatola, I'll side with the likes of EVERY OTHER Fuck ING NATION IN THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL and maintain that hezbollah and hamas are nothing more than terrorist scum who thought they could batter Israel into submission through terrorism, and that the two of you are just upset that this time, Israel decided to fight back.

You probably don't want to bring the U.N. into this, considering every single member of that organization -- sans the U.S. and the U.K. -- is calling on Israel to knock it off.

Maybe the next time terrorists want to kidnap and murder Israeli's they will remember what happened here and stick to what they do best: killing their own innocent women and children.

Yeah. Because collective punishment has worked so well for them over the last thirty years.

and as for you alonzo&ayatola, you would be wise to tread lightly while commenting on this subject; your anti-semitism is showing.

Ah, here's the pay off: the first resort of the truly self-righteous; the money shot on the face of genuine discourse; the abuser's whine that he, in fact, is the one being abused: charges of anti-semitism when the criticism is leveled at the behavior of a government.

Let me make this easy: when I express my disgust at the Rape of Nanking, does that mean I hate the Japanese?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you connected those two issues out of simple confusion, rather than intentionally conflating them as a shameful rhetorical tactic, indicating the logical and moral bankruptcy of that position, which is the alternative.

[Veritas1204]

trq,

While I applaud your apparant need to interpret, you seemed to have forgotten the crux of my arguement; the fact that alonzo tries to justify the terrorist activities of Hezbollah by bemoaning the fact that they have no formal fighting force, as if to insinuate that, were the Israelis somehow forced to use a comparable amount of soldiers to that of Hezbollah, Hezbollah would simply stop the suicide bombings and intentional targeting of civilians and fight like a normal military.

That being said, allow me to rebut some points of your post, thq.

If they don't want to be the only stable democracy in the region, they should consider not bombing the hell out of the infrastructure of other fledgeling democracies next door. Just a thought.

You said this in response to my assertion that Israel maintains a superior military because of the threat posed by most all countries in the middle east. You retort by stating they would need that army had they not began bombing Southern Lebanon.

Really? Even if I was willing to grant you that they are unnecessarily bombing Lebanon, (which I have neutral feelings about, but will omit for the sake of time), are you really so obtuse that you believe EVERY COUNTRY in the middle east would simply pack their guns and walk away if Israel had just not retaliated?

You do realize, don't you thq that, except for Israel, EVERY COUNTRY surrounding them is markedly anti-semitic. Even taking Lebanon out of the situation, Israel still faces overwhelming odds at survival without their military.
So, unless you were trying to insinuate that an overwhelming number of the rest of the muslim countries surrounding Israel were suddingly turning democratic, this makes your arguement defunct.

Sure. Nobody is allowed to defend themselves in ANY and ALL ways possible. You don't shoot someone who gives you the finger. You don't blow up a cafe because someone took your land. And you don't kill hundreds of civilians over two kidnapped soldiers.

For someone who so pompously accused me of not understanding alonzo's previous post, you certainly do not learn from my alleged mistake. As I stated earlier in this post, alonzo was justifying terroristic activities, citing that they have no choice but to resort to said activities in defense of their country.

You, knowing EXACTLY what alonzo was saying when he wrote this, (after all, it was I who didn't get it, right?), are asserting that Israel is in the wrong for choosing this paticular path for retribution, and cite that it is too excessive.

Well, which is it, guys? If you allow Hezbollah to commit atrocities against innocents because it is their only line of defense, shouldn't you then allow Israel the same unrational, unhinged response, if nothing more for integrity's sake?

Or, if Hezbollah is simply a misunderstood group of freedom fighters with bad aim (I mean come on, they kill more of their own people than Jews anyday), shouldn't you at least hold them to the same levels of civility that you are imposing on Israel (by limiting what they can and cannot do?). In short, you can't hold Israel to higher standards of behavior than Hezbollah unless you are willing to admit that one is more civilized and righteous than the other.

Unless you like being a hypocrite, which I wouldn't know because I've never met you.

Ah, here's the pay off: the first resort of the truly self-righteous; the money shot on the face of genuine discourse; the abuser's whine that he, in fact, is the one being abused: charges of anti-semitism when the criticism is leveled at the behavior of a government.

First, I waited until about page 3 of these posts, mostly made by alonzo and ayatola, to surmise a pattern of anti-semitism in what they said. If you don't agree, fine; but for you to dismiss my entire commentary as being specious because you don't like the wording is both ridiculous and childish. I am not the first reader on this thread to point out the blatant partisanhood of both the aforementioned commenters, and am pretty sure that anyone with above a third grade level of reading comprehension could see patterns of inflating Israeli atrocities and explaining away all others. I call it anti-semitism, you may call it something else entirely.

Or, maybe you don't see anything wrong with taking Israel to task on bombing known terrorist rocket positions and strategic points, while justifying intentional targeting of civilians and suicide bombings and other actions on behalf of their enemies. Everyone has their opinion.

Mine just happens to be that qualifying activities that, if committed on any other nation under any other circumstances those of terrorists as somehow understandable because the people being terrorized are Israelis sounds a little anti-semitic to me. So how about we drop the self-aggrandizing "he thinks he is righteous" canard and agree to disagree, shall we?

V

[elprincipe]

and as for you alonzo&ayatola, you would be wise to tread lightly while commenting on this subject; your anti-semitism is showing.

V

Anti-Israel or anti-Israeli policies is not the same as anti-Semitism.

[trq]

While I applaud your apparant need to interpret, you seemed to have forgotten the crux of my arguement; the fact that alonzo tries to justify the terrorist act...

