i'm sorry, but asymmetry of force? that rediculous. it's israel against the entire middle east. it snot just a country here and there or a faction here and there. a lot of these countries have secret collaboartions with terrorist groups just so when they do somehting, they can claim no involvement. these groups get their money somewhere, don't you think.

i also do not beleve just because your enemy has worse weapons than you do, you need to fight with one hand behind your back.

The whole middle east didn't kidnap 2 Irsaeli soldiers. That is *supposed* to be what this is about.

i think that from previous posts as well as the fact that this whole thing is a symptom of a much bigger issue makes it not just about these two soldiers. and clearly, by trying to destroy missile stockpiles it is not just about these two soldiers.

When you say things like, "it's israel against the entire middle east", it makes me think that you intened to group the terrorists, religous zealots and extreemists, and tyranical rulers along ith the people who just happen to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time. The people who were attacked by Israel are not the terrorists, religous zealots and extreemists, and tyranical rulers....they are people going to school, driving to the store, getting ready to travel, and such. These are not the people who have treated the Jewish people poorly. These are people who do their best, while people around them do harm.

Lets say ou live in the South of the United States. Members of the Klu Klux Klan have kidnapped a Jewish boy on vacation in the Us from Israel. Israel launches an attack on Texas. Now I know that Klan members are in government, at least on a local level, in some areas of Texas. Does this mean that Texas supports the actions of the Klan? Does this vindicate Israel in attacking us?

This is an extreme over-exaggeration. If Israel wanted to kill Lebanese, they would simply target major cities or start shooting civilians. They haven't, though. Look at their targets-- Bridges, roads, airports and other structures which could be used to transport supllies to Hezbollah. It's a military tactic which has been used for centuries.

You know as well as I do that this is about more than just two soldiers being kidnapped. This is about taking a stand against Hezbollah, who has been content to attack Israel week after week, regardless of the concessions Israel has made.

If the countries in which Hezbollah resides refuse to do anything about them, then Israel is going to do something about them. What fool would continue to allow someone to attack them without retaliating?

If a radical group in Canada continued to fire rockets at major US cities with the Canadian government doing absolutely nothing about it, how long do you think it would take the United States to take matters into it's own hands?

Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with that.

Hezbollah has been around since 1982/1983. They are openly anti-Israel and they attack Israel almost weekly. It's not as if they were voted into power under false pretenses. Those who voted for them knew what policies they would take towards Israel. No, I'm not saying that everyone supports them, but apparently enough people support Hezbollah, otherwise they wouldn't have the political influence in Lebanon that they do.

When a terrorist organization is incorporated into your government, you are going to cause problems for yourself and your citizens.

So Israel should sit around and do nothing while being continually attacked. That would be foolish. Or should they try diplomacy? Well, it's a bit hard to make peace with someone who doesn't want to make peace with you. Israel has bent over backwards trying to appease most Arab nations, and what they get in return is constant attacks.

Neither side is perfect, but Israel is the only country who has made any type of attempts at establishing peace. I know I've said this once before, but one more time can't hurt. You can't make peace with someone who doesn't want to make peace with you.

If the Arab countries are going to continue to attack Israel amidst Israel's attempts at peace, then they run the risk of Israel retaliating. It's as simple as that.

There isn't one country which would act any differently than Israel has in this situation.

willravel, you and i both know exactly what i mean. you clearly have not read my previous posts and now your just turning this into a game of semantics. if i was grouping innocent civilians with the relgious nuts then i would not have any concern for the people of lebanon who are caught in the crossfire, correct?

and please that klan analogy is a joke. all of these analogies are stupid. what is the point of making stupid parallels between a situatuion that is actually going on to something that you just pulled out of your ass.

Again a lot of you are not replying to the fact that Hezballah IS a part of the Lebanon government, they are a PART OF IT!!! Just like HAMAS is a part of the Palestenian government.

You put them in your government, on top of that you even give some of them cabinet positions, that makes their actions a reflection on the government and nation as a whole.

So you can talk about them hating, or it should be in reply to hezballah, well it is.. the government allowed them to be a part of it, has allowed them to run the southern part of the country, and has recieved the reward for such things now!

You guys really need to relax. Yes, this is a heated discussion, but "all of these analogies are stupid" or "something that you just pulled out of your ass" is crossing the line. If you can't post in a calm manner, simply hit the back button. It's obvious that unless new information is intruduced, I'm not chaning my mind about the value of human life, no matter what the nationality. I've read every post in the thread. I disagree with you. Deal with it. If you continue to lose your temper, you could say something to get yourslef banned, and what purpous does that serve?

Semantics is the useage and meaning of words. The difference between civilians and terrorists isn't semantics. Frankly, the lack of empathy for those who have been injured and killed, and for those who continue to be in danger from the attacks is staggering.

how is me saying "all these analogies are stupid" or you "pulled it out your ass" an any way me getting heated. unfortunately, this being an internet forum you can't tell with that tone i am typing. i also said ALL of these anologies are stupid, those including the ones that people who share a similar opinion that i do have posted. and would you have prefered i said "butt" or "backside"?

"Frankly, the lack of empathy for those who have been injured and killed, and for those who continue to be in danger from the attacks is staggering."
read any of my previous posts and you'll see that is not true. but i guess u just want to ignore that fact.

if i thought that the people of lebanon were terrorists, why would i hope that that the families of several of these posters on this forum stay safe or hope that this conflict gets resovled with minimal lives lost. but i guess you want to ignore that as well.

i am not trying to change your view point. you can rarely change someone's view point if they firmly beleive in something. if you could, then this whole middle eastern problem wouldnt even exist.

If I said, "Your a fucking idiot and your posts are stupid", would you need to hear a tonme to understand what I was communicating? I doubt it. Your last post moved away from the discussion about the situation in Israel and Lebanon, and towards personal attacks and flame bait. Calling someone's opinions or statements stupid is not a sign of respect.
It's easy to show sympathy towards those you know. It's less easy to show sympathy towards people you don't.
[QUOTE=Nirvana]if i thought that the people of lebanon were terrorists, why would i hope that that the families of several of these posters on this forum stay safe or hope that this conflict gets resovled with minimal lives lost. but i guess you want to ignore that as well.[/QUOTE[
I read that and toyu know what I thought to myself? "Hmmm, Israel should be bombing Lebanon, but the families of the forum members shouldn't be in danger...that seems a bit contradictory". Was I wrong?
What an odd comparison. I don't suppose you are trying to infer a connection there, are you?

The "middle eastern problem" is incredibly complex, so much so that I doubt there are a handfull of people in the world who know the full scope. I can guerantee it's not as simple as people being inflexable.

Tell that to Gandhi...




Nirvana... willravel is correct in taking you to task for your tone. Please take it down a notch or watch how quickly this thread gets closed.

This IS a hot button topic. There is no reason we cannot keep cool heads. If you are too hot to post rationally, then take some time before you reply.

This will be the only warning.

i have also stated in previous posts about the people of lebanon in general. and plus, this is the first time i have ever spoken to either of those two posters. i dont know them personally, nor do i know anything about them. to say that i have only sympathy towards those that i know is just wrong because i dont even know those two posters. I just hope their families and others are safe.

"I read that and toyu know what I thought to myself? "Hmmm, Israel should be bombing Lebanon, but the families of the forum members shouldn't be in danger...that seems a bit contradictory". Was I wrong? "

do i beleive that israel has the right to bomb infrastructure? yes i do beleive they have that right. this is a very common war tactic. this was even a war tactic used during the days of the civil war. do i beleive israel is wrong about bombing that convoy of people (this is somehting i heard previously in the forum so i dont know the full details) even if it was an accident? yes i do. it is up to israel to make sure the attacks are precise and well calculated so there is minimal civilian life lost. my opinion has been far from one sided. for you to continualy say that i have no sympathy for the people who are caught in the conflict is wrong. of course the families shouldn't be in danger. in an ideal world, they wouldn't be. and just because they are in danger right now doesn't mean that i don't want them to come out of this ok.

and im sorry if you felt i was being hot-headed. but let's not dwell on that because that's not being discussed.

I really would appreciate it if someone would answer my question:

Suppose a radical group in Canada continuously fires rockets at major United States cities, attacks United States citizens and kidnaps United States soldiers while the Canadian government stands by and does absolutely nothing to remedy the situation (They claim they're too weak to effectively deal with the radicals). Let's also suppose that this radical group has some amount of political say-so in Canada. How long do you think it would take the United States to take matters into it's own hands and, given the circumtances, would anyone blame the United States for invading Canada to remove the threat posed to the United States?

A country has to protect it's borders and, more imporantly, it's citizens.

