Israel invades Lebanon, Hezbollah attacks N. Israel - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dlish · 07-16-2006, 03:24 AM

Ktspktsp

ive just recieve msg that my wife and in laws have gone up the mountains in tripoli. to quote her sms "right now im ok"

if thats re-assurance, then i dont know what is. cos she may not be in an hour. i pray that your family is well. ive had them in my thoughts as much as my own family. i really have.

ive just heard news that 9 israeli civilians got killed in a hezbollah attack on haifa. somehow i just dont see this getting better without the US getting involved tpo broker at least a temporary ceasefire.

to quote condeleeza rice...

"She said the United States strongly supports Israel's right to self-defence and that "I'm not going to try to judge each and every Israeli operation or each and every Israeli attack".

an oxymoron perhaps? using the words self defense and attack in the same sentence? when will the US wake up.

willravel...ive always admired your intelligence. thanks for your thoughts

Nirvana · 07-16-2006, 06:59 AM

i know i said id stay out of this but willravel please read the link that i had previously provided to show that lebanon or syria does not care about the welfare of the palestinians. if that was the case this could have been hashed out ages ago.

percy · 07-16-2006, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlishsguy

to quote condeleeza rice...

"She said the United States strongly supports Israel's right to self-defence and that "I'm not going to try to judge each and every Israeli operation or each and every Israeli attack".

It is interesting how such support goes so blindly and unevenly for Israel and it's people. Is this to mean that Lebanon does not have the right to self defense and neither the Palestinians?

I don't condone any attacks on Israel period but giving Israel carte blanche to do as they please is nothing short of war crimes. Collective punishment isn't the answer and if Israel and the US think this is the route to take in some warped way, Godspeed to them. Instilling terror on anyone is terrorism. There is no good or bad side when it comes to terror.

Good article today-- Go to link--Some of the text isn"t tracking

Sun, July 16, 2006

The Final Say

Israel and its enemies will talk eventually, the only issue is how many civilians on all sides will have to die before it happens
By Eric Margolis

The Bush administration, Israel and U.S.-aligned Arab states have been blaming Iran and Syria for igniting the worst Mideast fighting in many years.

They claim Iran and ally Syria got Lebanon's political-military movement, Hezbollah, to kidnap two Israeli soldiers in a patch of disputed border territory. Tehran's goal, they say, was to divert attention from growing efforts to curtail its nuclear program. This view has some merit, but is far from the whole story.

margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com

[B]Sunhttp://www.torontosun.com/News/Colum...6/1686880.html

Cynthetiq · 07-16-2006, 07:33 AM

Quote:

At Crossroads, Hezbollah Goes on the Attack
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR and HASSAN M. FATTAH
NY TIMES.COM
Just over a year ago, after the ejection of Syrian forces from Lebanon, the militant Shiite group Hezbollah found itself at a crossroads. On one hand, it seemed to be casting its lot with Lebanese politics, as its candidates struck an alliance with Christians and joined the Lebanese cabinet. Some even pointed to Hezbollah as a model for how a rogue militia can be co-opted and turned away from lawlessness.

On the other hand, Hezbollah clung to its weapons. Some believed it was biding its time, allying its interests with its sponsors in Iran and Syria.

With its cross-border attack on Israel last week, Hezbollah apparently made its choice.

Israel’s shelling of Gaza provided Hezbollah with an opportunity to show solidarity with its Islamic brethren there.

But analysts pointed to other motives. Hezbollah needs to reassert its right to maintain its own heavily armed militia against ever louder domestic calls for its disarmament, and its actions burnish its backers, Iran and Syria, as they face Western attempts to combat and isolate them.

There is precedent for specific cooperation between Hamas, the Palestinian group whose exiled leader lives in Syria, and Hezbollah. In 2004, the two groups concluded an agreement to work closely to attack Israel more often.

This week’s fighting also signals that Hezbollah and its allies are girding for a longer-term confrontation. Hezbollah sees a joint American-Israeli attempt to reshape the region in the Western image, through the invasion of Iraq and the emphasis on democracy, and is determined to block it by asserting the supremacy of Islam.

Here Hezbollah’s move serves the interest of Iran and Syria. Their relationship is so opaque that few would suggest that Syria or Iran can issue direct orders to Hezbollah. But the links are strong, with Iran providing substantial financial assistance and weapons, while Syria provides logistical help as well as political backing.

Since Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 first spawned Hezbollah, or The Party of God, it has set out to prove that adherence to Islam alone will allow Arabs to prevail. Hezbollah used zealots who re-introduced the medieval practice of suicide attacks to the region. It attacked American marines in Beirut, prompting the withdrawal of American forces in the early 1980’s, and eventually forced Israel to end its 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000.

After that, Hezbollah adopted a more public stance in support of the Palestinians as a way of keeping its militant credentials polished. Soon after the second uprising began against Israel in the occupied territories in September 2000, Hezbollah staged a cross-border raid to seize soldiers that eventually led to protracted hostage negotiations.

There are believed to be up to 3,500 active Hezbollah supporters, including some 300 hard-core guerrillas trained under the auspices of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards who have maintained a presence in Lebanon almost since the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran.

Hezbollah virtually controls a swath of southern Lebanon, and the shadow of Iran looms large. In town after town in the south, the streets are hung with banners showing the pantheon of Iran’s ruling ayatollahs. With generous backing from Iran, the group has financed a network of clinics, schools, farms, a construction company and myriad welfare organizations serving Lebanon’s generally downtrodden Shiites.

Intelligence estimates drawn from recent Congressional testimony suggest that Iran subsidizes Hezbollah with $100 million to $200 million annually. But Hezbollah has also come to rely on financial support from Shiite expatriates in the West. Those funds far outweigh what comes from Iran, said Timur Goksel, a lecturer at the American University in Beirut who spent 20 years working in southern Lebanon as a United Nations official.

Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, asserted in a May 2005 speech that Hezbollah had more than 12,000 rockets, all of which were believed to be various forms of Katyushas provided by Iran. That coincides with estimates by Israeli and Western officials.

Until now, Hezbollah limited itself to using rockets with a range of 12 miles, but for the past several years Israeli officials have warned that Iran had provided more serious systems, including the 240-millimeter Fajr-3 missile, with a range of about 25 miles, and the 333-millimeter Fajr-5 missile, with a range of about 45 miles. The Fajr-5 could reach the northern Israeli city of Haifa and areas even farther south. On Thursday, Hezbollah-backed Al Manar TV broadcast images of the new long-range missiles. It is unclear how many Hezbollah might have.

The conflict with Israel has shown off Hezbollah’s new armory. Sheik Nasrallah, in a recording, announced that Hezbollah had used a makeshift drone to attack an Israeli warship off the coast of Beirut, killing an Israeli sailor; the Israeli Army said it was a missile provided by Iran. And early on Saturday, the group apparently struck Tiberius, deep inside Israel.

