A moderate arab's point of view on the lebanese conflict [Archive]

FinnAgain

08-04-2006, 12:36 AM

In one of the threads in GD, someone asks what the deal is with the rocket attacks against israeli towns. I'd say blind rockets attacks are about as effective compared to the israeli offensive as a bunch of people throwing stones are against an armed military squad.

Correct.
What implication do you draw from this?

That said, it irks me when news sources present this conflict as a somewhat even-sided conflict.

I've been watching/reading (too damn much) news. I haven't noticed that happening. Can you elaborate on that?

In general, whenever you are dealing with an armed conflict of any kind, count the dead. Dead Combatants, dead civilan men, women and children on each side. Compare both figures and draw your own conclusions.

I'm curious what conclusion you view as being 'more correct' than other possible conclusions. In my mind such disparities show which side is more effective in prosecuting their part of the war and that any other conclusions will necessarily vary situation by situation. I take it you draw a different conclusion?

I do not have hard figures but if anyone cares to find some cites, I am confident there will be a pronounced assymetry in the number of casualties for each side.

There is, without a doubt.
Many more Lebanese have been killed.

I wonder how many regular joes know this and whether it would change their perspective.

I have seen quite a few news reports which focus on that, actually. Statements urging 'proportionate' responses have been rife in opinion pieces in the US media, for example. I'd wager that many average joes at least have access to the news. Whether or not they're well informed is another question

The other thing I'd like to point out is that only a tiny minority of arabs actually support the killings perpetrated by hizbollah or hamas.

I do not think that's true.
Hezbollah:
Cite. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/world/middleeast/28arabs.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)
Cite. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0718/p01s03-wome.html)
Cite. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_arab_response)
As for Hamas, judging by the margin they were elected by, it seems that the Palestinians like them well enough. Although I admit I've not done enough research on polls out of Palestine during the last month or two to have a current factual basis for my view. I may be wrong. It does however appear that Hamas has had problems with other Arab nations, like Jordan for example. I don't know how deep that rift currently goes, as most of the news and my own research has been concentrated on the situation in Lebanon.

Do you have cites to back up your contention?

A solid majority of israelis support the current offensive.

More likely than not true. All the reports I've seen speak of only a small demographic opposed to the war and/or its mode of prosecution.

Does Israel truly have the moral high ground here?

Is it safe to assume that this is the main thrust of your OP?
Is it also safe to assume that you will base claims of morality upon the number of casualties on each side, the military power of each side, and the degree of support of the populace of each nation for those fighting?

If you have contrary evidence, that may move this past the point of "is so/is not" argumentation that these threads usually hang up on in the first ten or twelve posts, extending through the next 200.

... will not!

Least Original User Name Ever

08-04-2006, 12:36 AM

Saying you are avoiding civilian deaths is not the same as avoiding them . It is lip service. They are leveling neighborhoods, destroying airports , roads, manufacturing sites and bridges. They are in the towns where people live. The people cannot even get out any more. Reports of cluster bombs are rampant. Their bombs are huge and much collateral damage is being done.

John Mace

08-04-2006, 12:37 AM

That said, it irks me when news sources present this conflict as a somewhat even-sided conflict. It is proveably not so. In general, whenever you are dealing with an armed conflict of any kind, count the dead. Dead Combatants, dead civilan men, women and children on each side. Compare both figures and draw your own conclusions.

I do not have hard figures but if anyone cares to find some cites, I am confident there will be a pronounced assymetry in the number of casualties for each side. I wonder how many regular joes know this and whether it would change their perspective.
Who says it's even sided? Everyone can see that Israelis are using sophisticated aircraft and that Hezbollah fighers are using pretty inaccurate rockets. But so what? War isn't like a boxing match where you have weight classes so that it's "fair". Hezbollah appears to be using it's most sophisticated weapons in an indiscriminant manner. Israel, despite appearances, is being restrained in its use of force. If it wanted to, it could level the entire country.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that only a tiny minority of arabs actually support the killings perpetrated by hizbollah or hamas. A solid majority of israelis support the current offensive. Does Israel truly have the moral high ground here?
First of all, how do you equate "Arabs" with "Israelis". So what if an Arab in Algeria or Saudi Arabia does or does not support what Arabs are doing. You might as well talk about whether or not Jews in Europe support what Israel is doing.

Secondly, where do you get the idea that a "tiny minority" of Arabs support what Hezbollah is doing? There were initially some surprising comments from the heads of state of several Arab countries, but that doesn't tell us much about the what the average Arab is thinking. The heads of the governments are mosly Sunni, and don't like the idea of rising Shiite power in Iraq and, now, Lebanon.

Alessan

08-04-2006, 01:02 AM

In one of the threads in GD, someone asks what the deal is with the rocket attacks against israeli towns. I'd say blind rockets attacks are about as effective compared to the israeli offensive as a bunch of people throwing stones are against an armed military squad.

8 civilians were killed by those "stones" yesterday. More significantly, a million Israelis are sleeping in bomb shelters out of fear of these completely random attacks.

Attacks that cause fear is the very definition of terrorism; the amount of damage they actually do is irrelevant.

As many of you know, we are surrounded by spin and our lives are significantly affected by it. Spin is very, very effective. The U.S president employs a great spinner who speaks to the press. All big companies have several spinners working in their marketing and PR departments.

Boilerplate.

That said, it irks me when news sources present this conflict as a somewhat even-sided conflict. It is proveably not so. In general, whenever you are dealing with an armed conflict of any kind, count the dead. Dead Combatants, dead civilan men, women and children on each side. Compare both figures and draw your own conclusions.

That's because one side cares about its civilians, and the other doesn't. From a PR standpoint, every civilian death - on either side - is good for Hizballah and bad for Israel.

I do not have hard figures but if anyone cares to find some cites, I am confident there will be a pronounced assymetry in the number of casualties for each side. I wonder how many regular joes know this and whether it would change their perspective.

I agree, it's assymetrical. Hizballah has a HUGE advantage. For Israel to win, it has to stop Hizballah attacks. For Hizballah to win, it doesn't have to stop Israeli attacks - it just has to keep on attacking. For Israel to win, it has to destroy Hizballah completely. For Hizballah to win, it doesn't have to destroy israel, it only has to let a few of its members survive.

If you want to talk about symmatry, let's talk about equal victory conditions.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that only a tiny minority of arabs actually support the killings perpetrated by hizbollah or hamas. A solid majority of israelis support the current offensive. Does Israel truly have the moral high ground here?

If the vast majority opposes their actions, why don't they stop them? It shouldn't be that hard. After all, they're only a tiny minority.

Gozu

08-04-2006, 01:03 AM

It would be good if you could provide substantiation for this statement. A common refrain in these (interminable) discussions is that the forces arrayed (not allied) against Israel are nearly unanimous in their support for every action taken against Israel or Israelis. If you have contrary evidence, that may move this past the point of "is so/is not" argumentation that these threads usually hang up on in the first ten or twelve posts, extending through the next 200.

My evidence is anecdotal. I'm an arab and none of all the arabs I know (and I know many) condones murdering civilians. Any muslim knows, for instance, that killing an israeli civilian is just as wrong as killing a peruvian christian or an arab muslim civilian. A vast majority of arabs are (understandably) anti-israel and would like it to become a laic state , adhere to the oslo convention of 93 and maybe let some of those exiled palestinians who lost their homes back. Nobody but the craziest, stupidest people actually think they can kick the jews out of Israel. There are a few of those and they are vocal but they are dwarfed by the silent, inert majority.

As for the rest, most of them would not object to the killing of israeli soldiers bulldozing your home. I also understand that people more affected by the conflict (A mother who's 5 yo boy is killed by israeli bullers for instance) will not be as reasonable. It takes a lot of hatred, a lot of pain or a lot of stupidity to become a suicide bomber or a rocket launcher. Semites (both arabs and jews) are no more hateful, fragile or stupid than any other human beings.

Anyways, that's my take on the situation. I do try to be as fair as possible within the confines of my cultural bias. I do condemn acts of violence not committed in self-defense (REAL self-defense, none of that "Offense is the best defense" crap). I support Israel's right to exist (preferably as a Laic state like France or Sweden) within the borders of 67 and the signed agreements of 93'. Oh, and I think Israel destroying $20 Bn of lebanese infrastructures (bridges, power plants, roads, airports, etc.) is totally f***ed up. I mean, how would you feel if some nutjob new yorker from the Bronx (of COURSE he is from the Bronx) killed or kidnapped a handful of canadian soldier only to have canada destroy all the state roads and interstates leading out of new york, then proceeded to destroy JFk and laguardia airports, power plants, bridges, any buildings suspected to host people from the Bronx and ended up killing several hundred innocent people ontop of it all. Probably very angry at the canadians.

Off to sleep I go.

08-04-2006, 01:15 AM

:smack: Gods...another one. These things are like mushrooms lately.

That said, it irks me when news sources present this conflict as a somewhat even-sided conflict. It is proveably not so. In general, whenever you are dealing with an armed conflict of any kind, count the dead. Dead Combatants, dead civilan men, women and children on each side. Compare both figures and draw your own conclusions.

I haven't heard anyone say the conflict was one sided. As others have asked, could we perhaps get a cite for that from a main stream news source?

I also don't agree that when dealing with a conflict one need count the dead to see which side has the moral high ground. I know Finn hates analogies (I love the things), but if we look at the figures of dead civilians in WWII between Japan and the US and base right and wrong solely on that, the clearly the US is by far the most evil. Even if we look only at the total military dead in the conflict the US comes out on top of the evil rating. Now, Der hasn't poked his head in yet, but he might agree with that...do you?

Problem is, its more complex than 'look how many Lebanese dead there are! Bad bad Israel!'. Things a reasonable person must factor in would be...who started hostilities? If a little man goes and kicks a big man in the nuts with the expectation that the big man will simply take it, being big, but instead gets his ass kicked...well, I suppose one COULD say the big man is at fault since he's bigger and stronger. But most reasonable people would probably say the little asshole deserved what he got. Of course, the Lebanese CIVILIANS didn't ask that little asshole to go kick that monster in the nuts (we will assume this is so for arguements sake). What of them? Brings us to the next point. If one side deliberately attempts to fight from within cover, from within a population of civilians with the express intent of using those folks as a shield, deliberately park their weapons near them, store their ammo in their houses, run into those houses when threatened...well, again, reasonable people would conclude correctly where the fault for those who lose their lives in such a situation REALLY lies.