Nope. Wrong. The fact that he's telling you why Hezbollah does what it does -- according to them -- and you can't distinguish that from advocating their actions -- which he clearly told you he doesn't -- shows that you DON'T follow what he's saying.

You, knowing EXACTLY what alonzo was saying when he wrote this, (after all, it was I who didn't get it, right?), are asserting that Israel is in the wrong for choosing this paticular path for retribution, and cite that it is too excessive.

Well, which is it, guys? If you allow Hezbollah to commit atrocities against innocents because it is their only line of defense, shouldn't you then allow Israel the same unrational, unhinged response, if nothing more for integrity's sake?

This isn't a matter of "which is it." Both sides are wrong. The difference is how much propaganda and spin we're supposed to swallow. We've got it: as a country, we know the dirty Arab terrorists are bad. But now can we start to admit that the poor, defensless Israelies are in the wrong too, now that they're killing more civilians than Hezbollah at a 10-1 ratio? Ok? Are we clear on this? BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG. This "criticism of Israel means you support terrorism" schtick is getting tired.

I am not the first reader on this thread to point out the blatant partisanhood of both the aforementioned commenters, and am pretty sure that anyone with above a third grade level of reading comprehension could see patterns of inflating Israeli atrocities and explaining away all others. I call it anti-semitism, you may call it something else entirely.

Words have meanings. Anti-semitism has one, and it's not "anti-Israel."

Mine just happens to be that qualifying activities that, if committed on any other nation under any other circumstances those of terrorists as somehow understandable because the people being terrorized are Israelis sounds a little anti-semitic to me. So how about we drop the self-aggrandizing "he thinks he is righteous" canard and agree to disagree, shall we?

"Partisanhood" is perfectly allowable; that doesn't mean it's anti-semitism. "Israel" is not interchangeable with "Jews." Does being pro-Israel make you racist regarding Arabs? Sorry, but trotting out charges of racism isn't exactly "agreeing to disagree"...

ON PREVIEW: What elprinciple said.

[alonzomourning23]

Oh come on veritas. I flat out said I don't support hezbollah, read the first line of the post you flipped out on. But there are reasons things are the way they are. People don't just get up one day, for no reason, and say "hey, I'm gonna go bomb some civilians".

I'm just going to repost one part which you clearly misread:

Hezbollah's suicide attacks have tended to be targetted at embassies and such. Embassy attacks are not quite as bad as targetting malls and such, and targeting military bases (which they've done) is not terrorism. A few have been targetted at civilian areas, such as in settlements, which they view as part of the problem. But Hamas is the one that attacks things such as caffes and shopping centers. These attacks are committed because they have no way of engaging in traditional military means, due to the huge disparity in force. Unfortunately many see it as the only way to hit back at Israel.

Though, as for calling me an anti-semite, find one comment I made against Jews.

[yester]

this discussion gets a little out of order...

but back to the point.
If we assume that the Hesbollah acts with a brain, then is was calculated that Israel would react like it does right know.
The Hesbollah clearly calculateds lifeloss in their plan and does not use an army with frontlines, instead uses small bases from a garage or the backyard from a house as a base.
So that makes it very difficult to fight it.
What should Israel do to prevent it? Ignore it?
Well, if Israel would not act, the Hesbollah would really think that they are chickenshits..

And not to forget. How does the Hesbollah act in Lebanon? As a part of Lebanon, as a autonom party, or what?
If it acts like a part of Lebanon, then yes Lebanon provoked the war in the first place.
But if the Hesbollah is not a part of Lebanon and acts as a crazy dude, somebody should order the Hesbollah quickly, since it is not in the interest of people to provoke a war.
Or is the Hesbollah in the end controled to do what Syria and Iran tells them to do. This would give it much greater attention, since domistic powers are involved.

You might find the war awefull, you might not agree as a westerner, but i think things have to be ruled out on the battlefield.
Since Israel is a small country, but a powerfull one, none of his neighbours dared again to fight it. That what keep it alive.

Why is it, that neither party (mostly the arab side) is willing to have talks on the table of diplomacy. Mostly because they would look like chickens if they did.
And none of the arab nations wants to accept Israels right of excistence. (as a Israelie i would be kind a affraid to make peace with someone how does not gove me the right to excist.)

[alonzomourning23]

And not to forget. How does the Hesbollah act in Lebanon? As a part of Lebanon, as a autonom party, or what?
If it acts like a part of Lebanon, then yes Lebanon provoked the war in the first place.
But if the Hesbollah is not a part of Lebanon and acts as a crazy dude, somebody should order the Hesbollah quickly, since it is not in the interest of people to provoke a war.


It is well known that Hezbollah acts as an essentially autonomous state within a state. The lebanese military lacks the power to do anything. But Israel is doing no one any favors by such a massive bombing. It weakens the government, and creates more support for extremism since nowhere in Lebanon is being spared.

But then again, when a nation simultaneously calls on you to deploy your military against a group, while bombing your military, something else may be going on.

But the answer to Hezbollah is not military. Israel proved that during its occupation of Lebanon. The answer is political. Strengthen the Lebanese government, both militarily and politically, untill the are able to disarm them.
Why is it, that neither party (mostly the arab side) is willing to have talks on the table of diplomacy. Mostly because they would look like chickens if they did.


Actually, the palestinians have been calling for talks, repeatedly, over the years. Sharon's repeated statements of "we have no peace partner" was merely "we have no peace partner we want to talk to", as the palestinian government was calling for negotiations almost daily. And when you actually had a chance to moderate the largest extremist group in palestine, Israel just ignored them. The moderate, political side of Hamas (lead by Haniyeh) was more than willing to sit down and discuss long term issues. Instead of doing that, instead of helping the moderates show the extremists that negotiations work, they did everything possible to marginalize them. They made them look like fools.

