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

[quote name='GuilewasNK']If not, then let this be the official topic. I didn't see anything here or in the off-topic board.[/quote]

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

So are we to assume that, once again, according to you this situation is Israel's fault for existing?
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']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.[/quote]

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?
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.
[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So are we to assume that, once again, according to you this situation is Israel's fault for existing?[/quote]

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)
 
[quote name='yester'] 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)[/quote]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
 
[quote name='LiquidNight']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[/quote]

So then you consider the Hisbolla/Hamas to be Massmurder too. They don't give a shit about civilians eihter.
 
[quote name='yester']So then you consider the Hisbolla/Hamas to be Massmurder too. They don't give a shit about civilians eihter.[/quote]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.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']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.[/quote]

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"
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']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.[/quote]

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']

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.

[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='Quillion']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.[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']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?[/quote]

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.

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']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.[/QUOTE]



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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
[quote name='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?[/quote]

I agree.

All that does is justify the Hezbollah's actions as a legitmate bargining tool.
 
[quote name='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?[/quote]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Hezbollah would not attack a force composed of mostly Russian troops.[/quote]

I dunno. I find it odd that Russia is eager to send troops for any reason.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
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?

[quote name='elprincipe']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.[/quote]


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.
 
[quote name='AYATOLA']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. [/quote]

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).

[quote name='AYATOLA']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?[/quote]

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.

[quote name='AYATOLA']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. [/quote]

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

[quote name='AYATOLA']Because they attack civilians? Hasn’t Israel done the same not only now but in the past as well? [/quote]

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

[quote name='AYATOLA']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[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure it was during the war of 1812, unless you don't count the raids pancho villa made.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']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).[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='elprincipe']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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='elprincipe']I'll define the terrorists for you: those who intentionally attack civilians in an effort to affect policy through terror.[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='elprincipe']Obviously, Israel is hardly an innocent party given their history and certain current policies.[/QUOTE]

Right. Which is a good reason it might be smart for us to stop supporting them unilaterally.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']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).[/quote]

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.



[quote name='elprincipe'] 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.[/quote]

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.


[quote name='elprincipe'] I'll define the terrorists for you: those who intentionally attack civilians in an effort to affect policy through terror.[/quote]

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


[quote name='elprincipe'] Obviously, Israel is hardly an innocent party given their history and certain current policies.[/quote]

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.



[quote name='elprincipe'] 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.[/quote]

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top