Why this disparity of casualties so facinates those opposed to Israel is hard for me to grasp...though I suppose that its difficult to find anything ELSE on Hezbollahs side to bring things close to parity (or parody more likely) morally speaking. They started the conflict. They use their own people as human shields, parking and USING their weapons in close proximity to them, they store their munitions in their homes and run into buildings full of civilians when the air strikes come...then (in public) they tear their hair and scream about how Israel is when civilians are killed by bombs trying to get at THEM (or by secondary explosions from the munitions THEY put in buildings full of civilians to shield them).

-XT

FinnAgain

08-04-2006, 01:28 AM

Gods...another one. These things are like mushrooms lately.

Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger...
Yeah, can't we get back to fighting each other over Iraq? ;)

I also don't agree that when dealing with a conflict one need count the dead to see which side has the moral high ground. I know Finn hates analogies (I love the things), but if we look at the figures of dead civilians in WWII between Japan and the US and base right and wrong solely on that, the clearly the US is by far the most evil.

Well, I think that in general analogies are suspect, and often they're useless and can be obfuscatory. In many cases it's much more usefull to talk about the actual situation, rather than using other situations which may not correlate very well. I think that analogy, however, is a good one. At least to demonstrate that numbers of casualties don't always mean anything about the morality at play.

I'd still like to see if the OP won't make his assumptions and main contention clear and debate them. I think I've pinned them down, but he only responded to tom, so I can't be sure.

Gozu: I'm curious, do you plan on elaborating on the point I asked about? Was that, indeed, the main thrust of your OP?

My evidence is anecdotal.

The plural of anecdote is not...
Ahem.

You'll probably find that as for cites, you'll have to do much better.

adhere to the oslo convention of 93 and maybe let some of those exiled palestinians who lost their homes back.

It takes two to adhere to an agreement, and they have already let some of the exiled Palestinians back. I can check on the total numbers over time, but they are at least in the tens of thousands.

Nobody but the craziest, stupidest people actually think they can kick the jews out of Israel. There are a few of those and they are vocal but they are dwarfed by the silent, inert majority.

Well, how do you know what the vast majority thinks if your only evidence is based on personal anecdotes?

I mean, how would you feel if some nutjob new yorker from the Bronx (of COURSE he is from the Bronx) killed or kidnapped a handful of canadian soldier only to have canada destroy all the state roads and interstates leading out of new york, then proceeded to destroy JFk and laguardia airports, power plants, bridges, any buildings suspected to host people from the Bronx and ended up killing several hundred innocent people ontop of it all. Probably very angry at the canadians.

Analogies are always suspect, this one is very bad. To make it begin to approach current events, we'd have to massively alter it.

"I mean, how would you feel if some organized group of nutjobs living in the Bronx had the US' explicit approval to commit attacks in their name against Canada, and the US helped supply them with weapons. The group had a long history of attacking Canada as well. After a while of launching rockets at Canada, the group attacked Canadian soldiers and continued launching rockets at Canadian civilian targets. The Canadian military responded by destroying dual-use targets that could aid in the rearming and reinforcement of the group based in the Bronx as well as those that could be used for C&C functions, attacking suspected "Bronx Nutjob Organization" targets, etc... What if this terrorist group, based in the Bronx, continued attacking Canada but hid among civilians and couldn't easily be isolated."

The anology still isn't great, but it's a lot better than yours, which pretty much first equates a specific 'nutjob' from the Bronx (Lebanon) with Hezbollah, and then claims that the current response would be analagous to attempting to destroy any building that had any Bronx (Lebanese) residents in it. Obviously Israel isn't trying to kill all the Lebanse, unless they're just really, really, really bad at it.

OliverTwistofLime

08-04-2006, 03:04 AM

" If the terrorists would all lay down their arms, violence would stop.

" If Israel laid down its weapons, no more Israel"

enipla

08-04-2006, 08:55 AM

Does Israel truly have the moral high ground here?Israel has been harrased and attacked again and again. They most certainly have the moral high ground and have every right to defend themselves. Luckily, they can.

" If the terrorists would all lay down their arms, violence would stop.

" If Israel laid down its weapons, no more Israel"Bingo.

RedFury

08-04-2006, 09:28 AM

"If Israel laid down its weapons, no more Israel"

Cite or anti-Arab bias?

RedFury

08-04-2006, 09:32 AM

"If Israel laid down its weapons, no more Israel"

Cite or anti-Arab bias?

-----

Speaking of incredible US hypocrisy:

U.S. to Supply Food with One Hand, Arms with Other (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14348.htm)

As Israel's bombing of Lebanon continues unabated into its fourth consecutive week, the United States says it stands ready to provide food, medicine and humanitarian assistance to the thousands of internally displaced Lebanese caught in the crossfire.

But Washington has also decided to accelerate the supply of lethal weapons to Israel -- "perhaps intended to kill the very Lebanese the United States is planning to feed and shelter," says one Arab diplomat at the United Nations.

"It is U.S. hypocrisy at its worst," he told IPS, speaking on condition of anonymity, because his country receives millions of dollars in U.S. economic aid.

"The right hand obviously does not know what its left hand is up to. Or does it?" he asked.

Irene Khan, secretary-general of the London-based Amnesty International (AI), is equally harsh in her reaction. ''It is ridiculous to talk about providing humanitarian aid on the one hand, and to provide arms on the other,'' she says.

rock party

08-04-2006, 09:34 AM

bump

08-04-2006, 09:40 AM

Weirddave

08-04-2006, 09:49 AM

Speaking of incredible US hypocrisy:

U.S. to Supply Food with One Hand, Arms with Other (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14348.htm)
I don't see anything hypocritical about it. Civilians in Lebanon need help, so we give it. Israel has the right to protect itself, a goal we are committed to, so we sell them weapons. (note that they are "lethal" weapons. I guess Congress refused to authorize the Nerf Nuke™ that Israel wanted) In fact, I think the two go together quite logically. We support the right of Israel to defend itself against attack. Israel's goals in this conflict are to destroy or severely damage Hezbollah with the smallest amount of civilian casualties possible, humanitarian aid to civilians is entirely consistant with that goal. What you and the other Anti-Semetic posters utterly fail to recognize is that there ARE going to be civilian casualties, they are a by-product of the war that Hezbollah started, a by-product that Hezbollah wants and tries to maximize. The fault here lies with Hezabollah, not Israel. There is no conflict of interest here. The humanitarian supplies are to ease the suffering and pain caused by Hezbollah while the "lethal weapons" (*snicker* The blatent bias is too fucking funny) are for Israel to defend itself.

spazattak

08-04-2006, 09:53 AM

Thats what gets me.. I think Israel is going pretty far overboard with the airstrikes, but they wouldn't even need to intervene if the Lebanese government and civilians just stood up and held these guys (hizzbola etc) accountable or handed them over for trial. Using Gozu's analogy, thats exactly what would happen in the US if some crazy new yorker pull that crap. We'd arrest him and his buddies and hand em over to Cananda for trial. There is no moral high ground here. They're both 'wrong' and both their failures are continuing to perpetuate this nonsense.

FinnAgain

08-04-2006, 09:57 AM

while the "lethal weapons" (*snicker* The blatent bias is too fucking funny) are for Israel to defend itself.

What... that wasn't supposed to be a comedy piece?

But Washington has also decided to accelerate the supply of lethal weapons to Israel -- "perhaps intended to kill the very Lebanese the United States is planning to feed and shelter," says one Arab diplomat at the United Nations.

...perharps.
(DUN DUN DUN!)

spazattak

08-04-2006, 10:03 AM

So that the food will go further donchaknow.

FinnAgain

08-04-2006, 10:03 AM

Ahem.

[scruffy grog-soaked pirate voice]Arrrrrrr... perharps [/sgspv]

Fixed. :D
(Just in case my truly, erm, brilliant use of pirate-dialect-for-conspircy-mongers wasn't immediately evident to everybody.)

Weirddave

08-04-2006, 10:05 AM

What... that wasn't supposed to be a comedy piece?

Maybe we're misreading it and Washington is dispatching Mel Gibson to Lebanon to kill civilians before they can use the supplies. Then we can reclaim the supplies and resell them in dollar stores for a tidy profit. Diabolical!

Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

08-04-2006, 10:05 AM

This commentator is pithy.
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060802/NEWS/608020406/1002/business

On one side of the asymmetry, the Arabs openly call for the elimination of Israel - the political subjugation of its people, if not the outright physical slaughter of the Jews. As groups such as Memri.org amply demonstrate, Arab opinion leaders openly advocate genocide - though few around the world seem to notice or care.

Yet, for all their bold talk, those Arabs haven't gained the military means to achieve their murderous goals.

On the other side of the asymmetry, the Israelis sit and watch. They have the power to do to the Arabs what the Arabs want to do to them, but they, the Israelis, choose not to use it. Israel could wipe out the entire Arab population of the West Bank, Gaza and Southern Lebanon if it wanted to - and still have plenty of firepower left over, conventional as well as nuclear, to destroy every Arab capital.

Yet, while the Israelis are willing to take tough measures, including the forcible removal of a population, as seems to be happening in parts of Lebanon today, they are distinctly unwilling to kill large numbers of Lebanese; even after two weeks of fighting, estimates of civilian dead number in the hundreds, as opposed to thousands, let alone millions. bolding by Bosda Di'Chi

Triskadecamus

08-04-2006, 10:14 AM

If, as asserted, only a tiny fraction of Arabs support the endless war against Israel, why then is Hezbolah not referred to in Arabic press as a small band of criminals? If only a tiny fraction of Muslims wish to prosecute a holy war against those of other faiths, where are the hundreds of published fatwas condemning the act as an abomination? The silence of the rank and file among Arabs, Muslims, and the non religious among those populations speaks far louder than a few voices speaking out of a Religion of Peace.

I find it sad that my own country participated in the creation of a religious state in the Middle East, against all the principles of our own Constitution. I have spoken out here, and elsewhere that the War in Iraq, and Afghanistan is unconscionable. I don't see that sort of expression coming from the rank and file of the Arab, and Muslim world.

We are involved in these wars because a plurality of Americans wants to be involved in these wars. We don't get to claim other wise with any sort of honest self understanding. Neither do the Arabs, or the Jews. Hating other people is not a good thing. But it is a very common thing, and speaking out against it requires actually being against it. Dropping bombs and firing rockets at unknown strangers is the expression of the true level of desire for peace and love, not an aberration created by spin.