And none of the arab nations wants to accept Israels right of excistence.

Egypt and Jordan have acknowledged that. The PLO, which includes Fatah, recognized that. And Hamas, with the signing of the prisoners document, took the first steps down that path. Those first steps played a role in the capture of an israel soldiers, as the more extreme, exiled leadership in Syria opposed such things. They wanted to torpedo it, and it seems they got their wish.

[elprincipe]

And none of the arab nations wants to accept Israels right of excistence. (as a Israelie i would be kind a affraid to make peace with someone how does not gove me the right to excist.)

Not entirely true. Saudi Arabia attempted to broker a plan a few years ago where the Arab world would accept Israel in exchange for certain things. These things were unacceptable to Israel for pretty obvious reasons, but at least it was something. Of course, money flows from Saudi Arabia to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups as well...

[elprincipe]

Actually, the palestinians have been calling for talks, repeatedly, over the years. Sharon's repeated statements of "we have no peace partner" was merely "we have no peace partner we want to talk to", as the palestinian government was calling for negotiations almost daily. And when you actually had a chance to moderate the largest extremist group in palestine, Israel just ignored them. The moderate, political side of Hamas (lead by Haniyeh) was more than willing to sit down and discuss long term issues. Instead of doing that, instead of helping the moderates show the extremists that negotiations work, they did everything possible to marginalize them. They made them look like fools.

Don't forget your "moderate, political side" of Hamas has the same goal as the militant side: the destruction of Israel as a state. How can a state effectively negotiate with people whose ultimate stated goal is to destroy its very existence?

[alonzomourning23]

Don't forget your "moderate, political side" of Hamas has the same goal as the militant side: the destruction of Israel as a state. How can a state effectively negotiate with people whose ultimate stated goal is to destroy its very existence?

They were the ones taking the steps to change that. They're under the same charter, but by all appareances they were willing to change that. You just can't expect an organization like Hamas to come to power, do a quick 180 because its enemy tells it to, and keep the support of its base. Isolating them, cutting off all funding, ignoring the calls of the moderate members, only seems to strengthen the extremist side. The moderates looked like fools, as their calls were being ignored.

People seemed to expect some instantanious change when that's unrealistic. They already signed a document calling for long term peace, and if you were to show their base that negotiations can bring real change then they could continue to move forward.

The exiled leadership seems to want peace through war, but the people like Haniyeh seem to want peace through any method that they think will work.

[elprincipe]

They were the ones taking the steps to change that. They're under the same charter, but by all appareances they were willing to change that. You just can't expect an organization like Hamas to come to power, do a quick 180 because its enemy tells it to, and keep the support of its base. Isolating them, cutting off all funding, ignoring the calls of the moderate members, only seems to strengthen the extremist side. The moderates looked like fools, as their calls were being ignored.

People seemed to expect some instantanious change when that's unrealistic. They already signed a document calling for long term peace, and if you were to show their base that negotiations can bring real change then they could continue to move forward.

The exiled leadership seems to want peace through war, but the people like Haniyeh seem to want peace through any method that they think will work.

I think you're seeing what you want to see about Haniyeh and these "moderates." Witness:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR2006071001108.html

I hope that Americans will give careful and well-informed thought to root causes and historical realities, in which case I think they will question why a supposedly "legitimate" state such as Israel has had to conduct decades of war against a subject refugee population without ever achieving its goals.

He doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist.

[AYATOLA]

I'll respond in order that I read, due to a high volume of discussion I have missed.


I feel this assertion is ridiculous, even if I don't agree with some Israeli policies.
that’s fine but it doesn't change the numbers in loss of civilian life. since 82 I think it is safe to say Israel is far in the lead. But since I cannot change how you feel I will leave this point alone.



The Lebanese government doesn't have much capacity to respond. And they didn't start this, Hezbollah did.
The Lebanese govn't might not have a militaristic capacity, but if they unite with Hezbollah to defend their land the political and PR Shockwaves will be quite forceful. The question will rise, "Is the Lebanese govn't a terrorist regime or is Hezbollah part of the govn't?" I have already posted previously that Hezbollah is a huge part of Lebanon’s infrastructure and society. They invest more money in social services then they do weapons. Hezbollah (in a social emergency response context) is what FEMA would dream of being. Even in the middle of this conflict they are helping their people and supporters. They are already drawing up plans to rebuild, and they are a growing part of the Lebanese govn't.
Hezbollah has taken hostages before and it has yet to ever generate a response like this, so why such a response now?

Funny how you credit them for "defending the people" when they are the ones who brought death and destruction to hundreds of innocent Lebanese (so far) with their terrorist attacks which sparked the whole international incident.
including my previous remarks, Hezbollah is the only army and I stress the term army, to make Israel’s "far superior" US equipped army to retreat through out its history. So I do not see the humor in my statement.
Although it is funny that a kidnapping is now considered a terrorist attack. again this has happened in the past with no such reaction so why now?


Nations cannot be war criminals. People can, though, so perhaps you should focus your anger on people like Ariel Sharon.
If the people of a nation support such actions they yes they can, not to say that all Israeli’s do, but a nation can be a war criminal and can commit war crimes, because only a nation can declare war.




The US government has not praised the attacks officially.
I see democratic senators with yamakas on saying "let Israel respond with its full force" with smirks on their faces. Nothing is official but the praise is out there. Generals saying that we "should be glad" Israel is taking on Hezbollah, again not official, but praise.