Canada isn't as weak as Lebanon...not by a long shot. *If* Canada were as weak as Lebanon, then I suspect that attacking them really wouldn't stop the terrorists. What attacking the would do is polarize the Canadians who were sympathetic into siding with the terrorists. After all, when you kill innocent civilians, you tend to make people not like you. You'd think the Israelis would understand that, what with WWII and all.

Would I blam the US for invading Canada in your hypothetical situation? Well that depends on what you mean by "invading". If you mean contacthing the government and demanding that they give up the locations of all known Hezbollah...I mean whatever name the Canadian terrorist group (let's call them the CLO, or Canadian Liberation Front) locations were. If they didn't give them up, then if the US were to send in troops multilaterally with several other nations, and were to only shoot when shot at, then maybe. Sitting back here and bombarding Canada with missles and bombs isn't quite the same thing.

If Israel were interested in protecting it's borders, they might consider trying to make friends with arab citizens of neighboring nations. 100 innocent civilians dead, people with no connections to Hezbollah, is quite counterproductive.

OK, being Canadian, let me give a rough political sketch of a situation as you describe.

Quebec, a province supported in the House of Commons, Canada's parliament, treated as equals, The Bloc Quebecois are the almost official opposition, and are responsible for firing rockets into the US because they hate Americans.

Now the Americans see this as an act of war, and start destroying Canadian cities of their amenities. The US doesnt seek to notify or to understand the international legality of the situation and acts without notification to anyone. As long as someone is suspected, well then it's lights out.

Hundreds of civilians are killed but it doesnt matter. It's their right to kill. Unconditionally. With no strings attached.They are fighting terror.

I suppose you to expect that if this event happened, Canadian's would sit down, have a pint and go,.."Well ain't that the shit's," and then praise the American's for ruining their lives, the ones that were destroyed. Do you think?

So, let's do the US next. Let's formulate a scenerio 15 years from now where the US has lost ground to China and has Russia to deal with as a merging super power once again. Bets are the US will be a solid second. Good thing they are best buddies with Israel.

Well, thanks for answering my question, first of all.

With that being said, I can guarantee you that Israel has taken the necessary diplomatic procedures. Remember that in 2004, as due to the terms of the new Security Council resolution 1559, Syria left Lebanon under the terms that Lebanese would get rid of the Hezebollah located there. Syria did a bit to comply. Lebanon didn't. Israel is still being attacked by Hezbollah from the areas in which Lebanon was supposed to de-Hezebollahfy (All right. I know that's not a real word, but whatever). Basically, what you're saying is that Israel should sit around and do absolutely nothing while being attacked, for fear of turning more Arabs against them.

Do you really think that Lebanon is going to line up every member of Hezbollah and turn them over to Israel? That's a rather nice notion, but not one which is likely to happen. And do you honestly expect any country to maintain a diplomatic process when it's having it's cities bombed, it's people attacked and it's soldiers kidnapped? That's a flat out act of war.

Anyway, Israel has tried to make friends in the middle east. Most people would rather see them destroyed, though. You can't be someone's friend when they refuse to acknowledge your right to exist or to make any concessions in the effort for peace.

Oops! Strawman! This is why it's so difficult to have a discussion about Israel: if you take a stand against the policies of Israel, everyone assumes that you hate Israel. Let me make this clear: no one is saying that Israel should bend over. All that we, or at least I, am saying is that killing innocent people shouldn't be plan A. That's all. It was a mistake to kill those people, it's not a mistake to respond to terrorism.

That's funny because that is exactly what Benjamin Netanyuhu and his supporters preach around the world. Perfect irony.

Israel doesn't want peace. It's not profitable. Imagine if the mideast were all hugs and kisses. Israel without outside influence or benefits (money) would effectively approach the third world status, or that of the living standard throughout the mideast.

Killing innocents isn't plan A. You take the fact that civilians have been killed and blow it into a "Israel is purposely attacking civilians!" type of argument (Which is simply a lie). Israel isn't targetting civilians. They're targetting the social structure in order to weaken Hezbollah.

I suppose that, following your logic, the United States tried to kill Japanese civilians when they dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima or that allied forces tried to kill German civilians during WWII by bombing German civilians. Their aim was simply to kill civilians.

No matter what Israel does, civilians will die-- It's an inevitable part of war-- And you would still be criticizing Israel for their actions. It's smarter for Israel to bomb key social structures then it is to march soldiers into Lebanon and have many more civilian casualties.

willravel, i don't assume that you hate israel. my grandmother who has survived the holocaust herself condems some isreali actions as well as the rest of my family does. my family has said that israel needed to plan this out better and i agree with them. but bombing infrastructure, in my opinion, is a common military tactic and i do agree with it. like ive said before, i have condemned any bombing with civilian populations (like that convoy or whatever it was).

That's a rather cynical view you've got there.

You say Israel doesn't want peace? Then what do you call the numerous concessions which they have made over the past ten or so years? I suppose you've conveniently ignored how they have bent over backwards (Did you happen to miss how Israel forcibly removed it's own citizens from Gaza?) for many Arab countries while receiving an increase in violence for their efforts.

Now, if you would have said many Arab countries don't want peace with Israel, I would have been inclined to agree.

No you missed my point. To continue to be dehumanized to the point of no return is a crime against humanity and should be addressed. And who are you and your supporters that feel we should give up every imaginable basic human right to satify your every whim.

How many gods are there in the world?

They're not being dehumanized. Bombing infrastructure is the best possible recourse of action-- Especially when compared to using ground troops.

You are acting as if Israel is purposely targetting civilians. They are not. They're using the best possible choice which will result in the smallest number of civilian casualties.

OK one more quick one before my boyfriend seals the deal with the baked lobster.(between you and he, he's a little distracted.)

So Ariel Sharon didnt want to deal with PM Abbas but said he will discuss peace with an elected Palestinian govt. He knew civil war or Hamas would win so his natural response would be,..."we aren't dealing with terrorists." when Hamas won. Easy one I'd say.

So you don't deal with terrorists, and they don'T get fuck all.

Got to go. Looking forward to some strong words from Canada's PM at the G8 summit regarding Israel killing 8 Canadian civilians.

now i heard reports of israel of targeting hezbolah stronholds in civilian populated areas. that i entirely diasgree with because that puts a large number of people in danger.

Why should they not be hit? This shows a disregard for the civilian population by Hezbollah, not by Israel.

if they are to be hit, they need to be hit with a highly calculated strike that won't cause a lot of collateral damage. i don't know if there is a missile capable of that.i do agree with hezbollah having no regard for lebanon and its people. during a press conference the leader of hezbollah was asking something like "did you consider lebanon before the kidnappings" and he replied with something along the lines of "there are more important things at hand."

That's the same thing I asked earlier.

Most countries accuse Israel of being reckless and having a low regard for civilian casualties, but why isn't anyone questioning Lebanon's-- Or even Hezbollah's-- Apparent lack of concern for citizens in their own countries.

I seriously doubt that this is a realistic possibility in the current conflict. I doubt the Lebanese would have the capacity to do so, given that Hezbollah seems to effectively control southern Lebanon - and even if they did have the power to do so, do you really think they would? I don't see ANY group being rounded up quickly by the local authorities in the Middle East if one of their main promises is to attack Israel.

In all seriousness, what does "multilateral" have to do with anything at all? You want "multilateral", I'll give you a dodecagon. If you're responding to a real threat, then going it alone shouldn't have any impact whatsoever on whether your actions are just. Similarly, if you're carrying out a flagrantly illegal act of aggression with no justification, then having half the world supporting you with troops on the ground or in the air or at sea is not going to change the legality, or lack thereof, of your actions by one little bit.

As for only shooting when you're shot at, why should it work like that? The whole premise of your argument is that you already HAVE been shot at!

No, of course it's not the same thing. Why should it be the same thing? Any general who allows "all things to be equal" when they should be well and truly in his side's favour is grossly incompetent.

And just how, exactly, should they do that?

Dead innocent Israeli civilians, people also with no connections to Hezbollah, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or any other such organisations, are also quite counterproductive.

I consider the two linked. If one is able to bend their morality so as to allow them to kill inncent people for the 'greater good', then why bother with morals at all? Israel did purpously attack, and they knew they'd kill innocent civilians, so how is it so far fetched to say "Israel is purposely attacking civilians!"? Yes, of course they are targeting the infurstructure. They could have hit places like the runways at 3 AM, or vacant roads. They are trying to scare the Lebanese people. That's terrorism, btw.
Dualistic purpous: kill Japanese, and scare the ones who survive. If the Japanese (who had already lost) saw that we were able to harness the power of the sun to destroy them, they were more likely to surrender.