Tris

BrainGlutton

08-04-2006, 11:21 AM

Here's (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060731/nasrallah_game) an article speculating on why Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, decided, after things were relatively quiet for so long, to start lobbing shells into northern Israel, precipitating a predictable military response. The author thinks Nasrallah is partly just rendering service to his backers in Iran and Syria, but mainly, he acted out of desperation to prevent Hezbollah in Lebanon from being disarmed and reduced to just another political party.

Finagle

08-04-2006, 03:23 PM

Gary T

08-04-2006, 03:48 PM

The other thing I'd like to point out is that only a tiny minority of arabs actually support the killings perpetrated by hizbollah or hamas.
And an even tinier minority - zero that I can see - have done a damn thing to stop or even hinder said killings.

A solid majority of israelis support the current offensive.
Offensive is an interesting word choice for a military action whose aim is to stop the intentional bombing of Iraeli civilians, given that said bombing is clearly and solely an offensive operation. Nevertheless, who wouldn't support their country's efforts to protect its citizens from imminent harm?

Does Israel truly have the moral high ground here?
Yep. On the Arab side you've got some intensely homicidal maniacs with the intent purpose of killing Israeli civilians, and a general poplulace who either support them, or hypocritically disdain them but fail to oppose them. On the Israeli side you've got a standard military force - that does not go out of its way to harm civilians - trying to incapacitate said maniacs, and a populace that supports it. One need only look at the motivation behind each side's military endeavors to see where the moral high ground is. While a case can be made that Israel could do better morally, they're nowhere near as low as Hezbollah and Hamas, who are in the swamp, figuratively speaking.

Contrapuntal

08-04-2006, 04:26 PM

The other thing I'd like to point out is that only a tiny minority of arabs actually support the killings perpetrated by hizbollah or hamas.Really? From here -- (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/08/04/international/i123552D89.DTL) Tens of thousands of Shiites thronged a Baghdad slum Friday to show support for Hezbollah as Arab anger toward Israel mounted on the Muslim holy day. Such protests have even reached Saudi Arabia, where public discontent is rare.

DMC

08-04-2006, 05:53 PM

Where is the outcry from the Lebanese people when Hezbollah moves in next door? I watch the news and listen for ANYONE Lebanese begging for Hezbollah to get away from the civilians and stop using the infastructure but I never hear it. Why is this?Perhaps you should seek alternate channels for your news.

msmith537

08-04-2006, 06:09 PM

As many of you know, we are surrounded by spin and our lives are significantly affected by it. Spin is very, very effective. The U.S president employs a great spinner who speaks to the press. All big companies have several spinners working in their marketing and PR departments.

Yes and the Muslim world is pretty good at it as well. What part does Lebanon play in provoking this conflict?

That said, it irks me when news sources present this conflict as a somewhat even-sided conflict. It is proveably not so. In general, whenever you are dealing with an armed conflict of any kind, count the dead. Dead Combatants, dead civilan men, women and children on each side. Compare both figures and draw your own conclusions.
[/QUOTE]

Who told Hizbolah to start kidnapping Israeli soldiers and shooting rockets into Israel?

In one of the threads in GD, someone asks what the deal is with the rocket attacks against israeli towns. I'd say blind rockets attacks are about as effective compared to the israeli offensive as a bunch of people throwing stones are against an armed military squad.

Yeah. Whether you get blown up by a rocket or have your skull crushed by a rock, you're just as dead.

DMC

08-04-2006, 06:49 PM

Yeah. Whether you get blown up by a rocket or have your skull crushed by a rock, you're just as dead.If we're going to use the "just as dead" yardstick to determine equivalency, then victims of terrorism and victims of "collateral damage" are equally comparable.

08-04-2006, 07:28 PM

Perhaps you should seek alternate channels for your news.

Could you provide a cite from one of these alternative channels you frequent? I have to admit, I haven't seen a wide scale protest against Hezbollah by the people of Lebanon either. For that matter, include a cite of the Lebanese government condemning Hezbollah's actions...to round things out.

Thanks in advance.

-XT

RedFury

08-04-2006, 11:44 PM

I don't see anything hypocritical about it. Civilians in Lebanon need help, so we give it. Israel has the right to protect itself, a goal we are committed to, so we sell them weapons. (note that they are "lethal" weapons. I guess Congress refused to authorize the Nerf Nuke™ that Israel wanted) In fact, I think the two go together quite logically. We support the right of Israel to defend itself against attack. Israel's goals in this conflict are to destroy or severely damage Hezbollah with the smallest amount of civilian casualties possible, humanitarian aid to civilians is entirely consistant with that goal. What you and the other Anti-Semetic posters utterly fail to recognize is that there ARE going to be civilian casualties, they are a by-product of the war that Hezbollah started, a by-product that Hezbollah wants and tries to maximize. The fault here lies with Hezabollah, not Israel. There is no conflict of interest here. The humanitarian supplies are to ease the suffering and pain caused by Hezbollah while the "lethal weapons" (*snicker* The blatent bias is too fucking funny) are for Israel to defend itself.

Aaah! The old "anti-Semitic" cannard. And here I thought I was referering to Israel, the USA and their foreign policy. Oh well, live and learn.

Meanwhile, a bit more on hypocrisy:

Justice Is Dead, If You’re Born an Arab (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14377.htm)

I still feel a shudder of deja-vu at the irony with which I wrote last week about the ‘generosity’ of the US government’s gift of 2,000 rolls of plastic sheeting to the Lebanese as it rushed precision guided missiles to its henchmen in Israel. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that my macabre analogy would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. But there it was right before my eyes. A picture of a series of tiny bodies wrapped in plastic sheets so magnanimously donated by Uncle George and Aunti Condi, callously murdered by the very weapons they had so eagerly equipped the Israelis with. The names of little Mehdi aged seven and Abbas aged one were scrawled in black ink on labels identifying the victims of the US-sponsored Israeli genocide of innocent Lebanese civilians. (I wonder if the felt tip pens and labels were included in the humanitarian aid packages as a gesture of thoughtfulness? What a touching detail!)

<snip>

The media circus would like us all to believe that this crisis has proliferated solely because of Hezbollah’s irresponsible capture of Israeli soldiers. There is some truth to this. But I wonder how it is that statements by the Israeli government about threatening to take Lebanon back 20 years and putting the whole population of Gaza ‘on a diet’ are mysteriously seen as pacifist, uninflammatory and unprovocative? Does it not strike the intelligent reader as a bit strange that the kidnapping is considered such a heinous crime and an outrage whereas the illegal occupation of the Shebaa Farms and Tela Kafr Shooba in the South of Lebanon as well as the entire West Bank and the continuous build-up of illegal Israeli settlements is not?

But who talks of the Israeli abduction of a Palestinian doctor and his brother from Gaza that led to the eventual capture of these soldiers? Who even bothers to mention the fact that 10,000 Palestinian prisoners languish in Israeli jails? What about the Israeli bombing of a power station that condemns the already wretched Palestinians to a life without water or sewage? Or the wall of apartheid that has been constructed to strangle the Palestinians of their basic human rights?

Does anyone remember the failed illegal assassination attempt by Israel that not only missed its target, but left three Palestinian children dead and 15 civilians wounded on June 20? Or how about on June 13 when in a similar feat, the Israelis missed again (pinpoint accuracy, remember?) and killed nine? Or June 9 (perhaps that’s pushing history a bit too far) when Israel shelled a beach in Beit Lahiya killing eight and injuring several others?

Oops! Silly me! I forgot that the dead I mentioned are Palestinians, the new millennium equivalent of the World War I term ‘cannon fodder’. Am I mistaken or was it not the same Uncle George who warmly welcomed Prime Minister Siniora in the White House three months ago (now we’re getting into pre-historic times!) praising the ‘hundreds of thousands of people who took to the streets to express their desire to be free’? And now Uncle George leaves them ‘free’ to hang by allowing the Israelis a little bit more rope?

And, pardon me for asking, but if there was just such a huge threat to Israeli security by the crude missiles and rockets fired into it by Hezbollah why is it that the massive evacuation of foreigners that was so urgently carried out from Lebanon has not been deemed necessary from Israel?

Much more at source...

DMC

08-05-2006, 12:13 AM

Could you provide a cite from one of these alternative channels you frequent? I have to admit, I haven't seen a wide scale protest against Hezbollah by the people of Lebanon either. For that matter, include a cite of the Lebanese government condemning Hezbollah's actions...to round things out.I haven't seen a wide scale protest either (although it depends on how you define wide-scale), but that's not the claim I was responding to. There are plenty of Lebanese who are quite upset with Hezbollah at the moment. It's being reported in obscure media outlets such as the NYT (http://www.ericumansky.com/2006/07/christian_leban.html) (link to a quote of the story for those who don't want to register).

This is also nothing new. Reports of pissed off Lebanese (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8CEC68E6-3CEF-4E1B-907B-EF4B8F4D5585.htm) have been around since this shit started.

Can I now assume that the next time you see someone toss that canard into the fray that you'll swat it down?

Weirddave

08-05-2006, 12:26 AM

Aaah! The old "anti-Semitic" cannard. And here I thought I was referering to Israel, the USA and their foreign policy. Oh well, live and learn.

It's not a cannard. It's not even a canard. You can twist it all you want to justify it to yourself, but when you so adamantly support an organization that has as one of it's stated goals the extermination of Israel, the shoe fits like Cinderella's slipper. If you were posting your filth in support of the KKK, I'd refer to you as a racist. Your own words condemn you.

DMC

08-05-2006, 01:06 AM

It's not a cannard. It's not even a canard. You can twist it all you want to justify it to yourself, but when you so adamantly support an organization that has as one of it's stated goals the extermination of Israel, the shoe fits like Cinderella's slipper. If you were posting your filth in support of the KKK, I'd refer to you as a racist. Your own words condemn you.While it's possible that I missed it, I haven't seen RedFury support Hezbollah in any way shape or form, much less support their stated goal of the extermination of Israel (nor post anything anti-semitic at all). Feel free to point me to the appropriate post so I can soundly denounce the anti-semite.

AFAIKnow

08-05-2006, 01:41 AM

Meanwhile, a bit more on hypocrisy:

Justice Is Dead, If You’re Born an Arab (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14377.htm)

Much more at source...

You really should venture out of the opinion pieces for your facts every once in a while. No one really cares what some obscure guy thinks. Especially if his opinion is produced by you second hand for the whole world to see as if it is some kind of affidavit affirming your misguided opinion. Did you get confused by the "Arab News" at the beginning of the piece?I could link to several people who has an opinion exactly opposite of his. What does that prove? Besides the fact that I depend on others opinion to affirm my own?

threemae

08-05-2006, 02:06 AM

At some point there has to be proportionality.