And FYI it's Newt Gingrich.
thanx

;2052243]There could have been schools, jobs and many things more. And that is what the Palestinians needs most. The youth only know war, but not the pursuit a life.
they all that and also have hospitals, and social services to help the needy and their Neighbors with water food and pay for college education.
Although it would seem by the standards of some on this forum that if your a doctor heal a fallen Hezbollah member you are a terrorist that is aiding the enemy. So we'll bomb the hospital to stop your terrorist ways, a sad logic at best.


Again, they target civilian areas because that's where Hezbollah is operating out of. It would be nice if terrorists wouldn't hide in hospitals, schools and mosques, but since they don't give a shit about people being killed (in fact, they welcome it), they operate right next to innocents. By your logic, then, should Israel sit back and take hundreds of missile hits to its cities by terrorists and not respond?
So what would you do if you were fighting guerilla warfare? I cannot understand how you believe that terrorist organizations are the first to use such tactics. did the Indians not use it on the American settlers, did the Americans not use it on the British?

Terrorists or organizations like Hezbollah do give a shit about the loss of innocence that is why the where formed in the first place. And the logic that I think Alonso is using is to have Israel just use its superior technology like those rocket destroying missiles to seem like the victim the world's view. As of now they seem like the aggressors to the rest of the world, with the exceptions of Israel itself and a majority of the US.

;2052243]Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, not some fantasy minuteman group fighting the Zionist pigs, like those on the left would have you believe. Hezbollah has been classified by the U.N. as such, just in case you don't want to take my word for it. Lest we forget THEY are the ones that initiated this conflict, not Israel.
What is this double standard that many in this country have about the UN being incompetent and weak, but when they make moves to the US' liking they are the best at what they do.

Either read up a bit on why and how Hezbollah was started or post your links ( its pointless because don't we all have links). The idea that you equate Hezbollah to some PO'ed teens in the mideast just shocks me.
they provide for their supporters and have a growing influence in the Lebanese govn't as I have previously stated.

You can say that Hezbollah started this conflict and that is fine, but Israel started an occupation that lead to Hezbollah so what's your point, Karma?

As many have pointed out the Lebanese military in weak and the govn't is weak after fighting an occupation by Israel and 30 years of bombings.

To sum it up, your view of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization is the equivalent of me saying the United States govn't is only a military and nothing more (I don't hold this view).

;2052243]for calling Israelis Massmurderers because they only gave the civilians a 2 hour warning to get the hell out of the city before they started killing terrorists, how about looking at your beloved Hezbollah? In the over 200 missile attacks on Israeli targets, have they given the citizens that they intentionally target (remember now, they don't hide this fact) any warning?

But I'm sure you just forgot to mention that point. I mean, you wouldn't be so ignorant in your hatred for the Zionist Israel that you would create false dilemas with the intention of casting them as the terrorists, would you?
First off Israel did this after 6-8 days into the conflict, to little to late of a PR scam.

Second, lets give Hezbollah or the Lebanese govn't precision weaponry and lets see if they continue to attack civilians. No we can’t do that can we? That is stupid of me to mention, I mean the idea of a fair fight, wow I am such a fool. If Israel or anyone for that matter can use WWII and cold war weapons with precision then you have a more then valid point otherwise how does the saying go "civilian casualties of war". Yeah any country the US or Israel have invaded we always hardly hear of these "civilian casualties of war" that are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Then all the sudden when Americans and Israeli’s are "civilian casualties of war" its just sickening right? Welcome to everyday life in the mid-east welcome to being a casualty of war, it sucks does it not?

thirdly, "your Hezbollah" give it a break bud. I am in no way shape or form affiliated or a patron of Hezbollah. I try to provide balance, and right now it seems that the anti-Hezbollah side completely outweighs the anti-Israeli govn't side by 5 fold.

Fourthly, I have already addressed that Hezbollah does attack civilians, now you step up and acknowledge that Israel does the same. I'll start a charity, the buy Hezbollah a plane to drop leaflets charity and we'll see if we can buy them a plane to warn Israeli’s or maybe they should just e-mail everybody its a lot cheaper. I'll leave the choice up to you.


;2052243]First, I waited until about page 3 of these posts, mostly made by Alonzo and ayatola, to surmise a pattern of anti-semitism in what they said. If you don't agree, fine; but for you to dismiss my entire commentary as being specious because you don't like the wording is both ridiculous and childish. I am not the first reader on this thread to point out the blatant partisanhood of both the aforementioned commenters, and am pretty sure that anyone with above a third grade level of reading comprehension could see patterns of inflating Israeli atrocities and explaining away all others. I call it anti-semitism, you may call it something else entirely.
That is fine you can think of me however you want it will not in any way, shape, or form change my position or what I post. I have already stated that I aim to provide balance and help a side that is just being point out as a terrorist organization. So yes I am partisan due to an overwhelming pro-Israel presence in what many on this forum including yourself type. You want my personal opinion, anyone that owns a gun with the intent to kill another human being is a jackass that deserves non-existence, not death but to have never had the right to live.
I will never call you an "Arab-basher" or anything as such and I have not done that to ever those who say "we should nuke all them sand $$$$er s and suck out all the oil". Why because I pity people who wish to nuke mideast countries but can’t point them out on a map (not you but there are many morons out there).

Rather then judge me on my words on just this thread go back and find when I have chanted "death to Israel" or anything of the sort. Otherwise you are merely trying to misrepresent me and Alonso's position to make your words seem right.

Also you can just ask elprincipe, because we have had many discussions prior to this conflict where I have pointed out my problem is not with the Israeli people, but with its government.

;2052243]and as for you alonzo&ayatola, you would be wise to tread lightly while commenting on this subject; your anti-semitism is showing.
Joseph Goebbels had a concept that through repetition a false statement will become fact. so repeat your accusation of my anti-semitism all you want but I doubt that people on these boards will fall for such a tactic. Hence, you should be hearing my footsteps right now.