The use of the longer-range rockets has led many regional experts to conclude that Iran gave at least tacit approval for the current clash — and it was not just a few rogue Revolutionary Guard advisers in southern Lebanon who decided to let rip with more powerful weapons.

“Would Hezbollah use a sophisticated missile that can hit Haifa without permission from Iran?” said Prof. Abbas Milani, chairman of Iranian studies at Stanford University. “I doubt it.”

Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, went out of his way to announce that any Israeli attack on Syria would be considered an attack on the entire Muslim world, which is another sign of at least a confluence of interests, if not outright cooperation among the three. In a speech in Tehran on Saturday, he also compared Israel’s rationale for military action to the kind of “pretext” Hitler used to attack Jews.

Syria and Iran have an interest in proving that they are important regional players who cannot be pushed around, and having Hezbollah cause trouble in northern Israel is the most direct way of doing that, regional experts said.

Mr. Milani says there is a connection with the tussle over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, now that China and Russia have suggested they might support referring the issue to the United Nations Security Council. Iran has never made a secret of its support for Hezbollah, and in recent months boasted to visiting academics about providing it with missiles.

The Iranians “have been very clear that if push comes to shove, if the West tries to push them, tries to get tough with them, they can get tough back,” said Mr. Milani. “They don’t want to sit and wait. They want to show the West that there is a cost for moving against Iran.”

As for the Syrians, President Bashar Assad appears to be sticking to his father’s playbook. Whenever Hafez Assad, who died in 2000, sensed that as president he was being marginalized or ignored, he managed to stir up trouble in neighboring Lebanon so that the great powers would come knocking.

Other Sunni Arab governments fear an attempt by Iran to burnish its credentials in the region, reaching beyond its Shiite base to forge common ties with Sunnis. They see common goals binding Iran, radical Shiite parties in Iraq, the Assad government in Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas, who all oppose the West and its allies in the Middle East.

“This axis is trying to establish predominance over Arab public opinion and eventually expand its influence into other Arab countries,” said one Lebanese official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he said it was impossible to publicly criticize Hezbollah when the country is under attack from Israel. “They have already reached out to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.”

Hezbollah’s more pronounced alignment with the Palestinian cause in the last six years has helped to provide the region’s Shiites and Sunnis with a common goal, although deep suspicions remain.

One sector seemingly horrified by the attempt to exhibit a more assertive Islamic and Shiite presence in the region is in traditional Sunni states and Western allies like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Jamal Dajani, who creates English translations of Arabic news shows for a program called Mosaic on Link TV, spends every day monitoring bulletins from around the Arab world.

While the satellite channels were providing around-the-clock coverage of the crisis on Friday, he said, it was business as usual on the state-run channels, with soap operas and game shows running uninterrupted by any news bulletins from Lebanon or Gaza. The Saudi government also put out an unusual statement condemning Hezbollah’s actions as “uncalculated adventures.”

Sheik Nasrallah responded, showing just how Hezbollah, with its activist stance against Israel, manages to capture the imagination of an Arab public longing for anybody who will confront Israel and in the process claim a religious mantle that none of the other governments can come close to matching.

“And for the Arab governments, I will not ask you for your history,” Sheik Nasrallah said, mockingly. “We in Hezbollah are adventurers, yes, and we have been adventurers since 1982. We did not bring to our country but victory, freedom, liberation, honor and dignity, with our heads held high.”

The open question is whether Hezbollah has miscalculated, underestimating the ferocity of Israel’s response.

That may prompt a backlash against Hezbollah in Lebanon — or, if Lebanese casualties mount, may bolster its credentials as a fighter against Israel.

But Sheik Nasrallah is shrewdly rallying the faithful by evoking his party’s claim to a holy mandate. “You are fighting the sons of Muhammad and Ali and Hassan and Hussein and all the prophet’s household,” he told the Israelis in a recorded message broadcast on the group’s satellite television station, Al Manar, and on several Arab satellite news stations.

The sheik’s black turban in his picture onscreen signaled his own descent from the Prophet Muhammad. “You are fighting people who have faith,” he said.

Analysts noted his skillful use of religious imagery. “Hezbollah has not used that language in a very long time,” said Amal Saad Ghorayeb, a professor of political science at Lebanese American University and an expert on Hezbollah. “It’s a form of psychological warfare against the Israelis.”

Although Hezbollah has been integrated into the Lebanese political system, he had to remind them that Hezbollah is a regional player and an Islamic organization whose members are driven by a jihadi ideology, by a sacrificial ideology and “they don’t give a damn about the consequences.”

Sheik Nasrallah’s language plays into the Shiite tradition of being underdogs battling far more potent forces. Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law, and Hussein and Hassan, his grandsons, were all slaughtered by larger Muslim armies in what is now Iraq. Those battles gave birth to the Shiite branch of the faith and inspired its cult of martyrdom.

In Lebanon itself, Hezbollah’s growing military and political power has frightened and angered Lebanon’s other sects. But it can play on Lebanese anger against Israel, which occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years.

“The problem for non-Shiite Lebanese has been Hezbollah’s weapons,” Ms. Ghorayeb said. “The problem for Hezbollah is the Israeli occupation. By now, people have realized that while Hezbollah got us into this, it is Israel that is our enemy.”

As the siege of Lebanon entered its fourth day on Saturday, Hezbollah’s radio and television appealed to Muslims outside Lebanon with reminders of past victories, and anthems speaking of “usurped” land. But the group also sought to address growing frustration on the ground, emphasizing that the battle with Israel could only be won through sacrifice.

“Lebanon with its martyrs is victorious,’’ one video clip broadcast on Al Manar television announced. On Nour Radio, an announcer reminded listeners that “the patient one is the victor.”

Hezbollah’s actions this week defy the very central government of which it is a part. In Lebanon, analysts say, Hezbollah’s main priority is to maintain the weapons that gave birth to it, while also taking over the local franchise for pushing Syrian interests after Syria was forced to withdraw its forces last year in the wake of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri’s assassination.

“It has become the essential instrument of Syrian maneuvers to prevent the Lebanese state from adapting to its newfound independence,” said Waddah Sharara, a sociology professor at the Lebanese University.

Thus it used its cabinet positions as well as its 13 deputies in Parliament to help block any attempts to remove President Émile Lahoud, widely considered a Syrian stooge; it undermined attempts to force Syria to demarcate the border and exchange ambassadors and it blocked economic aid that would have hinged on eliminating hundreds of patronage jobs.

Even as thousands gathered in anti-Syrian demonstrations last year, Hezbollah set up its own pro-Syrian rallies and served as a spoiler. With the Syrians now gone, Lebanese politicians, driven in part by foreign pressure about Hezbollah, have been more concerned about Hezbollah’s potential to wreak havoc with its arms than with its ties to Syria.

Lebanese officials say the violence of Israel’s response will likely give Hezbollah the opportunity to argue with renewed vigor that it should be allowed to keep its weapons to be able to respond to any Israeli attacks.