Allow me to be the first to say that Hezbollah is a bunch of bastards, but killing members of the UN or literally as many children in a single strike as Israeli civilians have died in the whole conflict is absurd.

Furthermore, they are playing into exactly what Hezbollah wanted at the start of this conflict when they kidnapped soldiers and lobbed a few missles: preventing Hezbollah from becoming a disarmed marginal has-been of an organization. What ultimate long term goal does Israel honestly feel that it is advancing at this point? Will this generate democratic, stable neighbors filled with people that don't hate it? Or will Israel just hope to have a future that continues to be defined by bloodshed, strife, and fear?

I really doubt that anyone wants the latter; certainly not Israel. I hope that in short order cooler heads prevail and that the region sees the injection of a real and effective multinational peace keeping force. It might prove a wise investment to try to help rebuild the infrastructure destroyed in the latest conflict.

Also, I pray that Israel has the ability and foresight to show just a touch more restraint in the pursuit of its goals and manages to avoid killing scores more plum-pickers.

OliverTwistofLime

08-05-2006, 02:23 AM

Cite or anti-Arab bias?

To support the veracity of my statement, check out tens of thousands of articles regarding suicide bombers,,,statements by Arab leaders touting the destruction of Israel.......as well as my anti TERRorist comment.

I am anti anyone who supports the total destruction of Israel whether actively or passively.

I had no misguided idea that I would be able to convince you not to think the way you think.

08-05-2006, 02:28 AM

I haven't seen a wide scale protest either (although it depends on how you define wide-scale), but that's not the claim I was responding to. There are plenty of Lebanese who are quite upset with Hezbollah at the moment. It's being reported in obscure media outlets such as the NYT (link to a quote of the story for those who don't want to register).

If you were simply saying that there is some minority of Lebanese who dislike (or even hate) what Hezbollah is doing, then I misunderheard you and apologize. You are, of course, correct...there are quite a few actually.

-XT

Gary T

08-05-2006, 11:17 AM

At some point there has to be proportionality.
No there doesn't.

To repeat my comments from another thread:
Israel faces the Hobson's choice of doing little or nothing and being destroyed, or doing enough to have an effect. The latter necessarily involves lots of deaths. There is no way for Israel to pinpoint their response to those attacking them. To suggest that Israel's response should be "proportionate" to the attacks on them, or that they are worse than Hezbollah because they kill more people than Hezbollah does, is ludicrous. There is no equivalence in the strategic options available to Hezbollah and Israel in this situation, and it's ridiculous to expect that there should be equivalence in the results of their efforts.

"Proportionality" is not possible in any meaningful sense. Now, if Hezbollah were to assemble like a traditional fighting force, separable from civilians, there'd be proportionality all over the place. But since they make a point of embedding themselves among civilians, and no one - not the Lebanese populace, not the Lebanese government, no one - has done anything to change that, there will sadly be large numbers of civilian casualties associated with any strikes aimed at Hezbollah.

If Hezbollah didn't and wouldn't fire rockets at Israel, there would be no civilian casualties on either side.

If the Lebanese people and/or government prevented Hezbollah from doing its thing in the midst of civilian areas, there would be little or no Lebanese civilian casualties.

But you advocate that Israel should just stand by twiddling thumbs and let Hezbollah continue its unprovoked attack on Israeli civilians unimpeded, because the only effective thing they can do doesn't have "proportionality?"

Put the responsibility where it belongs. Get Hezbollah to stop - NOW - and the civilian casualties will stop as well. (Don't hold your breath, though.)

BrainGlutton

08-05-2006, 11:49 AM

You can twist it all you want to justify it to yourself, but when you so adamantly support an organization that has as one of it's stated goals the extermination of Israel, the shoe fits like Cinderella's slipper.

Extermination of Israel would not be in itself an antisemitic goal. Extermination of the Jews would be. Israel != the Jews.

08-05-2006, 12:18 PM

Extermination of Israel would not be in itself an antisemitic goal. Extermination of the Jews would be. Israel != the Jews.

The two are interwoven in the minds of those actually trying to do said extermination. As you should know BG. To them Israel DOES equal The Jews in Our Neck of the Woods. You can attempt to separate them in your own mind...but for the participants (Israeli's and Arab's alike) on both sides there is no meaningful separation...they are one in the same.

-XT

Rucksinator

08-05-2006, 01:40 PM

Speaking of incredible US hypocrisy:

U.S. to Supply Food with One Hand, Arms with Other (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14348.htm)

/ Completely unrelated hijack: I've heard that there have been some cases where police officers have shot armed criminals in self defense; and then had the unmitigated gall to take the wounded criminal to the hospital for treatment! Oh the hypocricy!

/End Hijack

DMC

08-05-2006, 02:40 PM

If you were simply saying that there is some minority of Lebanese who dislike (or even hate) what Hezbollah is doing, then I misunderheard you and apologize. You are, of course, correct...there are quite a few actually.I was simply showing rock party that they needed to broaden their sources of news just a bit, if they didn't want to remain ignorant about the various Lebanese takes on this. The Lebanese are not the Borg, and various people have various stances on just about everything, much like every other nation. I'm not actually expecting for the response to have any bearing on their choice of news sources, but you never know.

RedFury

08-05-2006, 03:58 PM

It's not a cannard. It's not even a canard. You can twist it all you want to justify it to yourself, but when you so adamantly support an organization that has as one of it's stated goals the extermination of Israel, the shoe fits like Cinderella's slipper. If you were posting your filth in support of the KKK, I'd refer to you as a racist. Your own words condemn you.

WTF? Find a single post of mine where I express any kind of support for Hezbollah. Since you won't, because there aren't any, I fully expect a retraction from you.

Other than that, I must commend your debating "technique", where all you do is attack the source and ignore the content. For instance that last article comes from Arabnews.com, merely the leading English language daily.

No wonder you only understand one viewpoint: yours.

RedFury

08-05-2006, 04:02 PM

/ Completely unrelated hijack: I've heard that there have been some cases where police officers have shot armed criminals in self defense; and then had the unmitigated gall to take the wounded criminal to the hospital for treatment! Oh the hypocricy!

/End Hijack

And what, exactly, does that have to do with the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians, comprised mostly of women, children, the elderly and the very poor?

Other than somehow make you feel good that is.

[/end of asinine hijack]

RedFury

08-05-2006, 04:04 PM

Clarification: when I wrote "merely the leading English language daily," I should have added that said circulation is, of course, referring to the ME.

threemae

08-05-2006, 04:59 PM

"Proportionality" is not possible in any meaningful sense. Now, if Hezbollah were to assemble like a traditional fighting force, separable from civilians, there'd be proportionality all over the place. But since they make a point of embedding themselves among civilians, and no one - not the Lebanese populace, not the Lebanese government, no one - has done anything to change that, there will sadly be large numbers of civilian casualties associated with any strikes aimed at Hezbollah.

That's precisely what was happening as the Lebanese political machinery, army, and government was taking control. Hezbollah foresaw this, didn't want to become marginalized, and Israel gave it exactly what it wanted.

It really furthers no one's long term interests except for Hezbollah's.

AFAIKnow

08-05-2006, 05:32 PM

That's precisely what was happening as the Lebanese political machinery, army, and government was taking control. .

Cite?

David Simmons

08-05-2006, 08:33 PM

Hezbollah and other extreme, and not so extreme, Arab groups openly state that Israel must be eradicated. Could you point out a place where "moderate Arabs" say that the extremists are wrong and some accomdation with Israel must be made?

Until that position is either answered "Yes, Israel must go." or "No, Israel must stay." All discussion about who started what and who is the most to blame are a waste of time.

Least Original User Name Ever

08-05-2006, 09:02 PM

08-05-2006, 09:45 PM

Its a nice appeal to emotion (well, actually its the same old bullshit you've been saying for weeks now...does it ever get tired saying the same old things like a broken record, having people actually respond with debate points, but ignorning them so that you can just keep the mantra up? Appearently not...), but you are making a serious assumption here:

If the numbers were skewed the other way and thousands of deaths of Isralies and a few dead Lebonese ,you would be crying about the inhumanity of the Arabs.

Why do you think that because the numbers are skewed towards the Lebanese that people aren't saying this anyway? As you've been told (I don' know...100 times so far in GD? More? Not sure exactly), HB is DELIBERATELY targetting Israeli citizens. At the same time, they are using Lebanese as human shields, fighting among them, storing their munitions and weapons in their homes and buildings etc. You never seem to actually GET this point however...it slides right off of your impervious self rightousness.

Heres some advice. Instead of saying the same thing, over and over again, why not try and actually engage in the debate. Instead of mindlessly repeating, over and over again, your little mantra, why not attempt to actually respond to what people are writing and talking about? Instead of appealing to emotion, why not do some research and come back with some actual points to debate?

Or, I guess, you could just keep doing these little drive, content free appeals to emotion you call posts, I guess. Though really...we get it. After the 40th one of these we figured out where you stand on this. Really.

-XT

Least Original User Name Ever

08-05-2006, 10:16 PM

Repeating over and over. You mean me .Oh. I see you doing that I write less because I know you arent listening. It is a waste of time. There is only one side for you.

08-05-2006, 10:56 PM

Ah...righto mate. Carry on then.

-XT

LavenderBlue

08-05-2006, 11:08 PM

If the numbers were skewed the other way and thousands of deaths of Isralies and a few dead Lebonese ,you would be crying about the inhumanity of the Arabs. The love like you do. they bleed like you do, and they mourn their deaths like you do. Do not dismiss their deaths as deserved. Israel is blowing the hell out if the country. The infrastructure happens to be where people live. These are not collateral deaths .They are taken as part of the equation to cripple Lebonon.
Hezbollah is the second biggest employer in Lebanon. They help feed the people ,provide hospitals and supply water. You may argue that they are recruiting,but when someone helps you ,you are grateful. The Lebanese are capable of distinction. They watch Hezbollah and often disagree with them, But they will never forget or forgive what Israel is doing to them.
This is a soverign state. Would you accept someone lobbing bombs into the USA because they had trouble with a white power organization or the KKK. You would mourn your dead and hate tyhe killers. Do not think your logic of "oh well they started it "flies either. This has been going on along time. Cross bordr scirmaches have been done by both sides for long time.