[alonzomourning23]

I think you're seeing what you want to see about Haniyeh and these "moderates." Witness:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR2006071001108.html



He doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist.

We're talking about different things. Recognizing Israel's right to exist is a necessary political step. Personally, I would never believe he accepted it in his heart, I don't believe the majority of palestinians (like Abbas) who agree with that policy politically believe it in their heart. At the same time, I find it equally unbelievable that Sharon, and many other Israeli politicians (don't know enough about olmert, but what I do know suggests he's in the same group), ever believed a Palestinian state had a right to exist either. These are merely statements of official political ideology. They are symbolic.

As a state, in their actions and speech, they need to recognize Israel. Israel, due to their position of power, does not need to recognize a palestinian right to exist. But, it should be noted, that they have not done so.

The likes of Haniyeh are willing to sit down and negotiate a long term peace and a functional state. If this happens then the issue of recognition is of little importance other than for its symbolism. But, when finalized, recognition should be mutual between the two parties. It won't happen that way, but it should.

The Lebanese govn't might not have a militaristic capacity, but if they unite with Hezbollah to defend their land the political and PR Shockwaves will be quite forceful.

I'm conflicted here. If Israel engages in a mass invasion of the South, it may lead to the governments downfall. Hezbollah has the money and social network, and will be the one leading much of the rebuilding, not the government. They can't afford to just sit by and do nothing while Lebanon is destroyed, and they can't afford to let Hezbollah rebuild everything.

At the same time, if the Lebanese military attracts full Israeli attention then they, and the government, will likely be brought down.

It seems they're in a lose-lose situation.


The US government has not praised the attacks officially.

Rice publicly opposed a ceasefire anytime soon, and the NYT reported that the u.s. has sped up shipments of missiles to Israel to keep their supply adequate.

[MadChedar0]

I don't know if this has been posted, but it's time for some of you to get schooled on what's going on in Lebanon. This website is EXTREMELY GRAPHIC so... just be warned:

http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/

[yester]

I don't know if this has been posted, but it's time for some of you to get schooled on what's going on in Lebanon. This website is EXTREMELY GRAPHIC so... just be warned:

http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/

They forgot to post some pictures from weekly bombing sites in Israel too.
Of course it is very sad, but its just to onesided.

[alonzomourning23]

.The number of casualties and displaced persons continue to increase. The conflict has claimed the lives of over 300 Lebanese and 34 Israelis, while injuring over 500 Lebanese and approximately 200 Israelis. Save the Children is reporting that 45 per cent of those killed in Lebanon are children. Heavy exchanges of fire continued along the Blue Line in the last 24 hours.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EKOI-6RY2L6?OpenDocument

I haven't seen anything on lebanon other than significant amounts were children and the clear majority were civilians. The most I saw on Israel was 15 of the dead were soldiers a day or so ago.

But casualties are 10-1, against the Lebanese. Probably 15 or 20-1 when it comes to civilians.

[yester]

Mm.. the lebanies govermant is a govermant without a state. It does not have the power over the whole country. Which is sad.
And besides, not all Lebanies people agree with the Hesbollah either.

So far, Iran and Syria have their puppets waging war and provoke Israel at all cost.
Today Syria threatend Israel by saying, that it may declare war on Israel, if they go with full force in Lebanon and threaten Syria.
That will give it a interessting point for having then a 3 front war.

What concerns me the most, is the fact that you have to deal with an enemy, who's blind in hate. Every fallen body on plaestinian side is a martyrer and therefore died for a good cause.
There is little to none peacemovement in place. Everything is about how to kill some more Israelies.

Remeber the last exchange of prisoners from Israel (300-400 inmates vs. 3 death Israel bodies). As far as i remeber, Israel stated that they would act differently next time.
Now they reacted to the kidnapping with war.

Not to forget, that the kidnapping was planned several weeks ahead.
So mostlikely you could say, that the Hesbolllah actually was aware of, what will happen.

So far, yes the Hesbollah won the war, since it gives them more people for support. And also to see them as the victims in the worldpress.

But, like i said before, diplomacy is different in that part of the world. If you compromise to much, your own people will kill you, for being to chicken.
Only if you show the oponente your forhead and say "no" you are a hero.
That why most arabs actually liked Saddam, because he was stuborn and stood up against the US. This gave him a lot of credits among the Arabs.


Poor Lebanon, so long dominated from Syria and now brought to the war again through Hesbollah. Don't forget that democratic people in lebanon have a very difficult time (even before the war).
The funny point is, that most people don't see it that way. They go the easy way....

[GuilewasNK]

I found an interesting read from a Jul 1, 1982 Usenet post...

http://groups.google.com/group/net.misc/browse_thread/thread/5491ed185ba1e931/def91ce5ece52191?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2&hl=en#def91ce5ece52191


From:G:asa - view profile (http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=aZYQPwUAAABvsZDORsLVVUMZOvrxHP3K&hl=en)Date:Thurs, Jul 1 1982 6:09 am Email: G:asaGroups: net.misc




A recent comment equated Israeli military action in Lebanon with
the well-known "Final Solution" of Nazi Germany. Such stupidity
beggars description. Were the Israelis in a position analogous to the
Nazis, the PLO would even now be learning the lessons taught to the
Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, instead of being offered passage to Syria
under Red Cross protection....

One may endlessly debate the wisdom of establishing Israel on
land wrested from its inhabitants by colonial powers. Certainly one
wishes that Israel were more enlightened about the treatment of
minorities within Israel itself, and that the connection with South
Africa were not so strong. All in all, however, I think in view of
the fact that Israel's neighbors refuse to recognize its existence and
have attacked it numerous times (vowing as they did so to "push Israel
into the sea") that Israel's military response has been remarkably
restrained.