The same thing was true with the Nazi forces, and the good Germans. The allied forces wanted to create terror that would cause confusion. War is the art of murder, let there be no doubt of that.
If Isreal were at war with Lebanon, then I might be more understanding. Israel is at war with Hezbollah. While ther obviously is a history to the conflict, this specific strike was in response to two kidnapped soldiers. You make it sound like this is after years of Israeli pent up aggression they finally struck back. Not true. Israel fights back and even initiates all the time. This is just another attack by Israel.

It's that gesture that would rally support from places like Russia and Europe. Making war on Lebanon is just another horrible Middle Eastern tragety. Trying to show respect would be viewed as understanding and evolved. Of course Lebanon doesn't have the power to stop Hezbollah, as proven by the fact that Hezbollah still operates in Lebanon. If hey had the necessary power, Hezbollah would have been expelled years ago, and Israel and Lebanon might be enjoying a very benificial and hopeful friendship.
Multilateral has a lot to do with my last point. The rest of the world sees the Middle East as a place that's been at war for generations, and shows no sign of improvement. A sign of change would be inviting others to help solve the situation. Israel is as much of a threat to Lebanon as Lebanon is to Israel. The difference is that whre as the Lebanese government has *some* Hezbollah representation, Israel's government as a whole decided to attack Lebanon.
The hypothetical situation posed supposes a terrorist group from Canada has already struck. Bottom line: Hezbollah does not represent the populace of Lebanon, so they do not deserve to take the brunt of the reciprication for the kidnappings and attacks.
[QUOTE=OzOz]And just how, exactly, should they do that?
Step 1) stop bombing Lebanese that had nothing to do with the Hezbollah.
Step 2) stop bulldozing Palestinian homes
Well no shit, but no one is arguing that Hezbollah was right in attacking Israel or kidnapping soldiers. If you read my posts, I am very clear in condemning the acts of the Hezbollah. I speak on behalf of the civilains of Lebanon. You are agruing it is right for Israel to have shot bombs into Lebanon knowingly killing inncent civilians. I couldn't disagree more.

Well I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees ;)

I think you might be over reaching your bounds here speaking for the civilians of Lebanon. In light of the attacks the 'government' of Lebanon says they MIGHT use the army in southern Lebanon to remove Hizbollah. They are getting bombed, people are dying and they might do something. Thats spiffy. Of course they are so weak they can't so its a moot point, odds are the army (70k) would split and we would have another civil war. Israel is attacking a terrorist nation with a veneer of respectibilty in the form of a powerless democratic government, but as usual the same suspects are on the side of the terrorists.

Alright, I was being a bit sarcastic, but I'm sure you get my point. It seems the interest of the populace of Lebanon isn't on everyone's minds. My sympathies are evenly divided, going to the civilians of Lebanon and Israel.
Israel is a terrorist nation, so I fail to see where this sense of moral high ground comes from. The difference, of course, is that the Lebanese government has almost no power. Israel, on the other hand, is quite powerful. If worse came to worse, I suspect that Israel could hold off Iran Syria and Egypt at once. I hope that never happens, mind you, but if it did Israel would be able to do a lot of damage. Israel even has nuclear capabilities.

Hezbollah needs to be stopped, but there are better ways than bombing civilian targets and getting nothing but collateral damage.

Israel is at war with Lebanon. Israel is at war with virtually all countries in the immediate vicinity, with the sole exceptions of Egypt and Jordan. They are the only two countries it has fought over the last 60 years that have signed peace treaties with it. With the rest, it is in a state of suspended hostilities - although granted that hostilities with Lebanon have been not so suspended in the last few days. And yes, I can understand if you think this is being somewhat pedantic.

Such support, explicit or implicit (i.e. no use of a UNSC permanent member's veto) already exists, for without it, UN Security Council Resolution 1559 would have been impossible. From Wikipedia (United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1559):

Yet despite this support, demonstrably nothing has been done - and the background for this, also from the same page, is very instructive. The Lebanese government has made an official response to this resolution. In terms of disarming guerillas, one of the requirements of the resolution, their response was (also from the same Wikipedia page):

(This text is also found on the Lebanese Army's website here. Emphasis added by me.)

(Also, regarding the Shebaa Farms mentioned in the above quote, and to cut a long story short: This is a small area of about 12 square miles which ironically is the subject of a border dispute between Lebanon and Syria. Lebanon contends that it should have been included in the area that Israel withdrew from in 2000. However, the UN is satisfied that Israel completely withdrew from Lebanon at that time, as it does not regard the Shebaa Farms area as part of Lebanon, partly on the basis of official maps from Lebanese government agencies, including the army. See Shebaa_Farms for more information.)

willravel, before doing a bit of research for this post, I was inclined to agree with you that Lebanon doesn't have the power to stop Hezbollah - in fact, I'd still probably agree with you on this point. However, preserving Hezbollah in Lebanon is official Lebanese government policy, as shown by their own statement in response to UNSC Resolution 1559. They have no intention of even asking them politely to put down their toys and behave. That, to me, shows the whole situation in a completely different light.

Oh? We've already established that they form part of the government of Lebanon. This fact alone stretches your claim a little bit thin. Also, the Lebanese government refuses to even ask Hezbollah to leave, but supports them as a "Lebanese strategic interest" - so they have the full support of those who do represent the populace of Lebanon.

This I am pleased to acknowledge, now that you have corrected me. However, I also note that the Lebanese government does not share your condemnation.

I am arguing nothing of the sort. What I am arguing is that it is right for Israel to go after Hezbollah, following everyone else's obvious failure and/or outright refusal to do so, even though innocent civilian casualties will be inflicted. I also note that it is the modus operandi of virtually all such terror groups to hide themselves in and surround themselves with the local population, so that civilian casualties cannot be avoided in hunting such groups down - and said casualties are then held up as evidence of "atrocities". What are the Israelis supposed to do - ask Hezbollah to obligingly line up here, and the rest of the population to line up over there, so that the Israelis can just shoot the "bad guys"?

The hard part, of these things that most do not realize is that Abbas, Arafat, are all terrorists. That their organization was respobsible at the time of doing terrorist attacks. That none of them ever disarmed the terrorist groups. That there were documents proving that arafat while being PM, gave money to the terrorist groups for rockets... But again, they disengaged over a year ago, and what has the palestenians done besides attack, and elect a terorist organization that continues to act as a terrorist organization as their government...

That is why they are in civilian neighborhoods. That is why that when the terrorists travel they take their kids with them as well.. operation human shield. But like infinite, said blame the terrorists. They hit you hide behind a baby, and now everyone cries look out he is trying to hit a kid. Well maybe that works a few times, but at some time the parents of the kid have to say enough you can not hide behind us.. or someone has to try to hit him anyways.

exactly, you have no choice...

Really, they have not been in Lebanon for a few years.. they have been out of palestine for a year now. And they continue to attack attack attack... Interesing they are the terrorists. I guess Israelies are the ones doing rocket attacks daily, and Israelies are blowing up buses in resturaunts.. Oh no wait sorry that is wrong it is the other way around...

What way would work 'better.' What has worked with these terrorists, besides giving them all that they want.. Oh wait they want Israel not to exist, is that your solution?

That'll happen when pigs fly. Israel could nuke Vancouver, and Harper wouldn't say a thing against them.

I don't see the point of posting much in this thread anymore, but I'll post one more thing related to this point.

Yes, Hezbollah is part of the government of Lebanon. But note a few things: they are not a majority in the government (by far), and those who elected them are not a majority of the populace. The mostly Shia voters who support Hezbollah make up approx. 30% (at most) of the country's population; Hezbollah is very unpopular with the Sunni and Maronite Christian rest of the population.

However, the flipside of this is that while Hezbollah is supported by only a minority in Lebanon, that minority is still significant to the overall make-up of Lebanon. In other words, for the 70% to turn on the 30% and basically isolate their interests, would incite another civil war. The Shia would certainly fight (again) against the other groups to defend their interests (Hezbollah); and so in fact, if Lebanon is expected to "get rid" of Hezbollah (indeed, a self-amputation), they will only bring on themselves a civil war.

So yes, nations have a right to defend themselves, but do they have a responsibility to disarm a terrorist group IF that action would result in a civil war? (especially after they've already been through one for 15 years, just 15 years ago?) You might say yes... but try to understand the reluctance of the Lebanese to split themselves down the middle again.

Just wondering about your thoughts on this.

Well, it is not an easy decision, and Israel allowed Lebanon to work on that solution, until Hezbollah assaulted and kidnapped some soldiers. At which point Lebanon got put in to a new catagory, not just the usual assaults, but a new escalation. And Israel at that point has no choice but to defends its citizens..

So sadly, yes Hezbollah made a decision that screwed things up for the rest of the country. Because at some point a nation has to draw a line and say that we can no longer tolerate your country attacking ours. And that literally is what it is.