“We will not stop the resistance,’’ said Hussein Haj Hassan, a Hezbollah member of Parliament in Labanon. “We will not release them” he said, referring to captured Israeli soldiers, “until there is an equitable solution and we have no apologies. What is needed now is for the loss of life to be stopped.’’

But some analysts expect Hezbollah to pay a heavy price on the ground once the dust settles. “There is a huge split in the Lebanese street that is hurting Hezbollah’s interests,” said Hazim Amin, a Shiite columnist with the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat. “More than half the street is not happy with what Hezbollah did and that is only going to increase, and they will have to answer to that.”

This article shows that Hezbollah doesn't have 100% support from the Lebanese people themselves. But again, if you don't run them out of your space because you want the "good" services they provide, then you also have to accept the "bad" services. I'd equate it with the same tactics that John Gotti used in NYC, he did lots of social service, but at the same time it was at the expense of the disservice he also did to the community.

Another thing about the, but "look at what Israel is doing now," tactic, you cannot excuse bad behavior with worse behavior. It just doesn't float.

Finally this intrigued me:

Quote:

But Sheik Nasrallah is shrewdly rallying the faithful by evoking his party’s claim to a holy mandate. “You are fighting the sons of Muhammad and Ali and Hassan and Hussein and all the prophet’s household,” he told the Israelis in a recorded message broadcast on the group’s satellite television station, Al Manar, and on several Arab satellite news stations.

But no one seems to remember that Jews and Arabs are connected as sons of Abraham/Ibrahim. Ironic.

Nirvana · 07-16-2006, 07:51 AM

I said that I would stay out but this is too intriguing. i agree that this attack, once again, is too much. however, some of the things that israel is bombing is necessary for this action. for example, the airports need to be bombed because the airports are outside links to hezbollah's supplies funded by iran.

also i hope in the realm of this discussion, when someone is attacking the actions of a country that they aren't harboring the same feelings towards the people of that country. im sure the people of lebanon definetely don't want this and the same goes for the people of israel who held large demonstartions against the military action.

ktspktsp · 07-16-2006, 08:04 AM

Nirvana, thank you for your thoughts.

dlishsguy, thank you for your prayers, I'm thinking about your relatives too.

Cyn, indeed, Hezbollah does NOT have 100% support in Lebanon, far from it. In fact, I've always hated them.

I don't agree with this though:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

But again, if you don't run them out of your space because you want the "good" services they provide, then you also have to accept the "bad" services.

You are assuming the whole of Lebanon want the "good" services of Hezbollah. That's wrong.

Hezbollah is not something that Lebanon has been able to control, because of its weak government, divided population, and the strong foreign backing of Hezbollah. This does not make it OK for Israel to use collective punishment on the Lebanese instead of just targeting Hezbollah. If a new John Gotti type re-emerged in parts of NY and provided some social services to some people, along with his criminal actions, should your house (assuming that you don't back him) be a legitimate bombing target? Should the NYC airports and bridges be bombed? No.

Nirvana · 07-16-2006, 08:11 AM

np ktspktsp. i myself have family in israel who were evacuated into bomb shelters since this whole mess began. my hope is that this does end sooner rather than later.

ktspktsp · 07-16-2006, 08:14 AM

I hope so too Nirvana, for the civilians in Lebanon and in Israel. I hope your family stays safe.

Xazy · 07-16-2006, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ktspktsp

Nirvana, thank you for your thoughts.

dlishsguy, thank you for your prayers, I'm thinking about your relatives too.

Cyn, indeed, Hezbollah does NOT have 100% support in Lebanon, far from it. In fact, I've always hated them.

I don't agree with this though:

You are assuming the whole of Lebanon want the "good" services of Hezbollah. That's wrong.

Hezbollah is not something that Lebanon has been able to control, because of its weak government, divided population, and the strong foreign backing of Hezbollah. This does not make it OK for Israel to use collective punishment on the Lebanese instead of just targeting Hezbollah. If a new John Gotti type re-emerged in parts of NY and provided some social services to some people, along with his criminal actions, should your house (assuming that you don't back him) be a legitimate bombing target? Should the NYC airports and bridges be bombed? No.

How can you compare Gotti, to a terrorist organization that has 2 of its members in the cabinet of the government (we will not get in to all the other government positions that they are in as well)!! I am very saddened for the innocent people involved, but at some point a country has a right to defend its borders. And the retaliation strikes that have been done so far have obviously not swayed the government in Lebanon to remove these terrorists from their country. Nor has it swayed Hezbollah to stop attacking Israel.

If your country has a terrorist organization that is a part of your government, who runs large segments of your country, then at some point it is going to come back to haunt the country. I am saddened for the civilians, but that does not mean that Israel has to worry about daily rocket attacks, suicide bombers, etc... At some point Israel as a neighboring country, has to say that this is war, and sadly in war innocents are hurt. And attacking military compounds, kidnapping soldiers, and demanding the release of hundreds of prisoners, pushed it across the line.

So I say, yes while they may have only punched you, and now you are taking out a gun, you have to look at what they have been doing, and how it reflects on the larger scale. The prime minister of Lebanon, claimed he would take over the border with his army. This was 24 hours ago, where is he now. Why did it take him 48 hours to even respond with that, when it was part of a UN resolution from over a year ago? Enough if the government will continue to tolerate it, then the people have to change it. And if the people do not want to change it, then there are consequences for allowing the terrorists to co-exist in your country.

I am horrified, saddened, I have relatives in that region, and every attack I hear of, in Israel makes me flinch. And you have to realize that we do not hear of 1/30 of them. There have been over 500 rockets fired in to Israel over the last year. And every day I say a prayer for my family there. You can complain about this, how about the complaint of living under that fear daily of the suicide bombers, of the rockets, of the continuous assault, the feeling that they will never recognize Israel as a right to exist. Sorry but I feel that war is barbaric, and there is a lot of wrong things about it, but at some point it is needed.

roachboy · 07-16-2006, 08:49 AM

a "warscape blog" from mazen kerbaj, an extraordinary trumpet player in beirut

http://mazenkerblog.blogspot.com/

have a look.

ktspktsp · 07-16-2006, 09:04 AM

Xazy,

The Gotti example was something I built on top of an example Cyn was providing.

As for Hezbollah being into the gov't, this was an attempt to being it more into the Lebanese fold so as to pave the way towards it being disarmed. It's a long and arduous process to be sure.

I know that civilians on both sides are suffering and that's why I want a cease-fire. I want the killing and destruction to stop.

You know... I disagree with some of your other points but frankly I don't see the point in arguing right now. I don't have the energy for such a useless thing (for both of us).

I hope your relatives stay safe in Isreal.

And I hope there's a cease-fire soon.

And I'm getting out of the house because I need a change in scenery.

Infinite_Loser · 07-16-2006, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Yes, there is a HUGE difference. That's my point. State sponsored terrorism is quite a bit different than terrorism carried out by an independant organization. Hezbollah operates in Lebanon, but not on behalf of them. The citizens who died in the bombings were not singing the praises of the Hezbollah. Israel, the state, is attacking Lebanon, the state. That's war. It's disproportinate, and it's attacking the wrong people. It's like needing to amputate a toe, so the doctor cuts off your leg. Overkill.