The hypocrisy of Israel's critics is astonishing: few are
innocent of genocide or of territorial violations. And one wonders
how long the United States would tolerate, say, terrorist gangs
operating out of Mexico with the goal of regaining California, or of
Seminole Indians raiding Miami from Cuba? Ho ho ho....

It will be interesting to watch the U.S. trying to squirm out of its
"special relationship" with Israel, now that it realizes which side
its bread is buttered on (i.e., Saudi oil). Alas for the Jews! The
most persistently and bitterly persecuted people of all time, they may
now be facing a second Holocaust before too long....
John Hevelin ...ucbvax!G:asa

[elprincipe]

We're talking about different things. Recognizing Israel's right to exist is a necessary political step. Personally, I would never believe he accepted it in his heart, I don't believe the majority of palestinians (like Abbas) who agree with that policy politically believe it in their heart. At the same time, I find it equally unbelievable that Sharon, and many other Israeli politicians (don't know enough about olmert, but what I do know suggests he's in the same group), ever believed a Palestinian state had a right to exist either. These are merely statements of official political ideology. They are symbolic.

How can mere symbolism bring about peace? Unless both sides really want to have a solution that results in two functioning states at peace, it's not going to happen. If Haniyeh says Israel can exist but takes actions to undermine the peace because he doesn't believe it, do you think it will work?

[elprincipe]

The Lebanese govn't might not have a militaristic capacity, but if they unite with Hezbollah to defend their land the political and PR Shockwaves will be quite forceful. The question will rise, "Is the Lebanese govn't a terrorist regime or is Hezbollah part of the govn't?" I have already posted previously that Hezbollah is a huge part of Lebanon’s infrastructure and society. They invest more money in social services then they do weapons. Hezbollah (in a social emergency response context) is what FEMA would dream of being. Even in the middle of this conflict they are helping their people and supporters. They are already drawing up plans to rebuild, and they are a growing part of the Lebanese govn't.
Hezbollah has taken hostages before and it has yet to ever generate a response like this, so why such a response now?

The question of the Lebanese government's relationship with Hezbollah has been raised many times in the past and is in the spotlight more than ever now, so it's not something new. Investing money in social services does not somehow absolve an organiation if it also is attacking innocents. You clearly do not know much about FEMA (maybe a little about Hurricane Katrina, and that's it). The response is more sparked by an attack over the border by Hezbollah and their firing of ~1,000 rockets at Israeli towns & cities.

including my previous remarks, Hezbollah is the only army and I stress the term army, to make Israel’s "far superior" US equipped army to retreat through out its history. So I do not see the humor in my statement.
Although it is funny that a kidnapping is now considered a terrorist attack. again this has happened in the past with no such reaction so why now?

You really believe that Hezbollah pushed Israel out of Lebanon when they withdrew? You must put a lot more credence in media from countries without a free press than most around here I'd wager would. And kidnapping soldiers isn't really a terrorist attack since you are dealing with an opposing military, although you can argue that Hezbollah isn't a military. But obviously indiscriminately firing ~1,000 rockets & missiles at civilian population centers is a terrorist attack.

If the people of a nation support such actions they yes they can, not to say that all Israeli’s do, but a nation can be a war criminal and can commit war crimes, because only a nation can declare war.

Nope, the very nature of the term "war criminal" prevents it from applying to things, only people. Did the allies put Germany up for trial after World War II or Nazi leaders?

I see democratic senators with yamakas on saying "let Israel respond with its full force" with smirks on their faces. Nothing is official but the praise is out there. Generals saying that we "should be glad" Israel is taking on Hezbollah, again not official, but praise.

Yep, many in Congress have praised Israeli actions. Some have disparaged them. Just like on any other issues, members of Congress have different opinions. None of them are the official policies of the government unless they become law.

So what would you do if you were fighting guerilla warfare? I cannot understand how you believe that terrorist organizations are the first to use such tactics. did the Indians not use it on the American settlers, did the Americans not use it on the British?

So you feel hiding in hospitals, schools, mosques and other places to use civilians in those buildings or nearby as human shields is an acceptable tactic? Wow. I was unaware the Revolutionary War saw usage of human shields, but if you have some information I'm not aware of, I'd be glad to take a look.

Terrorists or organizations like Hezbollah do give a shit about the loss of innocence that is why the where formed in the first place. And the logic that I think Alonso is using is to have Israel just use its superior technology like those rocket destroying missiles to seem like the victim the world's view. As of now they seem like the aggressors to the rest of the world, with the exceptions of Israel itself and a majority of the US.

No, they are concerned only with their ultimate goal, which is the destruction of Israel, or to put it in the way of their masters, to wipe Israel off the map. They don't give a shit about Lebanese or certainly Israeli innocents, or they wouldn't be bringing death and destruction to them.

[alonzomourning23]

How can mere symbolism bring about peace? Unless both sides really want to have a solution that results in two functioning states at peace, it's not going to happen. If Haniyeh says Israel can exist but takes actions to undermine the peace because he doesn't believe it, do you think it will work?

Because one side will only negotiate if that symbolic gesture is made. The point is Haniyeh seems willing to commit, politically, to the concept of Israel's right to exist, and behave in that fashion. I think he believes that that is the best way to ensure a viable Palestinian state. I don't think he'd object to traditional hamas terrorist methods if he thought it would be beneficial, the point is he doesn't seem to. That's really the point that Rabin, Sharon etc., the ones who negotiated with, or withdrew from, the palestinians were at. They didn't do so because they believed the palestinians had a right to their own state there, they did so because they believed it to be in Israel's best interests.