Americans despise the KKK. Americans don't elect the KKK to public office. Americans don't let foreign governments fund the KKK. Americans certainly don't encourage the KKK to start bombing buildings and attempting to kill innocent civilians in African American or Catholic or Jewish neighborhoods. Americans sure as hell don't turn the leaders of the KKK in American heroes. And most of us sure as hell wouldn't say it was okay for poor whites Protestants to support the KKK because they are sometimes get involved in charitable endeavors among poor white Protestants.

DMC

08-05-2006, 11:59 PM

Americans despise the KKK.Some do, some don't. Americans don't elect the KKK to public office.David Duke has held public office, and while he claims he wasn't in the KKK when he did, no one seriously believed he wasn't a white supremacist at the time.Americans don't let foreign governments fund the KKK.I don't think America could stop that, actually.Americans certainly don't encourage the KKK to start bombing buildings and attempting to kill innocent civilians in African American or Catholic or Jewish neighborhoods.If you think there wouldn't be happy people if the KKK was still violent, you're sadly mistaken.Americans sure as hell don't turn the leaders of the KKK in American heroes.Once again, some do.And most of us sure as hell wouldn't say it was okay for poor whites Protestants to support the KKK because they are sometimes get involved in charitable endeavors among poor white Protestants.I don't know what relevance this has, as I don't think anyone has said it was okay for people to join Hezbollah. Understandable? Sure. Okay? Not from anyone that I've seen.

As noted earlier, not everyone in Lebanon is engaging in group think. It's actually a fairly diverse country compared to some others in the region, and opinions reflect that.

The Flying Dutchman

08-06-2006, 12:10 AM

If the numbers were skewed the other way and thousands of deaths of Isralies and a few dead Lebonese ,you would be crying about the inhumanity of the Arabs.
What do you mean? A lot of us are crying about the inhumanity of Arabs. We've been doing that for years. Arabs are killing a lt more Arabs than Israelis are.

The love like you do. they bleed like you do, and they mourn their deaths like you do.
But they don't seem to care about the innocent Israelis they kill. Israelis do care about the innocent Arabs they kill.

Hezbollah is the second biggest employer in Lebanon. They help feed the people ,provide hospitals and supply water.
So did the Nazis for jGermany. Not for the Jews though. Has Hezbollah employed any Jews?

You may argue that they are recruiting,but when someone helps you ,you are grateful. The Lebanese are capable of distinction. They watch Hezbollah and often disagree with them, But they will never forget or forgive what Israel is doing to them.
I believe that. You see, that is the difference between Israelis and Lebanese Arabs. Israelis have forgiven the Germans. They don't hang on to their anger for centuries.

This is a soverign state. Would you accept someone lobbing bombs into the USA because they had trouble with a white power organization or the KKK. You would mourn your dead and hate tyhe killers.
I truly believe that if the KKK became a powerful militia in Texas, harrassing and killing Mexican illegals near the border, the rest of America would neutralize and disarm them before any large scale Mexican response was neccessary. I do recall that Americans fought a bloody civil war to end the slavery of an oppressed people.

gum

08-06-2006, 03:06 AM

Human Right Watch says Hezbollah commits war-crimes:

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/05/lebano13921.htm

monavis

08-06-2006, 07:26 AM

I wonder what the difference is between the Taliban in Aphganistan and Hezbollah? Why does Lebanon allow a terrorist group to exist in their country? The Taliban allowed Bib Laden to train terrorists there. Why did Hezbollah take the 2 Israeli's captive? Was it on the orders of Iran? Where did they get their weapons and why were they allowed to be stronger than the Lebonese army? Why is it different than Isreal getting rid of Hezbollah,than the UN getting rid of the Taliban and Bin Laden?

Israel was not going into Lebanon until the Lebonese did nothing to try to get Hezbollah to free their soldiers. There is no war that innocents do not die for the rest.

The head of Iran's government openly stated it wanted to get rid of Israel.Their followers in other countries want it too.

There were many Aphganistanies who were innocent and were killed. Terrorism by anyother name still stinks.

Monavis

DMC

08-06-2006, 12:51 PM

Human Right Watch says Hezbollah commits war-crimes.As does Israel, according to the same group. I have no problem with both sides being considered guilty of not showing a lot of restraint when it comes to civilians, so thanks for bringing the facts to light.

Least Original User Name Ever

08-06-2006, 12:54 PM

Okay, me responding now instead of my dad (who you've probably been going back and forth about for a while).

Both sides are wrong. Hizbollah is enmeshed with the community. Going on about that almost sounds like the British blaming the revolutionary Americans that they were fighting a guerilla war instead of lining up on plains and getting shot up by cannon, where the British had a big advantage. Hizbollah is attacking Jewish civilians. This is true. This is not good. I'd love to see this stop, but this simply WON'T stop unless Israel stops their geographical genocide. Let's not mince words. This is what the Jewish state is doing. They've got settlements littered all over the "useful" land in Palestine with roads crisscrossing the land, roads that conveniently DON'T get bombed by Israeli weapons.

Of course, this is all publically and widely known information. The issue seems to be culpability. Revolutionaries aren't going to just spring up, they're created. Hizbollah attacks Israeli civilians fow two reasons. One, it works. It's unfortunately effective. Two, it's what the Israelis have been doing to the Palestinians for many moons. Where does this shit stop? It has to stop with concessions. For ANYTHING to work, Israel is going to have to give up a shitload more than the Palestinians would, mostly because Israel is in the wrong.

Out of curiousity, what would you do concerning the situation there?

Lastly, to answer the question, a moderate Arab's point of view would probably find Israel to blame. The degree of blame is the only sticking point, and the definition of "moderate" would mean something close to 50/50.

Least Original User Name Ever

08-06-2006, 12:55 PM

As does Israel, according to the same group. I have no problem with both sides being considered guilty of not showing a lot of restraint when it comes to civilians, so thanks for bringing the facts to light.

Let's not absolve anyone, both sides are committing some crimes and doing some Very Nasty Things. Doing nasty things gets no resolution. It only escalates and doesn't bring a conclusion.

DMC

08-06-2006, 01:23 PM

Let's not absolve anyone, both sides are committing some crimes and doing some Very Nasty Things. Doing nasty things gets no resolution. It only escalates and doesn't bring a conclusion.I agree completely.

FinnAgain

08-06-2006, 01:34 PM

. I'd love to see this stop, but this simply WON'T stop unless Israel stops their geographical genocide.

Wow. My dictionary just began weeping.

Let's not mince words. This is what the Jewish state is doing.

Engaging in a delberate and systematic campaign to murder all the geography.
Good thing we're not mincing words.

roads that conveniently DON'T get bombed by Israeli weapons.

I know that context and facts are anathama to your position about how Israel is deliberately trying to murder geography, but have you considered that those roads don't get bombed becasue Syria isn't using them to supply Hezbollah with weapons? Or because if there are violations on them, Israel can exercise police powers?

Don't let reality get in the way of a good rant though.

The issue seems to be culpability. Revolutionaries aren't going to just spring up, they're created. Hizbollah attacks Israeli civilians fow two reasons. One, it works. It's unfortunately effective. Two, it's what the Israelis have been doing to the Palestinians for many moons.

I know you're fighting for inclusion in the League of Bombastic Gentlemen, and that history isn't your strongsuit, but the 'revolutionaries' were the ones who commited to an unprovoked war against Israel in '48 with the stated goal of actual, rather than 'geogrpahic' genocide. Studying a bit of history, you'd notice that attacking civilians isn't 'effective' at accomplishing any military goals. You'd also notice Israel has tried time and time and time again to negotiate for peace with the Arabs and the Palstinians, and has consistently had groups like Hamas launch suicide attacks during negotiations.

And if you cared more about truth than ranting, you'd admit that Israel has not been targeting Palestinian civilians. But I guess recognizing that there's a country named Israel and it's done some stuff is probably the limit of your horde of facts here.

Where does this shit stop?

When Israel's enemies accept that it's not going away, and agree to negotiate as Israel has been asking for decades now? But don't let facts get in the way of truthiness. Trust your gut.

It has to stop with concessions.

Where does your ignorance stop? It has to stop with reading history instead of making it up.

There is a long list of Israeli concessions, including but not limited to reversing the gains they made in '67 in exchange for other nations negotiating and giving up their stated goal of genocide. But again, if the facts don't fit your screed, ignore them.

For ANYTHING to work, Israel is going to have to give up a shitload more than the Palestinians would, mostly because Israel is in the wrong.

Israel has already offered to do so, and I'm not quite sure how someone who knows nothing about the history of the region can determine who's 'in the wrong'. Why, exactly, is the nation that continually tries to make peace 'in the wrong'? Why is the nation that's been fighting defensive wars against genocidal enemies since its very birth 'in the wrong'? Feel free to respond with actual facts, or just make more stuff up.

If you don't know about history, it's perfectly valid to invent it.

The degree of blame is the only sticking point, and the definition of "moderate" would mean something close to 50/50.

So, to sum up: a moderate Arab would blame Israel for about 50% of events, but you say that Israel is entirely to blame. What, exactly, does that make you?

pantom

08-06-2006, 06:19 PM

Studying a bit of history, you'd notice that attacking civilians isn't 'effective' at accomplishing any military goals.

Who needs history when it's happening right now? From CNN: (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/06/mideast.main/index.html) :

Since fighting began on July 12, at least 95 Israelis have been killed, more than half of them soldiers, according to the IDF.
...
Lebanon's death toll exceeds 700, most of them civilians, and the number of wounded tops 2,700, Lebanese Internal Security Forces reported Sunday.

From the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR2006080500478_2.html)

In a speech Tuesday, Olmert said of Hezbollah's capability to fire rockets at Israel: "Twenty-one days later, that threat is not what it was." The next day, Hezbollah pummeled Israel with 230 rockets -- the most of any day of the conflict.

Apparently, you're right.

Gozu

08-06-2006, 06:44 PM

Thank you Gonzu for referring to Hezbollah as "nutcases". That said, why are the Lebanese leaders not speaking out against them. I'd understand if the Lebananese leaders said "ok Hezbollah, you want to pick on a bully? Take it to the border but GET OUT of the cities and away from any civilians!!" But instead we see "hey Hezbollah..over here! the view is better from the top of this hospital (hi rise, school)". Where is the outcry from the Lebanese people when Hezbollah moves in next door? I watch the news and listen for ANYONE Lebanese begging for Hezbollah to get away from the civilians and stop using the infastructure but I never hear it. Why is this?

First. I'd like to say that I cann't answer each and every one of you. It takes me a very long time to write a great debate post. In fact, i'm a notably slow writer. So I could easily spend 4 or 5 hours a day just posting here. I've done it in the past but don't have the time right now.