If you, the government, place members of Hezbollah into a state of political power, then you, the government, are sponsoring any actitivities that Hezbollah might carry out. If the Hezbollah in Lebanon continue to attack Israel, then under any other circumstances, this would be considered an act of war by Lebanon against Israel.

So explain to me who Israel should be attacking? They should be attacking the country in which the attacks came from and the country in which Hezbollah has clear political power.

Quote:

The government? Sure. Some poor guy trying to get on a plane? Nope. Israel targeted civilians in order to terrorize the Lebanese populace. It's a classic Israeli tactic.

That's not correct. The Israelis are not trying to terrorize the Lebanese people. They are, however, trying to weaken Hezbollah by destroying bridges, roads and any other means which can be used to transport supplies to other members of Hezbollah.

Quote:

Name one governmental body in the history of the world that isn't hypocritical. I think that Lebanon has improved by leaps and bounds from where it was even 5 years ago. Hezbollah activity is down, not up. Slowly Lebanon is weeding out radicals. The PLO is gone now. The Syrians and Iranians commanding and influencing the Hezbollah are next.

Just because other government have been hypocritical doesn't give the Lebanese government the go-ahead to be hypocritical as well.

Quote:

Okay, I get it 14 out of 128. Do you know how many Hazbollah sympathizers and members were in the government 10 years ago? Again, we are seeing improvement. Yes, we should still do everything we can to stop Hezbaollah from carrying out attacks. That doesn't mean attacking innocent civilians and committing an act of war against a neighbor.

We're not speaking of ten years ago. We're speaking of right now. If Hezbollah in Lebanon continuously shot rockets into, say, the United States (Or any other country for that matter), would not this be considered an act of war? If this happened the United States would probably spare no expense in bombing the holy hell out of Lebanon, with probably very little resistance from the public. Therefore, I really can't understand how Israel is wrong in invading Lebanon.

Quote:

Lebanese citizens do not deserve to be bombed for things that they have not done and probably don't condone. They are by deffinition innocent. Most of them want to live in peace with Israel.

Are the Lebanese to be responsible for all the wrong doings of people residing in their country? Do they really deserve death for that?

Here's your problem; If you willingly vote a terrorist organization into your countries parliament, then you are just as much at fault for their actions are they are for their actions.

Quote:

I have to admit to being VERY surprised at the responses about these attacks. I know people like to side with Israel, but I can't see how this is excusable in any way.

Hezbollah holds political power in Lebanon.
Hezbollah in Lebanon continues to attack Israel.

So, given those two circumstances, who should Israel attack?

percy · 07-16-2006, 09:33 AM

Just heard on CNN that Israel has killed 5 Canadians. I hope our PM comes out of the G8 summit with stinging criticism rather than a statement like last week where he said he supports Israel unconditionally. Unconditionally supporting disproportionate force is not what I want from my leader.

roachboy · 07-16-2006, 09:38 AM

it does not take a rocket scientist to link hezbollah's rocket launches to the state of affairs that the israelis have created in gaza.
while attention is focussed on the military and humanitarian crises that israeli actions are putting into motion in lebanon, the grinding oppression in gaza has been bumped out of sight out of mind.

hezbollah is obviously opportunistic in this, and i am not a fan either of the group or its choice to intervene in the situation being generated by gaza--
but if for some reason the causal chain of events has become mysterious to you, think about it using the scenario in gaza as a starting point.

israel is not a innocent victim in any of this--to think they are is to think via fantasy. while these fantasies unfold, people die on the ground.

i see no meaningful distinction between a guerilla group using a makeshift bomb to blow up a market and phosphorus and conventional bombs being rained down on civilians from aircraft marked with a military insignia. particularly not in the context of the pulverizing of lebanon. maybe some of you folk who argue in favor is israeli actions based on some vague long-term pseudo-history of the region (you know, the ones that do not at any point take seriously the assymetery of force between israeli and palestinians, the one that knows nothing and understands nothing about the history of occupation and routinized violence directed against palestinians, etc and moves from that to presenting israel as the innocent victim of "terrorist attacks") can manage to make a distinction between these types of action. i cannot.

but as has been argued above, there is no proportionality, no relationship between what israel is doing and its putative objectives and/or target.

Willravel · 07-16-2006, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

That's not correct. The Israelis are not trying to terrorize the Lebanese people. They are, however, trying to weaken Hezbollah by destroying bridges, roads and any other means which can be used to transport supplies to other members of Hezbollah.

Of course it's correct. Israel hates Lebanon. They have the opportunity to attack them and what do they do? They show extreemly excessive force that doesn't effect the Hezbollah, but it does kill many innocent Lebanese civilians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

We're not speaking of ten years ago. We're speaking of right now. If Hezbollah in Lebanon continuously shot rockets into, say, the United States (Or any other country for that matter), would not this be considered an act of war? If this happened the United States would probably spare no expense in bombing the holy hell out of Lebanon, with probably very little resistance from the public. Therefore, I really can't understand how Israel is wrong in invading Lebanon.

Well since we never went after Saudi Arabia after 9/11, I'd say that the US is likely to simply let it go. Wait, Israel can now not only bomb Lebanon, ut they can invade, too? Maybe we should escalate this further, and give Israel moral permission to nuke Lebanon's major cities (so the can destroy the Hezbollah infurstructure). I mean that seems to be a reasonable response to having two soldiers kidnapped.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Here's your problem; If you willingly vote a terrorist organization into your countries parliament, then you are just as much at fault for their actions are they are for their actions.

Am I responsible for the continuing war in Iraq? I voted in the 2004 US election.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Hezbollah holds political power in Lebanon.
Hezbollah in Lebanon continues to attack Israel.

They hold some power, but they are not the government. It'sa like sayign that the Independants here in the US hold political power. They do on a simplistic level, but in reality they basically have none.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

So, given those two circumstances, who should Israel attack?

How about Hezbollah? The people who ae no dead are not Hezbollah, and that's the point. Israel is foolish. Israel is going to create MORE enemies from this move. Did you know that some of the casualties were Israeli?

percy · 07-16-2006, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

That's not correct. The Israelis are not trying to terrorize the Lebanese people. They are, however, trying to weaken Hezbollah by destroying bridges, roads and any other means which can be used to transport supplies to other members of Hezbollah.

This is utter nonsense. Have you seen pictures of downtown Beirut? Israel is destroying the entire infrastructure of Lebanon like they did in '82. I guess they weren't trying to terrorize the Lebanese when Israel only killed 18,000 of them back then, right.

And when the entire infrastructure is destroyed, who does it affect? EVERYONE.