The whole point is will they agree to behave in a manner that acknowledges the others the right to exist. If you want both sides to truly believe it, then I don't think you will see negotiations for decades, if even.

You really believe that Hezbollah pushed Israel out of Lebanon when they withdrew? You must put a lot more credence in media from countries without a free press than most around here I'd wager would.

I've yet to read an analysis that did not credit Hezbollah as playing the primary, or at least a significant, role in forcing out Israel.

[bmulligan]

As always, alonzo believes that one's actions are meaningless - it's the intent behind them that makes an action legitimate.

[bmulligan]

I've yet to read an analysis that did not credit Hezbollah as playing the primary, or at least a significant, role in forcing out Israel.

That's your problem. You buy into they rhetoric expressed by Hezbollah verbatim as 'any failure by Israel is a hezbollah victory.' One cannot claim victory by default, it must be earned or accomplished. If someone wins $100 in the lottery and leaves it on the ground for someone else to pick up, the finder can't claim he won the lottery, he was simply a recipient of good fortune.

[alonzomourning23]

As always, alonzo believes that one's actions are meaningless - it's the intent behind them that makes an action legitimate.

Funny, I thought my statement dealt entirely with actions, while elprincipe focused on internal beliefs.

That's your problem. You buy into they rhetoric expressed by Hezbollah verbatim as 'any failure by Israel is a hezbollah victory.'

It's not my fault that every analysis I've come across seems to agree that Hezbollah was a key factor in the withdrawal. I don't see why that's wrong either.

That's how it appears to me, and I've yet to see a reputable counter argument. Israel has routinely ignored resolutions, claiming it wanted to comply with a 22 year old resolution seems nothing more than an attempt to save face.

[alonzomourning23]

Jerusalem - The Israeli air force is under orders to blast 10 buildings in south Beirut, a Hezbollah stronghold, for every rocket the Shi'ite militant group fires at the Israeli port of Haifa, army radio said on Monday.

"Army chief of staff Dan Halutz has given the order to the air force to destroy 10 multi-storey buildings in the Dahaya district (of Beirut) in response to every rocket fired on Haifa," a senior air force officer told the station.

Hezbollah rockets fired from southern Lebanon killed two people on Sunday in the northern city of Haifa, which has been hit by dozens of missiles since the latest conflict started on July 12.

Ground forces push deeper

Israel kept up its offensive on Lebanon on Monday, with its ground forces pushing deeper into the territory and warplanes carrying out a new blitz of about 40 air raids overnight.

UN humanitarian co-ordinator Jan Egeland on Sunday accused Israel of violating humanitarian law as he toured bombed-out areas of south Beirut.
"This is destruction of block after block of mainly residential areas. I would say it seems to be an excessive use of force in an area with so many citizens," he said.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Middle_East/0,,2-10-2075_1972537,00.html

Israel needs to figure out a better policy than just bomb the hell out of things.

[elprincipe]

Of course it's in residential areas...that's where Hezbollah bases themselves -- on purpose, in their barbarism -- to cause as many civilian deaths as possible, in order for there to be more anger against Israel. Basically what I've been saying.

And you said something, alonzo, about Israel withdrawing from Gaza etc. because it was in their best interests. Of course, that is what also I have been saying: the peace will only happen if every side agrees that is in their best interests, and therefore genuinely wants peace -- not the shambles of symbolism you promote, while ignoring the ultimate goal of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas -- the destruction of Israel.

[elprincipe]

It's not my fault that every analysis I've come across seems to agree that Hezbollah was a key factor in the withdrawal. I don't see why that's wrong either.

That's how it appears to me, and I've yet to see a reputable counter argument. Israel has routinely ignored resolutions, claiming it wanted to comply with a 22 year old resolution seems nothing more than an attempt to save face.

http://www.meforum.org/article/173

read.

[alonzomourning23]

Authors with Daniel Pipes group don't even disagree then. That is saying that Hezbollahs actions resulted in changes in public opinion, which lead to withdrawal. That's consistent with my statement.

[Veritas1204]

Wow. I took the weekend off, and come back to a hive of informative posts.

Like this one, from ayatola:

What is this double standard that many in this country have about the UN being incompetent and weak, but when they make moves to the US' liking they are the best at what they do.

This was in response to my comment stating that the U.N. defines Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, lest anyone think I am using that characterization unfairly.

Ayatola, where in any of my posts, did I make any reference to disliking the U.N. or its policies? I realize this was a general assumption about the American public's opinion, but how does that change the FACT that the U.N. considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization?

and then, this:


Either read up a bit on why and how Hezbollah was started or post your links ( its pointless because don't we all have links). The idea that you equate Hezbollah to some PO'ed teens in the mideast just shocks me.
they provide for their supporters and have a growing influence in the Lebanese govn't as I have previously stated.


Again, I made no reference to the history of Hezbollah; I simply based my posts on the agreed upon characterization by world leaders that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

However, if you would like to delve into the past, tell me one thing:

Hezbollah was created by militants for the explicit purpose of providing a military response to Israel. After years of conflict, involving Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon, (among other things), the UN passed a referendum (1556, I believe) that called for the withdrawl of Israeli troops from South Lebanon AND the subsequent disarming of Hezbollah. Israel then complied with this referendum (the UN posted soldiers who for almost 30 years have patrolled the borders, confirming Israeli troop withdrawl) , and Hezbollah.....

...well, Hezbollah decided that they didn't have to listen to the UN. Which perplexed many people, because if Hezbollah was formed ONLY to help defend Lebanon against Israel, wouldn't they agree to disarm if their enemy went home? I mean, they could still build the schools and churches, they just couldn't do it with ak-47's strapped to their shoulder, right?

and yet, they still didn't disarm.