I just want to point out that you, willravel, are very outspoken about civillian deaths, but you completely ignore the fact that when these 2 soldiers were captured, 8 others were killed. You didn't even mention it. In addition, the kidnapping of 2 soldiers isn't what this is *supposed* to be about. Have you ever heard the term "the straw that broke the camel's back" There were years and years of rockets fired into israel on a daily basis. Suicide bombings and shootings, more kidnappings. Israel has been playing the restraint game for 6 years and look where its got them. They've made unilatteral concessions that end up resulting in more rocket fire into israel and kidnapping of soldiers. Its time something more is done. A harsh enemy requires a harsh response.

You're anti-war stance has appeared to morph into an anti-israeli stance. Your abhoration of civillian deaths blinds you to the full nature of war. You fail to see the difference between a terrorist organization, Hezbollah - basically an arm of Iranian revolutionary guard, a proxy for iranian anti-semetic agenda. You think israel bombs bridges and airports to terrorize civillians, when that is not what this is about. Airports and bridges must be bomed to cut off the supply line to Hezbollah from iran and syria. Did you know before israel dropped one bomb in lebanon the dropped millions of leaflets letting the civillians know to take shelter? Do you know the lenths the IDF goes to limit civillian casualties?

A simplistic approach such as yours where you define israels actions as terrorism agianst the lebonese people and their ultimate goal of "just destroying Lebanon because they hate it" is doing a disservice to the truth of the matter.

Now back to reading the last page and a half of posts.

Plainly false. Israel has a self-sustaining economy. They have productive agriculture, manufacturing, service, and hi-tech sectors. They don't need war to survive.

Anyone recall the US's response when the Mexcians couldn't control their territory and Mexican raiders attacked a US city?

What do you think would happen today if Mexico killed and captured US border guards and started to launch rockets into US towns now and then?

I'd use Canada as an example but we know how ridiculous that thought would be :)

Now why is it ok for the US to defend itself and not ok for Israel? I think Israel has shown amazing restraint the last 10 years, pointless but amazing. They get no credit, get condemned every time they kill a terrorist, but get very little sympathy every time a party, night club, or pizza place is blown to hell.

I wish I could chalk up the anti-Israeli sentiments on basic anti-Semitisim. Thats something thats at least easy to understand as a motive, and for many in Europe I think that is a contributing factor, but I don't think thats the cause. Israel is the only real democracy in the region, with womens rights, gay rights, and freedom of religion yet they are the demon to the left. I can think of a few reasons why but honestly I don't get it. I really think the socialists just want Israel destroyed so they don't have to worry about it anymore.

I don't know what Israel should have done in response to this latest assault, but I know what they should not have done. Any organization, nation or entity that doesn't place value on innocent life is on my shit list. It's really that simple. Hezbollah is on my shit list. Israel is on my shit list. Several Palestinian organizations including Hamas are on my shit list. I am well aware of the 'nature of war', but that sure as hell doesn't mean that I woulnd't do anything to end war (or, removing the double negative, I would do anything to end war). I don't like the idea of 'accepting' that war is simply a part of life and allowing it to continue. That's simply not good enough, and the world isn't going to get any better unless we change our way of thinking. My anti-war stance has always included Israel, Palestine, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and slews of others, none the least of which is my own country. If you want to call be anti-Israeli, I can't stop you, but you'll have to call me anti-pretty much everyone, too. The problem is that when threads like this one pop up, they are very much one sided against the enemies of Israel. Israel is not a saint. They do wrong. They make mistakes like everyone else. They get involved in military posturing. They hurt people who don't deserve to be hurt (case in point this thread). Yes, Israel sent leaflets that said something like "stay away from Hezbollah locations", but how many Lebanese know where those places are? What does that really mean besides, "Run and hit, we're going to destroy your home"? Also, Israeli aircraft fired missiles at one of Hezbollah's radio stations, but hit a nearby apartment building instead. Oops! Casualties of war, I guess. It's not simplistic to show compassion for the people in that apartment, or people at an airport, or people on bridges. It's reasonable to feel sympathy for innocent people who are in danger, being injured, or killed. I DO hope that the Israeli soldiers are allowed to go free. They never should have been kidnapped, and Hezbollah should be destroyed. Doesn't that kinda go without saying, though?

I suspect that Hezbollah was simply expecting a prisoner exchange, a la the January 29, 2004 prisoner exchange overseen by Germany. Stupid move.

Well then, let us just say simple, you are any any violence. I agree. But the world does not live that life, so we have to live in reality and respond to that.

Sadly Hezbollah did not agree to it.

As far as the prisoner trade goes... And you forget the 8 soldiers killed, and the fact that they demand hundreds of people in return for 2. Sorry but the straw that broke the camels back, sadly the camel was standing over some kids when it fell. And same here, sadly in war the innocents are hurt, and it saddens me, but it is a fact of life. But Hezbollah has the blame, they kept going and going and going until they crossed the line.

Well, I am very against needless violence. If soldiers have to die, then soldiers have to die. They choose their vocation and hopefully understand the risks involved. The same thing is true with violent extreemists. They know that they could die, but they do waht they do anyway. It's sad that anyone has to die, but these people do it as a livelyhood. Civilians going to airports, walking by radio stations, or even simply living in their apartment are not soldiers or violent extreemists. They did not make the decision to kill people or to put their lives in danger. They don't deserve to die, and shouldn't simply be dismissed as "collateral damage" or "casualties of war". Their deaths should be avoided. They shouldn't be targeted. BTW, Israel might be declairing war on Lebanon, but I doubt it's a real war between two soverign nations. Israel want's Lebanon to comply with 1559 and all. I agree that Lebanon *should* be doing everything in their power to remove terrorist groups, and they clearly aren't. The UN should take action (since it was their resolution). Israel's attacks were not the proper response. All morality aside, do they really want to continue to alienate Lebanese citizens and piss off the rest of the world?
Like I said:
Hezbollah was unbelievably stupid to do what they've done, not just recently but overall. If they really wanted to destroy Israel as a state, they'd fake an attack on the US and frame Israeli intelligence. What they are doing now is emotionally induced attacks with very little real strategy. They suffer from ther same peoblems as most other terrorist groups: the leadership are simply the most extreeme of their viwpoint. They do not choose leadedrs based on military ability or strategy. That's why, a lot of the time, terrorists lose.

1) I don't see Washington bombing the Mexico City Airport if, say, Guadalaharan seperatists were to fire into the US. I see the US going after the offending parties directly rather than destroying all of Mexico's infrastructure.

2) No idea what this means. Completely off the rails with that comment.

Wow. Getting through these 4 pages was a real chore. Wow.

Some points that haven't been brought up yet (that I noticed):

1. The reason that the US and most of Western Europe are always backing Israel whether they are right or wrong is... because this is all our faults. WE made Israel, now we're responsible for it. The Jews haven't had a state in Jerusalem in 1000 years. Until 90 years ago, when we just put them there. No wonder the Palestinians are so pissed - they've had a way of life for 1000 years and they're supposed to just sit back while some other country says "here, give them your land and play nice"???

2. The analogies around here are just killing me. BUT... here's one more. Ever hear about the school bully? You know, the one that beats every one else up because he's really insecure? That's Israel. They're so finely wired at this point that it takes something little to set them off now. Not that I agree, but I can see where it began...

3. All this bullshit about how it's Lebanon's fault that they have Hezbollah in their country and government... wow. Really? Look, Lebanon - in case you missed the other posts - is recently out of a crazy fucking civil war. They are just getting their shit together, and the only way to stay together is to not piss off the other factions of your country. And Hezbollah... they're not exactly pushovers. How'd they get into power? Oh, I don't know... how did we end up with a idiotic danger to the world as President in the US? I know *I* didn't vote for him... but I can't control who did. There are more parallels between Bush and Hezbollah than I'm completely comfortable with. He's attacking other countries without provocation. He's only sort of been voted in. A huge portion of the country wants him gone. He's getting US citizens killed. Well... hm. Interesting.

4. Look, I have Jewish family. So be in no doubt as to my sympathies. However... Israel IS a terrorist state. Do they have cause? Are they entirely nuts? Yes, and no. But as it's been stated... two wrongs don't make a right. Boohoo, they've made concessions, big whoop. I'm not impressed. They shouldn't be there at all anymore, but that's a moot point now. Frankly, I'm a fan of luring all the armies - Israeli, Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah, blah blah... luring them out to the middle of the desert and then blowing them up. Because they are ruining the lives of countless civilians for no good reason.

In reality... what I think should happen is this: lots of sniper troops sent in to kill off all the leaders of the various factions until the people in power end up being peaceable people who actually care about their citizens. That's it.