If Israel keeps this state sponsored terrorism up, they should be sactioned and held accountable for war crimes. But that will never happen. They are and will always be above the law. They in my eyes are no different from Hezbollah, Hamas and the rest. Terrorists them all

Nirvana · 07-16-2006, 10:16 AM

Of course it's correct. Israel hates Lebanon. They have the opportunity to attack them and what do they do? They show extreemly excessive force that doesn't effect the Hezbollah, but it does kill many innocent Lebanese civilians.

i disagree with this. israel is not intentionally trying to hurt the lebanese people. it would make no sense for israel to weaken the already weak lebanese government that for the most part is much better than when syria had control over lebanon.

roachboy · 07-16-2006, 10:44 AM

well, nirvana, if weakening lebanon's government makes no sense, then why is israel attacking the whole of lebanon?
and if you are bombing residential suburbs and infrastructure, what relevance can vague claims about what israel "means to do" possibly have? so for example, if an israeli bomb hits a convoy and kills 10 children, as happened yesterday, your response would be "oops...didnt mean that...sorry."?

i am sure the phrase "collateral damage" is of great solace to the families involved. it always is.

Nirvana · 07-16-2006, 10:49 AM

whoever said that i dont aknowledge families and children being hurt. who said that by saying "oops but that's collateral damage" is supposed to make anyone feel better, especially those that are affected by this. it's not. People die in wars and that just flat out sucks. but that is what happens. just wondering roachboy, when you hear of an assualt on israel, are you ever this outspoken?

im also gonna post the article by joseph farah, a lebanese-american.
"Who really cares about the human rights of Palestinian Arabs?

Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other Muslim nations have warned Israel, in various ways and with different degrees of intensity, over the Jewish state's alleged mistreatment of Palestinian Arabs.

There's one major problem with these threats. These nations have done far less for Arab Palestinians than Israel has.

That's right. I said it, and I mean it.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about.

The Jordan Times reports that "Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, who have long been denied many civil rights including the right to work, now face a new obstacle in their precarious lives."

Under a bill introduced by parliament earlier this year, Palestinian Arabs will be deprived of their right to own property. Those who already own property will not be able to pass it on to their children.

Now just imagine if Israel passed such a law? Can you imagine the international outcry? What would the United Nations have to say about this? How long would it take to equate Zionism with racism again? How would the media establishment in the West view such a draconian ploy?

Yet, this is happening in an Arab country virtually without comment – except here.

And take a look at the transparent rationale for this action in Lebanon, as described in the Jordan Times: "The Lebanese parliament passed the law on the grounds that it wants to protect the right of the Palestinian refugees to return eventually to their homes which they fled after the creation of the state of Israel on Palestinian lands in 1948."

Don't you love that? We are protecting your rights by denying your rights. Only in the Arab world could such hypocritical duplicity occur without international ridicule and universal denunciation.

Keep in mind that most Palestinian refugees today were born well after 1948. They never lived in the land called Palestine. And the reason is that their Arab neighbors have been so inhospitable to them. They have not allowed them to resettle because Arab leaders are determined to fan the flames of hate with Israel. They want to keep this scapegoat issue of a Palestinian homeland alive so that the Arab people don't turn their enmity toward their own leadership and begin questioning why they are deprived of their own human rights.

Lebanon, by the way, is a virtual client state of Syria. It is occupied by the Syrian army. No significant political decision is made in Beirut without the approval and direction of Damascus. And it is Damascus, more than any other Arab capital, that supports the Arab terror campaign in Israel, that undermines every attempt at peaceful reconciliation between Arab and Jew and that has orchestrated this strategy of actively denying Palestinians their human rights in the name of Palestinian human rights.

How bad is the situation in Lebanon? Here are more details as reported by the Jordan Times – not exactly a mouthpiece for the vast international Zionist conspiracy:

* Under the Lebanese labor law that governs foreigners, Palestinians are denied 74 forms of employment;
* Palestinians face tight exit and entry requirements;
* Palestinians in Lebanon are not allowed citizenship;
* Palestinians are confined to 12 camps with no medical, social or educational services from the government and are barred in some of those camps from building or even repairing homes.

Some in Lebanon have even recognized the "racist" nature of this anti-Palestinian campaign – policies far worse than anything ever contemplated by Israel.

Yet, more than half a million Syrians marched earlier this week in support of the Palestinian uprising in Israel, chastising the Jewish state for "Nazi and fascist" practices. Do those Syrian citizens have any idea of what kind of oppression Palestinian Arabs face next door in Lebanon? Do they have any idea that their government is directly supporting such policies? Are they aware that more Syrian troops are headed to Lebanon now to support the Beirut regime that has imposed such repressive measures?

While Israel has bent over backwards to accommodate the Palestinian Arabs – especially those victimized by the 1948 war – the Arab nations have only sought to exploit their misery. That exploitation continues today. It is overt. It is a matter of law. Yet the world sees it not. "
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24170

roachboy · 07-16-2006, 11:03 AM

assymetry, my friend.
there is no common ground without a basic acknowledgement of the assymtery of force in the region. this is a post-1967 world--israel is a miliary superpower.
generally, when i read about an attack one way or another, i try to find out what is going on.
this is one small reason why it pays to not buy into the idiotic "war on terror" discourse.

two articles.
this from the bcc addresses the bewildernig israeli tactics:

Quote:

Israel's Hezbollah headache
By Jonathan Marcus
BBC diplomatic correspondent

The confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah is clearly unbalanced. Israel is a significant military power with sophisticated land, sea and air forces at its disposal.

Hezbollah began as a guerrilla force but over the years it has evolved a complex military infrastructure. Nonetheless it has few of the types of weapons available to the Israelis. Its only long-range punch comes from an assorted arsenal of missiles.

Most of these are relatively short-range systems, generically known as Katyushas, capable of striking targets out to about 25km (16 miles).

But the Hezbollah missile strikes on Israel's northern port city of Haifa demonstrate that it also has an unknown quantity of longer-range systems in its arsenal.

Most of these are Iranian-manufactured systems like the Fajr-3, with a 45-km range; the Fajr-5, with a range of some 75km; and the more potent Zelzal-2 with a range of up to 200km.

This would bring much of Tel Aviv - Israel's largest population centre - within range.

None of these are guided or accurate systems but if the target is an urban area, accuracy is not needed.

In addition, as the successful attack on an Israeli naval vessel demonstrates (an Egyptian freighter was also hit and abandoned by its crew), Hezbollah also has relatively sophisticated Iranian-supplied anti-shipping missiles at its disposal.

Air war limitations

This missile build-up has worried the Israeli military for some time.

No surprise then that Israeli leaders have taken the opportunity of the Hezbollah raid which captured two of their men, to set about the full-scale weakening of Hezbollah's infrastructure.

Headquarters, television stations, and missile storage bunkers have all been hit.

But the Israelis have also sought to blockade Lebanon - closing Beirut's airport, striking the Beirut-Damascus highway, and hitting various key transport links, especially bridges.

The Israelis explain all this by saying that they are acting to prevent Hezbollah bringing in or moving up additional missiles to the border. Inevitably, such attacks, however precise, cause civilian casualties.