To sum it up, your view of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization is the equivalent of me saying the United States govn't is only a military and nothing more

Look, we could argue the defination of terrorism and the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters until the cows come home, but I, for the sake of brevity, chose to use the UN characterization of Hezbollah. The day the UN decides to change that, I will be happy to refer to them in any way you deem fit.

Now, back to Ayatolah:

First off Israel did this after 6-8 days into the conflict, to little to late of a PR scam. (this in response to my comment refuting his "massmurderer" comment, which we'll get to later)

Second, lets give Hezbollah or the Lebanese govn't precision weaponry and lets see if they continue to attack civilians. No we can’t do that can we? That is stupid of me to mention, I mean the idea of a fair fight, wow I am such a fool. If Israel or anyone for that matter can use WWII and cold war weapons with precision then you have a more then valid point otherwise how does the saying go "civilian casualties of war". Yeah any country the US or Israel have invaded we always hardly hear of these "civilian casualties of war" that are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Then all the sudden when Americans and Israeli’s are "civilian casualties of war" its just sickening right? Welcome to everyday life in the mid-east welcome to being a casualty of war, it sucks does it not?


Ok man, you're all over the place in this one. first, you respond to my rebuttal to the "Hezbollah uses terrorist tactics (i.e. targeting civilians, suicide bombs, etc), because that is their only weapon against Israel by stating that, if given new weapons, Hezbollah would somehow change their ENTIRE modus operandi and become a formal fighting force, and stop using tactics that they have encorporated for their entire existence.

Well, given this statement, I decided to take the next logical step in this thought process:

say we, the USA, decide to test this theory out on, oh, I don't know, Iran. We decide that , if they had a nuclear weapon, maybe they would stop killing their own people and threatening us with death and destruction. Do you think it would be more or less likely that their advancement in technology would hasten their violent tendencies?

Seriously though, Hezbollah at one point had the same weapons as Israel had, and chose to use terrorist acts to carry out their message. It's no one's fault but their own that they didn't advance with the times, but please don't tell me that EVERY rocket fired into Israel that hits civilian targets is unintentional, and the cause of outdated weaponry. It insults my intelligence, and the intelligence of everyone who reads your posts.

Anyway; next, you try to pigeonhole me as discounting the lebonese civilians killed as not entities, while glorifying the Israeli casulities. Let me be clear: I believe Israel has an enormous amount of culpability in this matter, and think they have made some serious strategical mistakes in their strategy. I also would define any Israeli who straps a nail bomb onto his chest and sits down in a cafe as a terrorist with the same tenacity as I do any other person. In short, a casuality is a casulity, whether Israeli or Lebonese, or Palestinian. None are more or less righteous in my mind, but that is what happens when you provoke someone with a massive army and a history of secular violence.

You finish to tell me that this is war, and casulities occur. Really? because I wasn't sure about that . Thanks for the clarification, the thought was nice.

Oh, and about the massmurderer thing: Ayatolah, you were the one who responded to a posters' comment that he didn't see the need for calling Israel massmurderers by stating something to the effect of " anyone who only gives civilians a two hour notice before bombing their houses is a massmurderer.

And yet, you take offense to me claiming that you are any more that a balanced commenter, who only seeks to post the other side of the arguement. you'll forgive me if the former comment makes it hard for me to believe the latter, for they are pretty contradictory in nature.

In conclusion, while it has been fun debating about this, I feel it is probably best if I become more of a bystander from here on out. I think ayatola's comment concerning his inability to even consider anyone's view but his own and his apparant need to let me know that he will never change his mind (as if I actually came here to comment thinking that I could), just about solidifies my assumption that my time here is being wasted on closeminded twits who like to see their words in print.

Thanks, it's been fun.

V

[alonzomourning23]

Seriously though, Hezbollah at one point had the same weapons as Israel had, and chose to use terrorist acts to carry out their message.

?

[Metal Boss]

[/font]

?


piques my curiosity as well

Isreal is supplied and funded by the United States, they have access to alot of weapons that aren't even available here yet, ballistic armor, tanks, helicopter and jets...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFvAQWR2nxk&search=israeli%20assault%20rifle

Here is an example of isreali firearms.

[RedvsBlue]

Well it just hit a whole new level (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060725/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_un_observers_5;_ylt=AmhMdzsn9KujH L_wc87UjnwUvioA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPU CUl)

Israeli bombs killed 4 UN peace keepers. The UN (minus the US) already wasn't too happy about this situation but now, its only going to escalate from here now unfortunately.

[alonzomourning23]

According to the bbc they also shelled the rescure workers.

A rescue team was also shelled as it tried to clear the rubble.

"I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defence Forces of a UN Observer post in southern Lebanon," Mr Annan said in a statement from Rome.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5215366.stm

I guess this pretty much answers the debate on who attacked the U.N. post a few days ago as well.

And, for the conspiracy theorists, why did the u.s. ambassador apologize?

[elprincipe]

Authors with Daniel Pipes group don't even disagree then. That is saying that Hezbollahs actions resulted in changes in public opinion, which lead to withdrawal. That's consistent with my statement.

Evidently you didn't read closely enough. They said public opinion turned against Israeli presence in Lebanon after two Israeli helicopters collided, killing scores of soldiers. This was not caused by Hezbollah.

[elprincipe]

I guess this pretty much answers the debate on who attacked the U.N. post a few days ago as well.

Well, for you, obviously if Hezbollah claims something and Israel claims the opposite (as in this case), clearly Hezbollah is telling the truth? Israel says it was a mistake...