Just Jess - Lebanon doesn't just have terrorists in its government they CONTROL southern Lebanon. The official Lebanese government has no power in half of the country. This is basically a terrorist state supplied by Syria and Iran whos goal is the eventual destruction of Israel. If you want them to suck down missile and suicide attacks like they mean nothing, thats great, I wouldn't stand for it myself and its about time Israel did what they should have done years ago.

I have to wonder, does it give anyone pause to think they are supporting the side that condones and glorifies children turning themselves into human bombs and has the support of the likes of Iran, Syria, and Osama?

Israel may not be spotless, but the 'bad guys' should be pretty easy to spot here.

Does it give anyone pause that when one explains that Israel is ALSO wrong, that you are basically labaled a terrorist sympathzer? If two bads are fighting one another, there is nothing wrong with saying that both sides are bad. So, Ustwo, who here is supporting the Hezbollah, Iran, Syrian, or the al Qaeda?

Outside of allowing the terrorist organizations to continue to attack them, what is the "proper" response? Again, they send hundreds of rockets in to the nation, they have waited over a year, and the terrorists organizations not only have become part of the government, they have re-armed. They attack military bases in Isreal, not anywhere on their land, and kidnap soldiers on top of that.

So what is the response? Did the UN do anything during all this time? Has any nation done anything, besides wag their finger and go bad boy bad boy? Nope, it is all right to condemn Israel now, but you do not hear half of the condemnation from these same nations after every terrorist attack. We do not hear here about 1/2 the attacks that get stopped, of the daily rocket attacks. You know why, it is not news, it is acceptable.

Well sorry, it is not acceptable any longer.

No one asked them to change their way of life. They only need to co-exist peacefully with the Jews, something they seem totally unwilling and incapable of doing.

Israel doesn't go arbitrarily attacking other countries because it can nor does it attack another country simply because it hates one group of people. Anyway, you say that something to little can tick them off?

Why don't we continue to shell the city in which you live or start killing the people who live their arbitrarily. I guarantee you that you wouldn't stand for it very long. The fact that Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers as well as killed eight civilians is basically "The straw that broke the camel's back".

It's not the same thing. Bush hasn't shown outright hatred towards another country and hasn't pledged the total destruction of any particular nation. Hezbollah, Hamas and all of those radical groups have. See the difference?

It doesn't matter whether or not Lebanon is coming out of civil war. If they can't control factions inside of their own territory attacking another country, then they have to understand that the country which is constantly being attacked-- In this case, Israel-- Will do something about it. It's as simple as that.

What is the response? I'm not 100% sure. I'm not a military tactician, after all. I'm some guy in the US trying to figure out what the hell is going on in the world. What I do know is that civilians are dea, and I'm not happy about it. That's where I started in all this. From there I figured in the international opinion about what's going on, namely that people think Israel's response was far too large and barbaric. Why would the world say that? Wel, it has a lot to do with the fact that the Lenabese who died had no ties to the terrrorist organization that was supposed to be the target. It's like being bittin by a spider in your back yard, and then burning your backyard to the ground to prevent it from happening again (yes, another analogy).

Again, people seem to have this absurd notion that because I condemn Israel's attacks, that I somehow accept the attacks of the Hezbollah or any other radical Arabs. Well, that's a silly notion. Anyone else who thinks that I am somehow pro-Hezbollah and such should understand that I am without question, completly and totally against terrorism in all it's forms, ESPECIALLY when it is based on racism. Hezbollah should be disbanded, and it's members brought to justice by the courts of their victims. Those in Syria and Iran should also be brought to justice. You'd think that would go wiothout saying, but I'm saying it anyway.

So let's review:
-Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and other radical terrorists = bad, and should be brought to justice by courts
-Israel = wrong, should stop bombing the living crap out of civilians that mean Israel no harm

Didn't the Jewish people already own a fairly substantial piece of that area that they had purchased from the indigenous people?

From what I have seen Israel has made many attempts to be peaceful since 194x when they were established (remember Syria only became Syria 2 years earlier). The 6 day war ended pretty well for egypt when they were willing to negotiate. Israel seem to have hit that final straw, and frankly I can't blame them, heck myself and a few friends were tempted to put down a bet that Israel will be the second country to fire a nuke in anger.

What IS the point of this thread. I fail to see it. And yet I go on posting.

JustJess, excellent points, especially #3. That was where I was trying to go, with my post before this one.

Ustwo, I have not yet seen your answers to my questions from a few days ago, about you conflating the Lebanese with the Palestinians, and in fact the Lebanese with Hezbollah. You seem to think (from what you have written, this is all I can tell) that everyone who lives in the Middle East (outside of Israel) is an extremist Muslim who wants to be a terrorist, and they raise their children that way.

Please, I know you have the intelligence to recognize that you are making a dangerously broad generalization in the heat of this argument... please tell me that you recognize that. You simply cannot make such generalizations, because they are squarely wrong.

I don't think ANYONE here is supporting Hezbollah. There are just some of us who choose ALSO not to support Israel's current level of action. A plague o' both their houses, yes... but not on Lebanese OR Israeli civilians. Sigh.

ye they did. i beleive there was a substantial jewish population in Palestine (the name given to the region by the Romans and then by the british when discussing basically how to carve it all up) before the 1900's and it grew steadyly throughtout the early to mid 1900s with a mass exodus after world war 2. some people didn't like this growth. that is why the Mufti of Jerusalem workeed with hitler to create an arab SS during World War 2.

Please guys no more analogies. they really don't add anything to discussion. though i have to admit, you guys are pretty clever with the ones you came up with.

I forgot the names of the two posters who had family in lebanon but i was wondering if you guys heard any news. how are they? we have a few family friends who have contacted their family back in lebanon and they have been having a hard time reaching them.

I forgot the names of the two posters who had family in lebanon but i was wondering if you guys heard any news. how are they? we have a few family friends who have contacted their family back in lebanon and they have been having a hard time reaching them.

I have to agree with the comparison you're drawing here. It's amazing how much double talk and compramised morals get into play when people fall over themselves to condemn Israel.

They're the only state playing the arab's dirty game by the same rules. For every muslim "religion of peace TM" bombing, there's 100,000 rioting muslims...or maybe that was 1,000,000 muslims not voicing opposition to wanton violence in thier religion's name. Yet, if Israel kills back...whaoh boy...out comes the condemnation.

They're stuck in a religious war over there. We're in it also, but haven't come to realize that particular fact yet.

There is an amazing set of contraditictions in play with the whole middle east mess or "MEM." If you're Muslim, it's okay to set fire to cities in reaction to drawings of your idol...but get pissy after years of rocket attacks, murders, and now kidnappings, and you're STILL not justified in your actions.

Amazing.

Ummm, what the fuck happened to the mods?

I could have sworn I was in General Discussion, but this is clearly a political thread.

Ah, prime example of what I was talking about. "If people think that Israel is ever wrong, then they obviously support the Arab extreemists." Somehow because we are able to understand that Israel isn't perfect, we are somehow admitting that the attacks on Israel are okay. Such tremendous black and white thinking must lead to a very simple and blissful political existence.

I must ask: can Israel do wrong? Is Israel holy and above our understanding? Are we even worthy of judging them?

Sometimes war is in fact called for. Hizboolah should be dibanded, thats great will, so how will that be done? Should the UN pass another resolution, well I take that back the UN almost never condems islamic terrorism in specific terms. Should Lebanon move its army in? Oh wait it can't because they are too weak and would fight another civil war. Should we expect Syria and Iran to see the wisdom of accepting Israel? (pause for laughter)

So Will you can complain all you want, but there is no solution besides war and in war civilians will die, they always have and always will. The breaking point has been reached.

The ONLY reason anyone is talking about action now is because Israel is bombing the shit out of them. NOW the UN thinks maybe they should have a peacekeeping (ha!) force there, now Lebanon thinks maybe Hizbollah shouldn't have free run in the south.

Ironicly most lasting peace in the world is achieved by war not words. I can think of no people who gained freedom from an oppresive power without war involved, and innocent blood being split.

So because neither you nor I (laymen in the art of war) can think of a solution, there is none? If Ustwo and Willravel can't think of a plan to remove or somehow do harm to Hezbollah, none exists and we should move on to plan B: civilian target practice. Sorry, I don't buy it.

And Canada disproves your war = peace argument. Canada gained peaceful independence and has been very peaceful since. I suspect peace happens to follow war because socities lose taste for war after a point.

That must be a big step down from your horse. I'll get off mine if you'll get off yours...

Israel isn't perfect, of course. They put up with an incredible amount of violence from terrorists, and still can't be seen as justified when they react. Yet, I read page after page after page of apologists for terroists on the arab "side." I read how it's understandable this group shot up Israel for "insert wrong done do them here," over and over again. Isreal says "enough is enough," and it's still about how wrong Israel is.