Israel's long-term goals are obvious. It wants to end the cross-border missile threat to its towns and cities by applying a blunt lesson in deterrence.

It would like to see Hezbollah disarm and the Lebanese Army extend its control down to the international frontier. That is what UN Security Council Resolution 1559, of 2004, also demands - but it is hard to see how it can be enacted.

Israel's tactics are to some extent puzzling. The bludgeoning of Lebanon's transport infrastructure will hinder, but will probably not stop, missile movements.

Indeed, Hezbollah has shown remarkable resilience, and the rockets are still flying across Israel's northern border. It is very hard to deliver a body blow to Hezbollah from the air.

So is this all a prelude to some significant Israeli incursion on the ground?

On the face of things Israel has not yet mobilised sufficient troops for such an operation. And a comprehensive assault on Hezbollah would require a move into the strategically important Bekaa Valley, a step that would send alarm bells ringing in Syria, risking an even wider confrontation.

Dangers of complacency

Israel's own military performance raises several questions.

Even Israeli commentators have pointed to the fact that the capture of Israeli soldiers, first by Palestinian militants and now Hezbollah, shows clear signs of laxness and a lack of vigilance on the part of the reserve units involved.

Hezbollah has clearly signalled its desire to carry out such operations and it has attempted similar things in the past. Has reserve training been reduced too far? Has a certain complacency set in?

The attack on the Israeli missile boat - one of its most sophisticated warships, a Saar-5 class corvette - also raises many questions.

It was hit by a Chinese-made, radar-guided C-802 missile.

Did Israeli intelligence not know that these anti-shipping missiles had been given to Hezbollah by Iran?

Israel's naval electronics and defensive systems are among the best in the world, defensive systems intended to counter just such a threat. Some reports suggest that they were not even operating on board the vessel that was hit.

Proportionality

But most of all there is the question of the new Israeli government's relationship with the military.

Much has been made of the limited military experience of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defence Minister Amir Peretz.

Mr Olmert is in a tight spot. He has to act to protect Israel's citizens. But ask a general what action can be taken in response to a threat and he will generally supply a long list of targets.

Israel seems to be working through just such a list. But the real strategic calculation is to weigh up military advantage against wider political and diplomatic considerations.

Has Israel got the balance right?

Clearly there are many views. But the overwhelming international consensus - not least from the G8 summit in St Petersburg - is that disproportionate military force has been used.

President George W Bush - who has strongly backed Israeli action - nonetheless put this point rather neatly.

"Defend yourself," he said, "but be mindful of the consequences."

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5184974.stm
original with graphics.

and this, which in a really depressing mannaer demonstrates the intertwining of this pathetic administration with present israeli tactics. the bush people are boxed in by their own lack of credibility as a moral force in the situation (pace iraq), by the usage being made of their own idiotic war on terror discourse:

Quote:

Strikes Are Called Part of Broad Strategy
U.S., Israel Aim to Weaken Hezbollah, Region's Militants

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 16, 2006; A15

Israel, with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah, which is likely to include several weeks of precision bombing in Lebanon, according to senior Israeli and U.S. officials.

For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat -- or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him.

For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say.

Whatever the outrage on the Arab streets, Washington believes it has strong behind-the-scenes support among key Arab leaders also nervous about the populist militants -- with a tacit agreement that the timing is right to strike.

"What is out there is concern among conservative Arab allies that there is a hegemonic Persian threat [running] through Damascus, through the southern suburbs of Beirut and to the Palestinians in Hamas," said a senior U.S. official who requested anonymity because of sensitive diplomacy. "Regional leaders want to find a way to navigate unease on their streets and deal with the strategic threats to take down Hezbollah and Hamas, to come out of the crisis where they are not as ascendant."

Hezbollah's cross-border raid that captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others has provided a "unique moment" with a "convergence of interests" among Israel, some Arab regimes and even those in Lebanon who want to rein in the country's last private army, the senior Israeli official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing conflict.

Israel and the United States would like to hold out until Hezbollah is crippled.

"It seems like we will go to the end now," said Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon. "We will not go part way and be held hostage again. We'll have to go for the kill -- Hezbollah neutralization."

White House officials said Friday that Bush has called on Israel to limit civilian casualties and avoid toppling the Lebanese government but has not pressured Israel to stop its military action. "He believes that the Israelis have a right to protect themselves," spokesman Tony Snow said in St. Petersburg, where Bush is attending the Group of Eight summit. "The president is not going to make military decisions for Israel."

Specifically, officials said, Israel and the United States are looking to create conditions for achieving one remaining goal of U.N. Resolution 1559, adopted in 2004, which calls for the dismantling and disarming of Lebanon's militias and expanding the state's control over all its territory.

"We think part of the solution to this is the implementation of 1559, which would eliminate that [armed group operating outside the government] and help Lebanon extend all of its authority throughout the whole country," national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley told reporters with Bush in Russia yesterday.

The other part of the resolution calls for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which was completed in April last year -- after the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, which was widely linked to Syria.

If Lebanon as a first step takes over Hezbollah's stockpiles, which included more than 12,000 rockets and missiles before the current strife began, then cease-fire talks could begin, the Israeli official said.

"The only way a cease-fire will even be considered is if 1559 is fully implemented," said the senior Israeli official. Lebanese troops must be deployed to take over positions in Hezbollah's southern Lebanon strongholds to ensure that there are no more cross-border raids or rocket barrages into northern Israel.

There are no guarantees, however, that this strategy will work. Israeli airstrikes could backfire, experts warn.

"Hezbollah was risking alienating not only the Lebanese public at large but, incredibly, its very own Shiite constituency. But if Israel continues with its incessant targeting of exclusively civilian targets, and, as a result, life becomes increasingly difficult for the people, I would not be surprised if there is a groundswell of support for Hezbollah, exactly opposite of what Israel is trying to achieve," said Timur Goksel, an analyst and former spokesman for the U.N. force in Lebanon who lives in Beirut.

The Bush administration's position -- and diplomacy -- are the opposite of what happened during the Clinton administration.

The last Hezbollah-Israel cease-fire was just before dawn on April 27, 1996, after the United States brokered a deal to end a punishing 16-day Israeli offensive designed to end Hezbollah's rocket barrages. More than 150 Lebanese, mostly civilians, were killed; more than 60 Israelis were injured. Tens of thousands on both sides of the border had fled or gone into bunkers.

Then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher shuttled for a week between Jerusalem and Damascus to mediate a written agreement, a sequel to a similar oral deal he negotiated after skirmishes in 1993.

For now, that is not a viable option to end the current conflict, U.S. officials say. With its diplomacy redefined by the war on terrorism, the Bush administration has opted for a course that plays out on the battlefield.

Pressed on whether a cease-fire was possible soon, the Israeli official said it was "way, way premature" to consider an end to hostilities. "There is no sense to have a cease-fire without a fundamental change," he said. "That change is to make sure the explosiveness of the situation cannot carry over to the future. That means neutralizing Hezbollah's capabilities."