Now, to answer rock party. If all hezbollah and hamas militants took all the weapons they had in stock. If they also aquired all the weapons they could get their hands on from Iran, Syria or on the black market. If they decided to go and fight the israelis honorably by declaring war and facing off the israeli army. Do you know what would happen? They would be anihilated. They wouldn't stand the shadow of a chance. They know this and they have decided that, for their righteous cause to succeed. In order to defeat the zionist invaders and reclaim their land and their freedom, that was not the way to go. Nothing unusual about that, Guerillas are born from the same necessities.

They have, at one point, decided that it was ok if tens of thousands, or maybe hundreds of thousands of lives were sacrificed for "the cause". They have decided that they could kill Israeli military and civilians alike. Down to the innocent children. That's why they explode in buses and other populated civilian areas. Because they're softer targets than the military. They have also decided that it was ok if their own civilian people got killed either through israeli retaliation, either through sheer accidents (like the arab couple who lost both their children to a hizbollah rocket attack recently).

They have, furthermore, learned how to use the israeli army's collateral damage to get sympathy from the rest of the arab world and the aid of a few rich and powerful people. Because, honestly, when an arab muslim turns on the TV and sees the corpses of civilian men, women and children being retrieved from the debris of a building that was hit by an Israeli missile or tank, he does *NOT* care that there was a sniper on the roof or that Israel got to kill a couple highly placed lieutenants of Hamas or Hizbollah. You are *NOT* going to convince said person that it was a fair trade or that the the Israeli action was sound and defensible. If the people who died were all his immediate family, he might lose it and agree to go explode himself somewhere. Missiles are expensive. People are cheap. Organizations like Hamas and hizbollah know that and act accordingly.

Bottom line is: everybody is playing to win. Hizbollah is playing dirtier because it is weaker. Period. The weak always play dirty. A mighty tiger does not need venom. A puny little snake does. Asking Hizbollah to not post snipers in populated areas so that "no civilians get hurt" is tantamount to asking the israeli army to stop using explosives because they cause too much collateral damage. Both demands are perfectly reasonable from a certain point of view but they are laughably naive.

I do not sympathize with Hizbollah or Hamas. I do not sympathize with the Israeli government either. It is quite ruthless and has a lot of blood on its hands too.If it were up to me, as long as Jerusalem was administered by a triumvirate of christians, jews and muslims. i'd be ok with disbanding both organisation and teleporting every person on palestine to australia and leave the whole place to Israel. Just so there are no more innocent victims. But it is stupid and illogical to demonize either side. And I see a lot more demonization of the arab side, which displeases me greatly.

FinnAgain

08-06-2006, 06:48 PM

Who needs history when it's happening right now?

Is Hezbollah primarily targeting civilians, or military targets?
Is Israel primarily targeting civilians, or military targets?
Is your obfuscation supposed to serve any point other than distortion?

Were you conducting an argument with even a basic level of intellectual honesty, you'd have recognized that the claim I was responding to was that Hezbollah directs their attacks against civilians (while hiding among their own civilian population) because "it works". In a military sense, it does not works. It only works in a PR sense with folks like you.

Now, despite your wonderful bit of obfuscation, truly lovely, don't get me wrong...
the quote of mine you were deliberately ignoring in order to make your empty point was:

you'd notice that attacking civilians isn't 'effective' at accomplishing any military goals.

Hezbollah's rocket attacks are directed at Israeli civilians, and are not effective at accomplishing any military goals. They have not stopped the IDF, or caused it to be unable to continue its prosecution of the war.

Israel's missile attacks are directed at Hezbollah and especially their logistical support, and have indeed rendered Hezbollah virtually unable to resupply. As Hezbollah's supplies are largely in residential areas, it's impossible for Israel to destroy them all without killing virtually everybody around Hezbollah, especially since they're not clearly marked as military hardware if they're in some guy's garage. Obviously, the total annihilation of Hezbollah is not the military goal.

But rhetoric trumps reality for certain folk, as I've grown to expect.
I certainly wouldn't expect you to be honest enough to admit that Hezbollah is attacking civilians while Israel is attacking Hezbollah and its logstical network.
It's much better to ignore the context, facts, and actual issue under discussion in order to attempt to score some rhetorical points.
I'm glad you don't disapoint by doing something new and addressing the actual point.

Gozu

08-06-2006, 07:02 PM

The part I don't get is that the Lebanese civilians aren't without complicity. Hezbollah is pretty much *the* civil authority in southern Lebanon. I somehow doubt that they came to this situation without the local population tolerating it.

When you knowingly and intentionally harbor and help out known organizations who are intentionally yanking the tiger's tail, it's not surprising that you'll get it in the neck when the tiger finally gets pissed off.

The people in southern Lebanon had and have the ability to eject Hezbollah and not be part of it. Now that the Israelis are finally fed up, we're supposed to feel sorry for these people? Fat chance. Sure, it sucks that women and children are getting killed. But... if the heads of those households had really cared, they'd have moved, or done their damnedest to get rid of Hezbollah, especially when they started kidnapping Israeli soldiers and the like.

I know that Hezbollah runs hospitals and other social welfare programs in those areas, but people can't have it both ways- you can't support them for the hospitals, and then expect not to suffer the consequences for whatever else the organization does.

The part I don't get is that the Lebanese civilians aren't without complicity. Hezbollah is pretty much *the* civil authority in southern Lebanon. I somehow doubt that they came to this situation without the local population tolerating it.

When you knowingly and intentionally harbor and help out known organizations who are intentionally yanking the tiger's tail, it's not surprising that you'll get it in the neck when the tiger finally gets pissed off.

The people in southern Lebanon had and have the ability to eject Hezbollah and not be part of it. Now that the Israelis are finally fed up, we're supposed to feel sorry for these people? Fat chance. Sure, it sucks that women and children are getting killed. But... if the heads of those households had really cared, they'd have moved, or done their damnedest to get rid of Hezbollah, especially when they started kidnapping Israeli soldiers and the like.

I know that Hezbollah runs hospitals and other social welfare programs in those areas, but people can't have it both ways- you can't support them for the hospitals, and then expect not to suffer the consequences for whatever else the organization does.

You are underestimating the lebanese people. Think about it for a second. What has Israel EVER done for them? Other than the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health? Ok, just kidding.

But seriously, from a lebanese perspective, Israel has been nothing but bad news for Lebanon. So Hizbollah rises and opposes Israel. They have welfare programs and run hospitals and help people. You think the lebanese people are just going to repay hezbollah by "ejecting them"? That is not very realistic. It's about as futile as me asking the american people to rise against the federal government because of its ridiculous policy on drugs. I may have a point, but it ain't gonna work.

FinnAgain

08-06-2006, 07:19 PM

They know this and they have decided that, for their righteous cause to succeed. In order to defeat the zionist invaders and reclaim their land and their freedom, that was not the way to go. Nothing unusual about that, Guerillas are born from the same necessities.

Except that: Shabaa farms is not Lebanese, it's Syrian abd Israel did not invade until after Hezbollah began attacking them.

And I'm just curious, what's this about "Zionist" invaders? Why not just Israeli invaders? (Ignoring that most recently Hezbollah was attacking Israel before Israel invaded in response to Hezbollah's attacks)

I ask because more often than not, when I see this phrase being used it's used to suggest some sort of global cabal made up of "Zionist" leaders, whoever they are exactly, and various "crusader" factions helping them.

What is the difference between a "Zionist" invader, and an IDF soldier?

08-06-2006, 07:22 PM

But seriously, from a lebanese perspective, Israel has been nothing but bad news for Lebanon. So Hizbollah rises and opposes Israel. They have welfare programs and run hospitals and help people. You think the lebanese people are just going to repay hezbollah by "ejecting them"? That is not very realistic. It's about as futile as me asking the american people to rise against the federal government because of its ridiculous policy on drugs. I may have a point, but it ain't gonna work.

I don't believe that was Bumps point.

Who needs history when it's happening right now?

History give context to whats going on and why. So, to answer your question...Who needs history? Well, you do appearently. :p

Let's not absolve anyone, both sides are committing some crimes and doing some Very Nasty Things. Doing nasty things gets no resolution. It only escalates and doesn't bring a conclusion.

I was wondering when this one would get trotted out. It was definitely defense in depth, but it seems that the final redout is encircled, ehe? :p

Lets take a quick look at these crimes again, ehe? Not because its going to get through to you this time, but just for drill.

Hezbollah fires rockets deliberately at civilians with the intent to kill them. Check. Hezbollah fires said rockets in the proximity of their own civilian population in the hopes of using them as a screen, or for propaganda purposes when they are hurt or killed...again, deliberately. Check. Hezbollah stores their weapons and munitions in civilian buildings (houses, schools, hospitals, appartment buildings, etc)....again deliberately, and again with the intent to use those civilians and those facilities as both shield and propaganda tool. Check. Finally, Hezbollah uses civilian logistics networks (roads, bridges, etc) to transport military supplies to resupply their forces in the field, to resupply their expended rockets (see point one above), etc...again, deliberately, again to to be provided with both shield and propaganda tool. And also because, frankly, its easier to use the roads than to hump the stuff across country at night when they may be able to do so without attack. Check. Oh yeah...and Hezbollah STARTED this conflict deliberately. Check.

Israel on the other hand, was dragged into this conflict by Hezbollah (this is where that nasty 'history' stuff may give that worthless 'context' bit, ehe phantom? :p ). The IDF is deliberately targetting...Hezbollah, their paramilitary forces in the field, their logistics and their rocket vehicles. They are doing this because basically they are under attack and have been so, periodically, for quite some time...and they are at the point where enough is enough. In order to target Hezbollah, both their forces in the field, their logistics and their stores however, this means that unfortunately civilians will be exposed to fire. This is due to the nature of Hezbollah's tactics described above...simply put it would be impossible to engage Hezbollah on any level without some risk to civilians being hurt or killed. And to not engage is unacceptable to Israel.

Yeah, I can certainly see how "both sides are committing some crimes and doing some Very Nasty Things" is logically obvious to the non-partisan here. :dubious: After all, Hezbollah is deliberately firing on civilians with the intent to kill them, is fighting from within the shield of their own civilians and is deliberately putting them at risk...hell, is INVITING the Israeli's to come and kill them. While Israel is merely trying to get rid of a paramilitary force that has been periodically engaging them for some time (post occupation) and who started hostilities (again) THIS time.

Yeah...looks pretty even to me on the war crimes front...