If my descion of what I think is right and wrong earns me your insults about my "simplistic" view of black and white politics, than so be it. Your tone is deliberately sarcastic and condescending. Way to raise the level of discussion in a rapidly disentegrating thread.

Well you are still calling me an apologist for terrorists, so you still aren't seeing my words. If I want Hezbollah dismantled and brought to justice, then how am I an apologist? If I was an apoligst, then why did I say "Damn them" about the Hezbollah in post #67? Why did I say, "Hezbollah deserves to be brought to justice for what they've done, not just now, but over the past 20 years. They are by definition a terrorist group. They are trying to declair war on Israel" in post #80? Why did I say, "Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and other radical terrorists = bad, and should be brought to justice by courts" in post #149? Is that apologism, or is that condemnation? I'd say it's condemnation, but if you think it's apologism, then let me make this clear: I have never condoned the terrorist acts of the Hezbollah organization. It is a horrible, racist group that only exists to destroy a group of people, which is wrong. They have commited unspeakable acts over the past 20 years. If Hezbollah was gone tomorrow, I would celebrate.

One can condemn both sides of a conflict without choosing either side, right? Can't I say, "Hezbollah has been wrong for 20 years, AND Israel is wrong for targeting civilian targets"? Or does that mean that I am an apologist?

As for the insult thing: prove me wrong. I was insulted when you said:
...but instead of crying foul, I figured that I could simply make you back up your claims. So am I an apologist for the Hezbollah? Or am I sympathetic towards the Lebanese citizens who had nothing to do with the kidnappings and attacks on Israel?

Update: This is a horrible situation, and my thoughts are still with those innocents, Israeli and Lebanese, who are in danger.

Check this out: You gotta love the BBC for facts:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5180202.stm


willravel: I didn't address you directly in any of my comments. I don't know what you are, nor am I qualified to say so. I don't intened to comment on you directly either.
What I mean by that is, I'm not trying nor wanting to get in a one-on-one arguement.

I've read four full pages of this thread. I think that the following article is a fitting response that sums up my reaction to the "black and white" views that have been posted over the four pages:

From the " the cynic librarian":
Some of us have made the time to do our own research, outside of the filtered stream of "news" that many people "know what they know", as a result of. I cannot stress the signifigance of the fact that a search of the NY Times website, indicates that <b>they have never reported on JINSA.</b> Each of you owes it to yourself to inform yourself independently, if you truly hope to put what is happening now in the M.E., in a context that balances American interests, vs. the interests of all of the other parties involved. If you can see yourself described the way the article above does, in this phrase:
then you've got work to do...and it never stops....it's a lifelong pursuit, IMO...

Read the thread here on poliics, titled "Chemical Attack"....you may observe that there is much more independent information linked and displayed in the posts there, than in the four pages on this thread....

On a side point that no one has mentioned. All this happened with a peace keeping armed force of 2000 troops from the UN in southern Lebannon.... So we had a UN resolution to tell Hezballah to disarm, we had troops there supposedly to help keep the peace, and still they were able to attack Israel.

Now that its on the parinoia board, I'm done.

Without an army how would Hezbollah be brought down? Is some court just going to issue a warrent of some sort and hezbollah will just decide to disarm and turn themselves in? Who in syria and iran should be brought to justice? the leadership I'm assuming. How do you go about and bring these people to justice without violent force? They aren't just going to walk into the hague and hand over the keys to tehran or damascus. Sometimes war is necessary. Sometimes innocents die as a result. But if action was not taken, scores more innocents would continue to die in the future. in suicide bombings. in rocket attacks. in hostage takings.

and please stop saying israel is targeting civillians. You know thats not the case. Hundreds of rockets were fired from lebanon yesterday into israel. Hundreds. at one time, for over an hour, rocket fire averaged one per minute. Aimed at apartment buildings and hospitals. Not weapons storehouses, weapons manufacturing houses, ports where weapons can be delivered, roads where weapons can be transported. Because civillians die does not mean they are targeted. You know this, please stop lying.

I spoke with a young lady here at work who is a Lebanese Christian, she's distressed about the situation because her brother and grandmoter are currently stuck in Lebanon. The US Consulate is trying to evacuate US citizens to Cyprus.

She explained to me that 1/2 of the city is Muslim and the other is Christian. The Christian side is less affected directly but mostly affected by the loss of services like electricity and food stores.

She also stated that most of the income is tourism related so their economic income for the year is bad.

Article
The truth is the terrorists have won, this article states it very fairly the result of what happens when they get a response. Which is why I have been anti-response to a lot of the small attacks. But I now myself am pro everything that Israel has done, since a nation has to defends itself, and can only take so much before they MUST strike back.

since the infidada (sorry can not recall how you spell it), the Israeli tourism industry has been hit horribly. Imagine traveling there, and knowing that suicide bombers aim to strike at tourist sites, bars, restaurants etc… I can imagine now that lebannon would have a big problem with tourism, and I can only attempt to imagine how that hurts their economy (I know first hand how it struck some people I know in Israel).

UN's Idea
Amen, about sometime called a spade to this idea. I know when I heard it I joked about it with my family in Israel, since the 2000 peace soldiers there now, did so much...

you forget about the role of the israeli invasion of lebanon in creating and sustaining hezbollah....

but why consider history when ideology is so much more fun?

why is it that this kind of support for israel entails an absolute refusal to see israli responsibility for anything? how does this help? it certainly is worthless historically and analytically--i would have thought that political positions rested on some kind of historical and/or analytic base...

anyway this issue has come up explicitly in the other thread and so will refer folk to that rather than repeat here.

apologies for the cross-cut. not quite sure how to do the integrrating to themes across threads dance.

You also forget that in 1968 many Palestinians militants began to relocate to south Lebanon, for the sole purpose of launching periodic attacks against Israel.

...But, as you said, history isn't important.

I suspect the answer lies in forcing the UN to back up it's own resolutions, but again, I'm not a military tactician. The UN troops located in Southern Lebanon could be deployed to go to the source of the Hezbollah rockets and stop them from being fired. We could also freeze accounts and stop the funding of Hezbollah by a few wealthy people in Iran and Syria.
Well if you are targeting a hospital that you know has people in it, aren't you targeting those people? If you're targeting an airport that you know is fillied with civilians, then aren't you targeting those civilians? I'm not lying at all. They are not hitting airports on accedent. They are not striking them at 3 am when there would be less people there. Have you asked yourself why over 150 lenabese have died, but only 24 Israelis have died since this began? It's simple: Israel is willing and able to destroy more because of their vastly superior military.


What amazes me is how you say: "and please stop saying israel is targeting civillians.", and then you go on to support that by saying that Hezbollah is targeting civilians. Again, we have this confusing logic that if one side is bad, then the other side is good. Both sides can and are killing civilians. Hazbollah is doing it deliberately, and Israel isn't doing anything to prevent their bombs killing civilians (actively and passively killing citizens has the same result, no matter what the intent).

So there is no difference someone targeting rockets at hospitals, and other civilian organizations, or trying to attack terrorists who are firing those rockets hiding amongst other civilians?

Actively and passively killing civilians has the same result, no matter the intent. Pair that fact up with the fact that over 150 Lebanese people and around 24 Israeli people have died since this began, and the moral scale isn't as one sided. Israel was not trying to kill terrorists when they hit the airport. At best, they wer trying to destroy Lebanese infurstructure.

Well duh. of course they were destroying the infrastructure. Thats part of war. Israel wants to keep syria and iran from flying more missiles in, so they take out the airport. Because it wasn't done at 3am doesn't mean israel was trying to target civillians. You say yourself you aren't a military tactician, so stop trying. You don't know that israeli intel had some information that required the runway to be bombed no later. You act as if israel leveled the terminal. A slab of concrete got holes put in it. No one died.

You seem to be missing the fact that the rockets fired into israel are coming from civillian areas in lebanon. they are being fired from apartment windows. Perhaps the "lop-sided" body count is that way because of how Hezbollah positions their forces and because they truely do not care for the people of lebanon. To them the death of innocents (muslim or not) is justified by the destruction of israel.

Forcing the UN. did you just type that? how in the hell is anyone going to force the UN to do anything? The UN is useless as an enforcer of their own rules. THey write up documents and sometimes they are followed other times they aren't. Like UN Resolution 1559 - which was ignored. We all see how well the UN troops in south lebanon did at keeping hezbollah from attacking israel. Before you continue to clamor for UN troops please read Xazy's article a few posts up. Freezing accounts of "a few wealthy people in iran and syria? Its that simple is it? :rolleyes: So you assume israel, the US, and other western powers just have the ability to freeze iranian assets in iranian banks? how bout syrian assets in iranian banks? how would we go about doing that?

Your plan is weak and misguided.

I'm curious to know what your military tactical credentials are in light of your evaluation of Israeli military strategy.