The Bush administration is also using Resolution 1559 as a barometer, U.S. officials say, acknowledging that the Lebanese government has shown neither the ability nor the willingness to deploy its fledgling army to the southern border.

U.S. officials have cautioned Israel to use restraint, particularly on collateral damage and destruction of infrastructure, which might undermine the fragile government. There was some U.S. concern about attacks on the Beirut airport, but otherwise Washington is prepared to step aside and defer diplomacy unless there is a dramatic break, U.S. officials say.

"They do have space to operate for a period of time," the U.S. official said about Israel. "There's a natural dynamic to these things. When the military starts, it may be that it has to run its course."

Israel and the United States believe that the Israeli strikes in Gaza, following the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, have undermined Hamas. "There is no Hamas government -- eight cabinet ministers or 30 percent of the government is in jail, another 30 percent is in hiding, and the other 30 percent is doing very little," said the senior U.S. official.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...500957_pf.html

Nirvana · 07-16-2006, 11:09 AM

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.

Willravel · 07-16-2006, 11:29 AM

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

Nirvana · 07-16-2006, 11:36 AM

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.

Willravel · 07-16-2006, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nirvana

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?

Infinite_Loser · 07-16-2006, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Of course it's correct. Israel hates Lebanon. They have the opportunity to attack them and what do they do? They show extreemly excessive force that doesn't effect the Hezbollah, but it does kill many innocent Lebanese civilians.

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.

Quote:

Well since we never went after Saudi Arabia after 9/11, I'd say that the US is likely to simply let it go. Wait, Israel can now not only bomb Lebanon, ut they can invade, too? Maybe we should escalate this further, and give Israel moral permission to nuke Lebanon's major cities (so the can destroy the Hezbollah infurstructure). I mean that seems to be a reasonable response to having two soldiers kidnapped.

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?

Quote:

They hold some power, but they are not the government. It's a like sayign that the Independants here in the US hold political power. They do on a simplistic level, but in reality they basically have none.

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.

Quote:

How about Hezbollah? The people who are no dead are not Hezbollah, and that's the point. Israel is foolish. Israel is going to create MORE enemies from this move. Did you know that some of the casualties were Israeli?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by percy

If Israel keeps this state sponsored terrorism up, they should be sactioned and held accountable for war crimes. But that will never happen. They are and will always be above the law. They in my eyes are no different from Hezbollah, Hamas and the rest. Terrorists them all.

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.

Nirvana · 07-16-2006, 11:53 AM

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.

Xazy · 07-16-2006, 12:05 PM

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!

Willravel · 07-16-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nirvana

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.

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.

Nirvana · 07-16-2006, 01:03 PM

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.

Willravel · 07-16-2006, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nirvana

how is me saying "all these analogies are stupid" or you "pulled it out your ass" an any way me getting heated.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nirvana

"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.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nirvana

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.

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.

Charlatan · 07-16-2006, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

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.

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.

Nirvana · 07-16-2006, 02:29 PM

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.

Infinite_Loser · 07-16-2006, 03:50 PM

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.

Willravel · 07-16-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

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.

percy · 07-16-2006, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

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.

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.

Infinite_Loser · 07-16-2006, 05:12 PM

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.

Willravel · 07-16-2006, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

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.

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.

percy · 07-16-2006, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

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.

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.

Infinite_Loser · 07-16-2006, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

Nirvana · 07-16-2006, 05:39 PM

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).

07-16-2006, 03:24 AM	#81 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	Ktspktsp ive just recieve msg that my wife and in laws have gone up the mountains in tripoli. to quote her sms "right now im ok" if thats re-assurance, then i dont know what is. cos she may not be in an hour. i pray that your family is well. ive had them in my thoughts as much as my own family. i really have. ive just heard news that 9 israeli civilians got killed in a hezbollah attack on haifa. somehow i just dont see this getting better without the US getting involved tpo broker at least a temporary ceasefire. to quote condeleeza rice... "She said the United States strongly supports Israel's right to self-defence and that "I'm not going to try to judge each and every Israeli operation or each and every Israeli attack". an oxymoron perhaps? using the words self defense and attack in the same sentence? when will the US wake up. willravel...ive always admired your intelligence. thanks for your thoughts __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

07-16-2006, 07:51 AM	#85 (permalink)
Nirvana Crazy	I said that I would stay out but this is too intriguing. i agree that this attack, once again, is too much. however, some of the things that israel is bombing is necessary for this action. for example, the airports need to be bombed because the airports are outside links to hezbollah's supplies funded by iran. also i hope in the realm of this discussion, when someone is attacking the actions of a country that they aren't harboring the same feelings towards the people of that country. im sure the people of lebanon definetely don't want this and the same goes for the people of israel who held large demonstartions against the military action. Last edited by Nirvana; 07-16-2006 at 08:01 AM..

07-16-2006, 08:49 AM	#90 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	a "warscape blog" from mazen kerbaj, an extraordinary trumpet player in beirut http://mazenkerblog.blogspot.com/ have a look. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-16-2006, 09:04 AM	#91 (permalink)
ktspktsp Addict Location: Reykjavik, Iceland	Xazy, The Gotti example was something I built on top of an example Cyn was providing. As for Hezbollah being into the gov't, this was an attempt to being it more into the Lebanese fold so as to pave the way towards it being disarmed. It's a long and arduous process to be sure. I know that civilians on both sides are suffering and that's why I want a cease-fire. I want the killing and destruction to stop. You know... I disagree with some of your other points but frankly I don't see the point in arguing right now. I don't have the energy for such a useless thing (for both of us). I hope your relatives stay safe in Isreal. And I hope there's a cease-fire soon. And I'm getting out of the house because I need a change in scenery. Last edited by ktspktsp; 07-16-2006 at 09:07 AM..

07-16-2006, 09:38 AM	#94 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it does not take a rocket scientist to link hezbollah's rocket launches to the state of affairs that the israelis have created in gaza. while attention is focussed on the military and humanitarian crises that israeli actions are putting into motion in lebanon, the grinding oppression in gaza has been bumped out of sight out of mind. hezbollah is obviously opportunistic in this, and i am not a fan either of the group or its choice to intervene in the situation being generated by gaza-- but if for some reason the causal chain of events has become mysterious to you, think about it using the scenario in gaza as a starting point. israel is not a innocent victim in any of this--to think they are is to think via fantasy. while these fantasies unfold, people die on the ground. i see no meaningful distinction between a guerilla group using a makeshift bomb to blow up a market and phosphorus and conventional bombs being rained down on civilians from aircraft marked with a military insignia. particularly not in the context of the pulverizing of lebanon. maybe some of you folk who argue in favor is israeli actions based on some vague long-term pseudo-history of the region (you know, the ones that do not at any point take seriously the assymetery of force between israeli and palestinians, the one that knows nothing and understands nothing about the history of occupation and routinized violence directed against palestinians, etc and moves from that to presenting israel as the innocent victim of "terrorist attacks") can manage to make a distinction between these types of action. i cannot. but as has been argued above, there is no proportionality, no relationship between what israel is doing and its putative objectives and/or target. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-16-2006, 06:59 AM	#82 (permalink)
Nirvana Crazy	i know i said id stay out of this but willravel please read the link that i had previously provided to show that lebanon or syria does not care about the welfare of the palestinians. if that was the case this could have been hashed out ages ago.