-XT

FinnAgain

08-06-2006, 07:24 PM

Blah. "Shabaa farms is not Lebanese, it's Syrian and Israel did not... "
Add that to my vast list of typos.

But, the fact remains, the UN certified that Israel had pulled out of Lebanese territory and that Shabaa farms was not part of Lebanon. So Hezbollah's claims that it's justified in 'reclaiming' their territory is a smoke screen.

In addition, they couldn't have been planning on holding civilians hostage in order to defeat the "Zionist" invaders, because they attacked Israel and placed their forces among civilians before Israel retaliated. If someone hasn't invaded, and you attack them first, then you're not acting in order to defeat invaders.

Hope that clears things up.

RedFury

08-06-2006, 07:34 PM

Deadliest rocket barrage of war kills 15 in Israel (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=TopNews&storyID=2006-08-06T215415Z_01_L05688729_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C1-TopStories-TopNews-2)

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hizbollah rockets killed 12 soldiers and at least three civilians in Israel on Sunday, the deadliest day of the war for Israel, as Lebanon rejected a draft U.N. resolution to end the 26-day-old conflict.

Israeli bombardment of southern Lebanon killed at least 19 civilians and a Lebanese soldier.

In the Israeli village of Kfar Giladi, a rocket hit a group of Israeli reservists called up for the Lebanon offensive. Medics said 12 were killed and dozens were wounded.

Hmm...remind me again. Who's avoiding civilian casualties again? Facts and figures, please, not prefabricated rhetorical excuses.

Gozu

08-06-2006, 07:37 PM

Except that: Shabaa farms is not Lebanese, it's Syrian abd Israel did not invade until after Hezbollah began attacking them.

And I'm just curious, what's this about "Zionist" invaders? Why not just Israeli invaders? (Ignoring that most recently Hezbollah was attacking Israel before Israel invaded in response to Hezbollah's attacks)

I ask because more often than not, when I see this phrase being used it's used to suggest some sort of global cabal made up of "Zionist" leaders, whoever they are exactly, and various "crusader" factions helping them.

What is the difference between a "Zionist" invader, and an IDF soldier?

Well, I am just using their vocabulary. I , too, have been hearing that phrase used. Zionism is the movement to create a jewish state and since people already happened to live there, it would have to do it by force? So I suppose it has the whole invasion connotation whereas IDF stands for Israeli Defense Forces and has a more positive connotation (Defense).

As far as saying that Hizbollah attacked Israel first. That deserves a thread and a debate of its own. Not that it really matters at this point.

FinnAgain

08-06-2006, 07:43 PM

Well, I am just using their vocabulary.

Ahh, I thought you were endorsing it. My apologies.

08-06-2006, 07:46 PM

Hmm...remind me again. Who's avoiding civilian casualties again?

Sure thing Red. Israel is the one attempting to avoid civilian casualties. I'm (not) surprised you forgot this (again). When Hezbollah hits ANYTHING with their rockets, its pure dumb luck. The fact they hit soldiers instead of civilians (or, as I said, hit anything at all) speaks to chance. Now, unless you want to claim that either A) Hezbollah has some how magically figured out a way to make these extremely inaccurate rockets accurate, or B) Hezbollah has some magic ability to manipulate chance to their advantage, or C) Hezbollah really DOES have the ear of God...

Well, unless you are going to make one of those claims then you are kind of, once again, blowing smoke. But then, I'm sure you realized this already, ehe?

-XT

MEBuckner

08-06-2006, 07:48 PM

Okay, me responding now instead of my dad (who you've probably been going back and forth about for a while).
Moderator's Note: If your dad wants to post on the board, he needs to register a screenname here. If nothing else, I don't want to have debates where a screenname has multiple personalities who start arguing with themselves.

08-06-2006, 07:49 PM

BTW Red...clicking on your link gives me a 'We're sorry... this story is not currently available'...you may want to get a different link.

-XT

FinnAgain

08-06-2006, 08:01 PM

Israel is the one attempting to avoid civilian casualties. I'm (not) surprised you forgot this (again).

Well, to be fair, it's not like anybody has pointed out that Hezbollah often makes their bases and places their weapons caches in civilian areas, uses civilian roads to transport weaponry, or wears civilian garb in order to blend in and make precise targeting almost impossible even when they're not firing rockets from on top of some guy's home. Nobody has pointed out that the fog of war gets very, very dicey when you can't even reliably confirm who's an enemy soldier and who's a civilian, so mistakes are much more likely to be made. Nobody has pointed out that Israel has been using precision strikes and the best intel it has to hit targets rather than simply carpet bombing Lebanon. Nobody has pointed out that as of Dresden, modern military powers have the ability to reduce cities to ash and rubble and that if Israel was truly targeting civilians, we'd see a body count in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands. Nobody has pointed out that Hezbollah's rockets are indiscriminate by design and they can't possibly believe that they're directing them at Israeli military forces, just "somewhere in that direction, roughly."

I mean, nobody has pointed those out, right? It's not a blatantly biased and willfully ignorant screed because, well nobody has pointed out the facts, no newspapes have reported on it, and he honestly means well.

That isn't just another driveby link with a line of text in support of a position which ignores facts and context? Right?

08-06-2006, 08:13 PM

Well, to be fair, it's not like anybody has pointed out that Hezbollah often makes their bases and places their weapons caches in civilian areas, uses civilian roads to transport weaponry, or wears civilian garb in order to blend in and make precise targeting almost impossible even when they're not firing rockets from on top of some guy's home. Nobody has pointed out that the fog of war gets very, very dicey when you can't even reliably confirm who's an enemy soldier and who's a civilian, so mistakes are much more likely to be made. Nobody has pointed out that Israel has been using precision strikes and the best intel it has to hit targets rather than simply carpet bombing Lebanon. Nobody has pointed out that as of Dresden, modern military powers have the ability to reduce cities to ash and rubble and that if Israel was truly targeting civilians, we'd see a body count in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands. Nobody has pointed out that Hezbollah's rockets are indiscriminate by design and they can't possibly believe that they're directing them at Israeli military forces, just "somewhere in that direction, roughly."

:smack: Damn. You know, I was going to mention all that stuff too....

:p

That isn't just another driveby link with a line of text in support of a position which ignores facts and context? Right?

Yeah, this seems to be the main line of defense. I think that the feeling is that if they just keep repeating the mantra, and providing the raw casualty statistics, that eventually they will just win the debate by having driven us all nuts with the sheer repetation. Sort of a brute force aproach to debating...

As I said in another thread, its sort of like attempting to kill flies with a hammer. I will make a modification to that analogy...they seem to be undead flies who appearently can't be killed (except maybe by putting tiny little stakes through their obfuscatory little hearts!). They just keep coming back to life to buzz around yet again...

-XT

-XT

Weirddave

08-06-2006, 08:27 PM

Well, I am just using their vocabulary. I , too, have been hearing that phrase used. Zionism is the movement to create a jewish state and since people already happened to live there, it would have to do it by force?
Yea, but the one fly in that particular ointment is that in 1948, Israel specifically asked the people living in the lands that became Israel to stay and enjoy full citizenship. Some stayed and that's what they have. Others left to get out of the way and facilitate the extermination of the Jewish state by the righteous armies of Allah. Heh. And now they blame the Israelis for not being pushovers.

Gozu

08-06-2006, 08:54 PM

Yea, but the one fly in that particular ointment is that in 1948, Israel specifically asked the people living in the lands that became Israel to stay and enjoy full citizenship. Some stayed and that's what they have. Others left to get out of the way and facilitate the extermination of the Jewish state by the righteous armies of Allah. Heh. And now they blame the Israelis for not being pushovers.

Are you kidding me? Do you honestly believe this is an accurate description of the truth? Or are you just repeating some piece of Israeli propaganda?

08-06-2006, 09:07 PM

Are you kidding me? Do you honestly believe this is an accurate description of the truth? Or are you just repeating some piece of Israeli propaganda?

Yea, but the one fly in that particular ointment is that in 1948, Israel specifically asked the people living in the lands that became Israel to stay and enjoy full citizenship. Some stayed and that's what they have. Others left to get out of the way and facilitate the extermination of the Jewish state by the righteous armies of Allah. Heh. And now they blame the Israelis for not being pushovers.

Granted, Weirddave's assessment is light on facts and glosses over quite a bit (and exaggerates a bit as well)...but the core seems reasonably accurate to me. After all, he wasn't really attempting to give a historical disertation on the '48 conflict and the various parts played on all sides...just a quick and dirty couple of lines.

Which part specifically are you having a problem with? (not that this specifically touches on the OP, but I'm curious on your own take on 'history'...if this glossy look at the high points is 'propaganda' to you). Is it the full citizenship thing? Thats definitely overstated. But Israel DID ask the proto-Palestinians (i.e. Arabs living in the region) to stay, and did claim they would make provision for them. In addition, some of those Arabs who stayed ARE citizens today (you did know, I'm sure, that there are Israeli citizens of Arab decent). The majority chose to flee towards the liberating Arab armies in the hopes that they would smash Israel and they would live happily ever after (yeah, I'm exaggerating too :)). It didn't quite work out well for them though....

(not that I'm of the opinion that even if the combine Arab armies HAD smashed Israel that those proto-Palestinians would have reaped vast rewards in any case)

-XT

Zoe

08-06-2006, 09:09 PM

There ought to be a Rule of War that the a country loses and must surrender when it first sheds the blood of one too young to know the meaning of the equivalent of picnic and kiss.

DMC

08-06-2006, 09:32 PM

Is Hezbollah primarily targeting civilians, or military targets?
Is Israel primarily targeting civilians, or military targets?Based on the ratio of soldiers to civilians killed, one could easily speculate that their targets are military, and the rest are "collateral damage" (hate that phrase).

08-06-2006, 10:08 PM

Based on the ratio of soldiers to civilians killed, one could easily speculate that their targets are military, and the rest are "collateral damage" (hate that phrase).

Certainly one could...if one chose to be willfully ignorant of the details behind those facts, such as the weapons systems and tactics used by Hezbollah...and Israel. The devil, however, is in those very details...

-XT

DMC

08-06-2006, 10:33 PM

Certainly one could...if one chose to be willfully ignorant of the details behind those facts, such as the weapons systems and tactics used by Hezbollah...and Israel. The devil, however, is in those very details...While I don't actually have any idea if Hezbollah is trying hard to aim at military targets, I haven't seen anything that would prove that that's not the case. If they are aiming at civilians, they sure do suck at it. If they are aiming at military targets, they are doing a better job of hitting the target than their counterparts on the other side.