If Israel has any interest in peace, they need to acknowledge that both Hezbollah and Hamas...for better or worse, are now active in the elected governments of their respective peoples. Diplomacy and compromise are required now. Not killing.

Let me also add that its not just iranian funds that keep hezbollah going. Hezbollah is more of an arm of the Iranian military than it is an independent group. Many are trained in Iran and some of the rockets fired into israel are manufactured in iran. Israel has alleged that iran has sent over 100 members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards are in Lebanon acting as advisers to Hezbollah. So its more than just a few rich people that need to have their assets frozen.

Israel only wants peace. It is hamas and hezbollah that don't. Israel has been playing the diplomacy/restraint game for years and it has got them nothing but more attacks. Israel has made concession after concession. Unilaterally pulling out of gaza and lebanon. when israel shows restraint and offers an olive branch the extremists view it as weakness and attack more. There is to be no peace with people who do not agree with your existence. You, aberkok, must understand that FIRST.

an excerpt from http://www.slate.com/?id=2065703

Well, I will have to bow to your obvious game theory degree from West Point, then. How was I to know that not only are you a military tactician, but you also are so knowledgable that you are able to insinuate that Israel had intel that lead them to know the best time to bomb the airport at Beirut with such confidence? My favorite quote above is "No one died". Well no one died at the airport....so then all the other deaths somehow don't count.

Stevo, over 150 Lebonese civilians are reported dead as of yesterday. Those people were not firing rockets at Israel. Israel has not formally declaired war against Lebanon, so I have to assume that these are simply murders.
Except Hezbollah isn't targeting military, they are simply firing blindly into populated areas. Again, for the millionth time, Hezbollah is a horrible group of terrorists, who I want to see destroyed. They have done nothing but terrorize Israel and Lebanon for years (just because they built a few hospitals in Lebanon doesn't erase the blood from their hands). Their crude tactics are endangering Lebanese citizens.

The cause of the lopsided body count is obvious: Israel has the largest and most technologically advanced military in the region. They are decades ahead of the other militaries due in no small part to the US's relationship with Israel. What does this mean? 1) Israel could wipe Lebanon from the face of the earth, if they so wished, but 2) Israel is also capable of surgical strikes. They don't need to simply level a city block, when they can destroy a single building, and leave everyone around it shaken, but alive. The death count stands in contrast with that situation. Over 150 dea, and almost none of them are Hezbollah tells me that either Israel has HORRIBLE intel (as in worse than US intel on WMDs), or they simply aren't trying to avoid killing innocent Labanese. The second seems more likely. It feels like it might be punishment for not getting rid of the Hezbollah durring the civil war.
Yes, I wrote forcing the UN. The nice thing about posts is that one can reread them. If the UN is to be more than a figurehead, then it must be able to stand on it's own two feet. Part of that is being able to set rules, and then enforce them. As stated a few posts up, then UN has forces in Lebanon. So how does one force the UN to do something? Well my favorite way is nonviolent protests. Have you ever blocaded a building? I have. If an organization or group were so inclined, they could blocade the UN. I'm pulling ideas out of my ass, but if that plan took me a fraction of a second to think of, imagine someone smarter spending a day thinking of something.

As for the freezing of accounts....I don't know, but at least I'm trying to think of an alternative instead of backing war to a fault.

The bottom line stays the same: Israel is killing civilians that have nothing to do with the attacks on Israel, and it's wrong.

an interesting media selection from NYTimes.com

Turmoil in the Middle East: Fury without letup

While someone out there will say that it's the NYTimes it's biased, I say at least watch the media, there's a section on Lebanon and one on Israel, and one on the diplomacy with respect to outside governments.

Both Hezbollah and Hamas want the utter destruction of Israel and nothing less. Diplomacy hasn't worked in the past, so what makes you think that Hezbollah and/or Hamas would be willing to negotiate with Israel now?

It doesn't matter what worked or didn't work in the past. The only real solution to this conflict will require diplomacy. If Hamas won't recognize Israel so be it. Israel *still* needs to continue to extend the olive branch...


That said, I feel that Israel's actions, while seemingly over the top and certainly not a step towards peace, are justified in the context of Israel waging a war on Hezbollah.

Taking out airports, bridges and roads, while also seeking the launch sites is justified given the belief (right or wrong -- though it is most certain right) that Syria and Iran will continue to supply Hezbollah with arms.

Since they cannot take the war to Syria and Iran they must keep Iran and Syria out of the picture as much as they can.


In the end, I am still not happy with either side in this conflict. Hezbollah needs to be taken out. Their actions are criminal and unjustified. Israel though, has a long history of fucking with its neighbours. I won't go as far as to say they've brought this upon themselves, as that is not entirely fair. I will simply say that Israel's hands are not clean in all of this.

I have no solution for this mess. All I can do is shake my head as Lebannon is once more made the battlefield for other's issues. They are proving to be the Belgium of the Middle East.

Israel offered Hezbollah a cease-fire as long as the two kidnapped soldiers were returned and as long as the Lebanese government complied with United Nation's Security Resolution 1559. Unsurprisingly, Hezbollah refused any kind of cease fire and has vowed to continue fighting.

What country in the world would continue to extend an olive branch to those people who continue to shell it's cities, kill it's citizens and kidnap it's soldier?

Is Lebanon the Belgium of the Middle East? Hardly. If the terrorists are a part of your government, then you have to accept the consequences of that decision.

Israel hadn't occupied Lebanon since 2000, as they pulled out over six years ago. Does anyone remember United Nation's Security Resolution 1559? Apparently not, because the United Nation's isn't enforcing it and neither is Lebanon. Hezbollah continues to attack Israel from a place which they were supposed to be removed from almost two years ago. Lebanon's defense is that they're too weak to remove the Hezbollah located in southern Lebanon. Well, that's fine and dandy, but if you're going to continue to allow a political faction located inside of your country to indescrimately fire rockets into another country, then you know that you run the risk of retaliation.

Do you think that if Hezbollah were firing rockets into the United States or Great Britain or any other western country that we'd be having this debate?

I sure would.

You can toss around Resolution 1559 all you want, it doesn't change the fact that unless Hezbollah wants to disarm they will never be disarmed.

The Lebanese army can't do it.
The Israeli's can't do it.
The UN can't do it.

The fact that Hezbollah is part of a coalition government is not the fault of the rest of Lebannon.

Lebanon is not to blame for this any more than Israel is to blame for this... think about it.

I hardly think Israel's in a position to demand that others comply with UN Security Council resolutions.

While they might not ever be disarmed, Israel shouldn't take a passive approach to Hezbollah when they continue to shell Israeli towns. It's better to do something rather than to do nothing and hope the situation gets better.

No, it's the fault of the Lebanese government. I don't think they have even tried to expell Hezbollah from their country.

I don't really agree with that statement. I suppose you are referring to the fact that Hezbollah was created in 1982/1983 after the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Though, I would like to point out that Islamic militants have been in souther Lebanon, attacking Israel, since 1968.

Israel no longer occupies Lebanon-- They haven't since 2000-- Yet Hezbollah, which is located inside of Lebanon, continues to attack Israel. In this situation, I solely blame the fact that Lebanon's government is completely inept and incapable of controlling terrorist factions in their own country.

Loser... read what I said again. Neither Lebanon nor Israel is to blame for Hezbollah.

__________________________

The reason this is happening is because, Hezbollah was on notice. The were on the slippery slope to irrelevancy. Resolution 1559 and the ousting of Syria from Lebanon combined with the fact that Israel was backing off. The writing was on the wall.

How to make yourself relevant? Start a war!

While I would never expect them to do it, the perfect response from Israel would have been to do nothing. Take a non-confrontational approach. Defend the border but just suck up the casualties.

The pain and destruction would have been a lot to bear BUT, the Public Relations battle would eventually be won.

Then they would offer to work with the UN and the Lebanese Army to rid the world of the irrelevant Hezbollah.

It would take longer and there would be lives lost but it could be more lasting peace.

The current approach will work and it will work quickly and with a reduced loss of life in the Israeli side. But it won't solve anything. It will just bring back the status quo... in the meantime, in the face of an agressive Israel, Hezbollah is relevant once more.

For the record, Israel and Lebanon are at war, they have been for over 50 years. Same goes for Iran, and Syria, probably Saudi Arabia too.

Countries like Egypt and Jordan used to be at war with Israel; Israel then came in and kicked ass, life for Egypt and Jordan has been a million times better since making peace. Hell Egypt is the second largest recipient of American aid, and Jordan is a key ally in the region and for the war on terror.