07-16-2006, 08:11 AM	#87 (permalink)
Nirvana Crazy	np ktspktsp. i myself have family in israel who were evacuated into bomb shelters since this whole mess began. my hope is that this does end sooner rather than later.

07-16-2006, 08:14 AM	#88 (permalink)
ktspktsp Addict Location: Reykjavik, Iceland	I hope so too Nirvana, for the civilians in Lebanon and in Israel. I hope your family stays safe.

07-16-2006, 09:33 AM	#93 (permalink)
percy Addict	Just heard on CNN that Israel has killed 5 Canadians. I hope our PM comes out of the G8 summit with stinging criticism rather than a statement like last week where he said he supports Israel unconditionally. Unconditionally supporting disproportionate force is not what I want from my leader.

07-16-2006, 10:16 AM	#97 (permalink)
Nirvana Crazy	Of course it's correct. Israel hates Lebanon. They have the opportunity to attack them and what do they do? They show extreemly excessive force that doesn't effect the Hezbollah, but it does kill many innocent Lebanese civilians. i disagree with this. israel is not intentionally trying to hurt the lebanese people. it would make no sense for israel to weaken the already weak lebanese government that for the most part is much better than when syria had control over lebanon.

07-16-2006, 10:44 AM	#98 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, nirvana, if weakening lebanon's government makes no sense, then why is israel attacking the whole of lebanon? and if you are bombing residential suburbs and infrastructure, what relevance can vague claims about what israel "means to do" possibly have? so for example, if an israeli bomb hits a convoy and kills 10 children, as happened yesterday, your response would be "oops...didnt mean that...sorry."? i am sure the phrase "collateral damage" is of great solace to the families involved. it always is. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-16-2006, 10:49 AM	#99 (permalink)
Nirvana Crazy	whoever said that i dont aknowledge families and children being hurt. who said that by saying "oops but that's collateral damage" is supposed to make anyone feel better, especially those that are affected by this. it's not. People die in wars and that just flat out sucks. but that is what happens. just wondering roachboy, when you hear of an assualt on israel, are you ever this outspoken? im also gonna post the article by joseph farah, a lebanese-american. "Who really cares about the human rights of Palestinian Arabs? Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other Muslim nations have warned Israel, in various ways and with different degrees of intensity, over the Jewish state's alleged mistreatment of Palestinian Arabs. There's one major problem with these threats. These nations have done far less for Arab Palestinians than Israel has. That's right. I said it, and I mean it. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. The Jordan Times reports that "Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, who have long been denied many civil rights including the right to work, now face a new obstacle in their precarious lives." Under a bill introduced by parliament earlier this year, Palestinian Arabs will be deprived of their right to own property. Those who already own property will not be able to pass it on to their children. Now just imagine if Israel passed such a law? Can you imagine the international outcry? What would the United Nations have to say about this? How long would it take to equate Zionism with racism again? How would the media establishment in the West view such a draconian ploy? Yet, this is happening in an Arab country virtually without comment – except here. And take a look at the transparent rationale for this action in Lebanon, as described in the Jordan Times: "The Lebanese parliament passed the law on the grounds that it wants to protect the right of the Palestinian refugees to return eventually to their homes which they fled after the creation of the state of Israel on Palestinian lands in 1948." Don't you love that? We are protecting your rights by denying your rights. Only in the Arab world could such hypocritical duplicity occur without international ridicule and universal denunciation. Keep in mind that most Palestinian refugees today were born well after 1948. They never lived in the land called Palestine. And the reason is that their Arab neighbors have been so inhospitable to them. They have not allowed them to resettle because Arab leaders are determined to fan the flames of hate with Israel. They want to keep this scapegoat issue of a Palestinian homeland alive so that the Arab people don't turn their enmity toward their own leadership and begin questioning why they are deprived of their own human rights. Lebanon, by the way, is a virtual client state of Syria. It is occupied by the Syrian army. No significant political decision is made in Beirut without the approval and direction of Damascus. And it is Damascus, more than any other Arab capital, that supports the Arab terror campaign in Israel, that undermines every attempt at peaceful reconciliation between Arab and Jew and that has orchestrated this strategy of actively denying Palestinians their human rights in the name of Palestinian human rights. How bad is the situation in Lebanon? Here are more details as reported by the Jordan Times – not exactly a mouthpiece for the vast international Zionist conspiracy: * Under the Lebanese labor law that governs foreigners, Palestinians are denied 74 forms of employment; * Palestinians face tight exit and entry requirements; * Palestinians in Lebanon are not allowed citizenship; * Palestinians are confined to 12 camps with no medical, social or educational services from the government and are barred in some of those camps from building or even repairing homes. Some in Lebanon have even recognized the "racist" nature of this anti-Palestinian campaign – policies far worse than anything ever contemplated by Israel. Yet, more than half a million Syrians marched earlier this week in support of the Palestinian uprising in Israel, chastising the Jewish state for "Nazi and fascist" practices. Do those Syrian citizens have any idea of what kind of oppression Palestinian Arabs face next door in Lebanon? Do they have any idea that their government is directly supporting such policies? Are they aware that more Syrian troops are headed to Lebanon now to support the Beirut regime that has imposed such repressive measures? While Israel has bent over backwards to accommodate the Palestinian Arabs – especially those victimized by the 1948 war – the Arab nations have only sought to exploit their misery. That exploitation continues today. It is overt. It is a matter of law. Yet the world sees it not. " http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24170 Last edited by Nirvana; 07-16-2006 at 10:58 AM..

07-16-2006, 11:09 AM	#101 (permalink)
Nirvana Crazy	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. Last edited by Nirvana; 07-16-2006 at 11:12 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

07-16-2006, 11:29 AM	#102 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The whole middle east didn't kidnap 2 Irsaeli soldiers. That is supposed to be what this is about.

07-16-2006, 11:36 AM	#103 (permalink)
Nirvana Crazy	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.

07-16-2006, 11:53 AM	#106 (permalink)
Nirvana Crazy	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.

07-16-2006, 12:05 PM	#107 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	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!

07-16-2006, 01:03 PM	#109 (permalink)
Nirvana Crazy	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.

07-16-2006, 02:29 PM	#112 (permalink)
Nirvana Crazy	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.

07-16-2006, 03:50 PM	#113 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	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. Last edited by Infinite_Loser; 07-16-2006 at 03:53 PM..

07-16-2006, 05:12 PM	#116 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	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. Last edited by Infinite_Loser; 07-16-2006 at 05:28 PM..

07-16-2006, 05:39 PM	#120 (permalink)
Nirvana Crazy	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).