I don't know how you establish that the Lebanese people have no blame in electing Hezbollah to their government. Hezbollah has gained seats in every election since they've started having them in 92' ( I think thats the year), Hezbollah has 2 ministers in the government, and is supported by others: To me it seems like the situation with Hamas, the people of Lebanon and Palestine enabled these terrorists, Lebanon and Palestine are fully responsible as sovereign nations. At the same time Israel has FULL RIGHTS to do whatever they want as they see fit to defend themselves as a sovereign nation.

As usually the peaceniks who are calling for peace and diplomacy are misguided, I don't know how it doesn't register with you: People like Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, don't want peace, they want Israel and all the evil zionist jews destroyed, they cannot be talked to rationally because they are not rational.

I am really getting sick of Israel beating around the bush, they need to buck up and go into Lebanon and Syria, hopefully provoking Iran, and escalate this conflict so it can be ended once and for all. Again I refer you to the relationship(s) of Egypt and Jordan with Israel: Since Sadat made peace in the 70s shit has been alright, might not be peachy, but there haven't been problems with terrorism. Same goes for Jordan.

I've never been called a peacenik before. I rather enjoy it. :thumbsup:

All right. I agree with what you said to a point. While neither one may be to blame exclusively for Hezbollah's actions, I place more blame on the Lebanese government for their failure to take an active role on removing Hezbollah from southern Lebanon than I do on Israel.

You have to realize these terrorist organizations on purpose work out of populated areas. They hide from retaliation by living, breathing, hiding amongst ‘civilians.’ If Israel decides well we can not go after them because of civilians, they win and continue to have free rein to attack civilians with rockets. And If Israel does actually attack, and civilians are killed, the international community yells at Israel, for ‘disproportionate force.’ Of course this only leads to encourage the terrorists to organize, live, and attack within ‘human shields’ / populated areas.

If I go and hold someone hostage, for money or something, and threaten to kill the person, and the hostage dies who is held responsible? I am it is considered murder. So why is it not the same for terrorists?

I found a lot of these ideas and some other comments in some op/ed page i was reading, I wish I could find the article, but sadly I have been reading everything on Israel I can find all day, so it is somewhere lost in my history.

From CNN
This, I can agree with. This *almost* makes sense. This isn't as horrible an idea as just bombing.

Still hate that Lebanon is getting creamed, civilians will be hurt anyway, etc. Still disagree that it would be so simple as all of you seem to think to just ditch Hezbollah out - there would be LOT of deaths there too, and how is that any better?

Can we agree that there are no good guys here? There's no black and white; everything is grey.

nope. not at all. if everything is grey, then why fight? Do you still not understand what is going on here? That this is much more than just a small group of people fighting israel? What is happening in Lebanon is part of the struggle between syria and iran on the one side and israel on the other. It is between people who have stated over and over they wish to see israel wiped off the face of the planet. What is israel to do? negotiate? pull back?

Here's some information: After israel withdrew from gaza, over the last 5 months over 800 kassam rockets were fired into southwest israel. Then hamas kills 2 soldiers and takes 1 hostage. a few days later, completely unprovoked, hezbollah deicdes they like that idea, mount several raids, kill 8 israeli soldiers and kidnap 2.

and israel should negotiate? hold back? submit to world pressure. the same world pressure that let UN Res. 1559 go unfulfilled. If israel were to submit to an internationally-imposed ceasefire without completely descimating hezbollah, nothing would have been acomplished but death and destruction. No lasting positive results would come. Hezbollah would take a year or two to re-group, re-arm, and be emboldened, knowing they can attack israel at will and wait for the international community to call off israel's retaliation. All the while Iran will be coming closer and closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon. Perhaps not to use overtly, but to hold over the region's head, so to speak.

Any international force sent in for a "peace-keeping" mission will ultimately become terrorist targets in light blue hats. What makes you, or anyone, think that tucks full of explolsives won't be driven into buildings housing the peace-keepers, a-la beirut 1983 when 241 americans and 58 french soldiers were killed by hezbollah terrorists?

This is black and white. clearly black and white. this entire situation will not have a resolution until the ones unwilling to negotiate, the ones that do not want peace - READ: iran, syria, islamic militants - ARE DEAD. and the ones remaining realize there is no sense in fighting and dying anymore since israel isn't going anywhere.

stevo, you've convinced me that, if you were to examine the "gray" details, the conviction you bring to your argument would vanish. You ignore the issues of control of water resources in the region, the walling off of Palestinian territory, the violation of Israel's own laws with regard to claims of pre-1967 private land owners in the Jordan Valley, and Israel's retention of the Jordan Valley. You ignore the disproprotionate numbers of detained Palestinians and Lebanese by the IDF. vs. detained Israelis by Hezbollah. Hamas, etc.

You ignore the circumstances of an Israeli response to an attack against IDF military personnel by Hezbollah that has resulted in the destruction of much of Lebanon's infrastructure, and transport assets, and the deaths of hundreds of Lebanese civilians, and the same Israeli response to attacks on IDF personnel. that triggered a response by Israel that eliminated air conditioning and clean water, due to an intended attack on civilian power generation in Gaza.

stevo, your arguments come right out of "The Corner" on the nationalreview.com website. I can't tell your declarations from those of Hannity or Michael Ledeen. Nothing sways you, nothing gives you pause to consider any measured argument, no matter the details contained within.

Wow, you sound remarkably like... them. Or maybe the old phrase, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" still rings true for you... just replace "Indian" with the words "Iranian citizens, Syrian citizens, and Islamic militants."

So, annihilate Iran, Syria, and all Islamic militants, eh? And terror will be gone forever, right?

Look, no one can win a war on "terror." Terrorism is not some specific ideology that people sign up for, like communism (even though our "war on communism" was just about as successful as this current war). To think that by annihilating one group of people, that you can thus get rid of this entire "plague" is very wrong-headed... and it reminds me of another era not too long ago. Ahem.

This whole approach lacks an understanding of WHY people become terrorists, of what motivates them. And it lacks an understanding that one cannot defeat this enemy by fighting them physically or trying to "annihilate" them (or their "host countries"), because they will continue to see those who die as "martyrs," and even more people will sign up. It's like a tar baby... the more you stick your fist into it, the more stubborn and resistant it will become... and it will grow stronger.

War is not the way to end this. I am not an expert on such things, but I'm fairly confident that this is not the kind of thing that can be defeated by such conventional "might makes right" means. We had the same frustrating experience in Vietnam... I don't see how this is going to be any different.

War isn't the only way to end it. its one of 2 ways. Either israel fights the militants to the death or israelis pack up and move out of the middle east.

I know exactly why they become terrorists and what motivates them. pure hatred for jews and the destruction of israel. The moder islamic fundamentalist movement started in the late 1930's with the rise of nazism. The mufti of jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini and adolf hitler were allies. Anti-semetism in the middle east didn't move into full swing until 1940. Islamic terrorism is fueled by pure hatred. not desparation, not the result of victimization. hatred.

So, tell me again, how are you different from them?

I don't hate the jews. I don't want to see the destruction of israel.

Okay, let me clarify. I meant that if you basically switch all the references around in your post, you will clearly reflect the other side's opinion... except that the ethnic group is different. Which, in my opinion, doesn't put you on much of a moral high horse in terms of making objective judgements on the best path to take here.

From the point of view of a Palestinian, using your post:

Just so you know abaya, while I do see what point you are trying to make, you really don't know anything about the israeli people if you think they have pure hatred for the palestinian people and want the destruction of a future palestinian state.

while i clearly can't speak for every single person there, when i was there i heard a lot more desire to come to terms and make things better and a lot more support for a two state solution than "pure hatred for palestinians and the destruction of palestine." in fact, enough to probably shock you.

and I definetely agree with stevo that there are very large and powerful factions in the middle east that just want israel gone. take for example how syria is trying to stir things up. while being a "good neighbor" and letting lebanese civilians hide out during this whole situation (though who knows what syria's intentions might be, whether good or bad), the government itself organized an anti-israel march/demonstration with burning effigies and anti-semetic cartoons carried by the crowds.

Just the ones with the guns or in the bulldozers, eh? Israeli people vote for politicians who commit acts of terror against the Palestinian people. Intenationally recognized human rights violations are being commited. And they don't just take up 14 out of over a hundred seats.

Well, that wasn't really what my point was. My point was that I don't see any valid moral high ground in stevo's post, and I was trying to demonstrate that, by turning the tables on his statements (which I found to be unhelpful in general... just as unhelpful as my "statements" were). My point was not to try and elicit understanding of the Israelis or their desires, but rather that the inanity of stevo's argument could be applied just as well to the inanity of the Palestinians' OR the Israelis' justifications for all this shit.

Meh, I take no sides here, that's my point. I find that people taking sides, especially from armchairs across the ocean, far from any kind of hurt or harm, is totally out of line. Maybe I'm out of line for saying that... many would think so. So be it.