Do you have any evidence, other than guesswork, that they are aiming for civilians specifically?

FinnAgain

08-07-2006, 12:00 AM

While I don't actually have any idea if Hezbollah is trying hard to aim at military targets, I haven't seen anything that would prove that that's not the case.

So the physical impossibility of aiming their rockets with any degree of precision, at all, doesn't fill the bill of 'anything' that would show you Hezbollah isn't trying hard to aim at military targets?

Physical impossiblity doesn't suggest the probability of a claim?

If they are aiming at civilians, they sure do suck at it.

Let me guess, you haven't been reading the news, have you? Is there any particular reason, without knowing thing one about the rockets Hezbollah uses, why you can hold forth on their aiming capabilities?

I'm serious, and you lack of knowledge is obvious to anybody reading along in this thread who isn't ignorant of what's going on.

Why play this game?

If they are aiming at military targets, they are doing a better job of hitting the target than their counterparts on the other side.

:rolleyes:
Cite?
And no, not simple statistics since there are multiple sources which confirm that Hezbollah blends into the general population making any precision targeting, or tally of the dead, virtually impossible.

Do you, for instance, know how many Hezbollah fighters have been killed? You don't, do you? Can you tell a dead civilian wearing civilian clothes from a dead Hezbollah member wearing civilian clothes? Then how can you possibly claim that Israel hasn't hit as many of them as Hezbollah has hit Israeli soldiers?

Do you have any evidence, other than guesswork, that they are aiming for civilians specifically?

Do you have any reason, other than being difficult, to enter a debate without having read a single news report on the subject you're trying to debate? You didn't even know that katushas are impossible to aim with any degree of precision, and yet, you think your appraisal of Hezbollah's targeting is valid... why?

08-07-2006, 12:16 AM

While I don't actually have any idea if Hezbollah is trying hard to aim at military targets, I haven't seen anything that would prove that that's not the case. If they are aiming at civilians, they sure do suck at it. If they are aiming at military targets, they are doing a better job of hitting the target than their counterparts on the other side.

Certainly I can produce this evidence...but you are already aware of it most likely. You simply haven't put the pieces together of what you already know. If, after my explaination here, you would like me to dig up the cites for what I'm saying, I'll be happy too do so (probably tomorrow). Fair?

First off, you know that Hezbollah has fired off literally hundreds of rockets toward Israel. Yet, these rockets have had little effect. Why? Well, thats easy...the rockets themselves are highly inaccurate and meant to be fired in volleys, en masse. Not from a single rocket launcher (even a single launcher firing multiple rockets, which is actually how many of them are fired) who fires and then moves to avoid counter fire. IOW, Hezbollah is using a highly inaccurate launcher system in a tactically incorrect way...which pretty much explains why, though they have launched hundreds of attacks at Israel, they have as yet failed to actually hit many Israeli civilians. To back this up would require two cites...one showing that Israel has fired hundreds of rockets, one showing the capabilities of the rockets in question. Do I need to back this up for you?

Secondly, one can look at exactly what Hezbollah HAS fired those rockets at. This is fairly easy, as the tracks of many of those rockets are dectectable by the Israeli's, and also you can look at where those rockets are impacting. By and large, the majority of those rockets have been fired at the towns and enclaves in Northern Israel. THese are not concentration points for the IDF...in fact, the majority of these towns don't have a military presence (well, wrt the invasion into Lebanon). They also don't act as major logistics centers for the most part. This would be a legitimate area for you to ask for a cite if you like.

Finally, we have to look at HOW the majority of the IDF casualties have occured. Now, Red cited a rocket attack that hit IDF personnel. This was a complete fluke though. The vast majority of IDF personnel killed or wounded thus far have been killed in direct fire ground fighting...not by rocket attack. This one is fairly easy to prove, but I'll do so if you need a cite.

Added all up, yes...they do a better job of aiming at military targets, simply because they are engaging the IDF (from fixed defenses btw...which is why the heavy IDF casualties thus far) in ground combat. Their rockets are pretty much worthless against mobile military targets, except for a fluke...like the one Red cited where a bunch of reservists being activated just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Their rocket attacks certainly 'suck' as you say...but that doesn't negate the fact that they are firing them at Israeli civilians. It just means that they are wasting most of their rockets. If they had better rockets and were firing hundreds of them at the northern enclaves, then Israel's civilian casualties would be very heavy indeed. That its light isn't from want of trying on Hezbollah's part however.

As for Israel and Lebanese casualties, this is due to a few factors. First off, Israeli weapons are much more powerful than Hezbollah is firing. This means, when they hit something they generally kill it...even if what they are hitting isn't what they WANTED to hit. In addition, Hezbollah is stashing weapons and more importantly munitions in civilian facilities. What this means is, when Israel hits such stashes they go off, well, like a bomb...with a MUCH more powerful explosion than the original one from the guided bomb or missile. This is called a secondary explosion...you'll hear the term quite a bit if you start digging into the events as they unfold.

Since Hezbollah has chosen (or has no choice but to adopt the tactic) to fight from within the screen of their own civilian population, that means when those more powerful Israeli weapons hit a target that has civilians in it, it tends to be hugely destructive. Especially if Hezbollah has stashed a few dozen rockets in said building.

Its really no big mystery why Lebanese civilian casualties are much much higher than Israeli...it has directly to do with Israel's military capabilities vs Hezbollah's, and with the different tactics both sides are employing to prosecute this war.

If you need cites for what I've said above, I'll be happy to see what I can dig up tomorrow, work permitting. Though pretty much everything I've said is easily available (except for the second point...that would probably take some digging).

-XT

DMC

08-07-2006, 12:59 AM

Certainly I can produce this evidence...but you are already aware of it most likely. You simply haven't put the pieces together of what you already know. If, after my explaination here, you would like me to dig up the cites for what I'm saying, I'll be happy too do so (probably tomorrow). Fair?Certainly.First off, you know that Hezbollah has fired off literally hundreds of rockets toward Israel. Yet, these rockets have had little effect. Why? Well, thats easy...the rockets themselves are highly inaccurate and meant to be fired in volleys, en masse. Not from a single rocket launcher (even a single launcher firing multiple rockets, which is actually how many of them are fired) who fires and then moves to avoid counter fire. IOW, Hezbollah is using a highly inaccurate launcher system in a tactically incorrect way...which pretty much explains why, though they have launched hundreds of attacks at Israel, they have as yet failed to actually hit many Israeli civilians. To back this up would require two cites...one showing that Israel has fired hundreds of rockets, one showing the capabilities of the rockets in question. Do I need to back this up for you?Nope, I was aware of this.Secondly, one can look at exactly what Hezbollah HAS fired those rockets at. This is fairly easy, as the tracks of many of those rockets are dectectable by the Israeli's, and also you can look at where those rockets are impacting. By and large, the majority of those rockets have been fired at the towns and enclaves in Northern Israel. THese are not concentration points for the IDF...in fact, the majority of these towns don't have a military presence (well, wrt the invasion into Lebanon). They also don't act as major logistics centers for the most part. This would be a legitimate area for you to ask for a cite if you like.I'm aware of most of this, but might or might not need a cite for the bolded portion depending on the answer to the next question.Finally, we have to look at HOW the majority of the IDF casualties have occured. Now, Red cited a rocket attack that hit IDF personnel. This was a complete fluke though. The vast majority of IDF personnel killed or wounded thus far have been killed in direct fire ground fighting...not by rocket attack. This one is fairly easy to prove, but I'll do so if you need a cite.If you have a cite for this, then you can forego the one above. The deaths have been peacemeal, so I wasn't aware that the vast majority were from ground fighting.[QUOTE]Added all up, yes...they do a better job of aiming at military targets, simply because they are engaging the IDF (from fixed defenses btw...which is why the heavy IDF casualties thus far) in ground combat. Their rockets are pretty much worthless against mobile military targets, except for a fluke...like the one Red cited where a bunch of reservists being activated just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I'll not quote the rest of your post as I'm on the same page with you there.

I still don't consider any of the above to be proof that Hezbollah is targetting civilians, but if you show that the vast majority of Israeli soldier deaths were indeed caused by ground fighting, then I'll definitely concede that they are not likely choosing only military targets. I personally guess that they are just shooting "in the general direction of Haifa", for instance, and not specifically at military or civilian targets, which is what my original point was anyway.

Either way, thanks for engaging in an actual debate, instead of foaming at the mouth as some other posters do on this topic. I find this topic saddening from when looked at from a "people are dying on both sides" perspective, but still worthy of debate from a "How should Israel deal with terrorism?" angle. Unfortunately, it brings out the same level of vitriol as many abortion debates, which stifles the actual debate itself.

DMC

08-07-2006, 01:24 AM

So the physical impossibility of aiming their rockets with any degree of precision, at all, doesn't fill the bill of 'anything' that would show you Hezbollah isn't trying hard to aim at military targets?Just because one has an inaccurate weapon doesn't mean that they aren't attempting to hit a specific target.Let me guess, you haven't been reading the news, have you? Is there any particular reason, without knowing thing one about the rockets Hezbollah uses, why you can hold forth on their aiming capabilities?Who held forth on their aiming capabilities? It certainly wasn't me.Cite?
And no, not simple statistics since there are multiple sources which confirm that Hezbollah blends into the general population making any precision targeting, or tally of the dead, virtually impossible. Are you reading the news? Hezbollah, for whatever reason, is certainly killing a higher ratio of military to civilians than the IDF.Do you, for instance, know how many Hezbollah fighters have been killed? You don't, do you? Can you tell a dead civilian wearing civilian clothes from a dead Hezbollah member wearing civilian clothes? Then how can you possibly claim that Israel hasn't hit as many of them as Hezbollah has hit Israeli soldiers?According to CNN, 95 Israelis have died so far, 38 of them civilians. 706 Lebanese have died so far. In order to match Hezbollah's ratio,
423 of those would have had to have been Hezbollah members. I know of no news source, even biased ones, who have made such a claim. If you don't have evidence that 423 of them were, then it's all just speculation, which was my point in the first place. You don't know. I don't know. I'm not willing to make any factual claims about something which neither of us know. You are.Do you have any reason, other than being difficult, to enter a debate without having read a single news report on the subject you're trying to debate? You didn't even know that katushas are impossible to aim with any degree of precision, and yet, you think your appraisal of Hezbollah's targeting is valid... why?Once again, I am not appraising their targetting, as I don't know exactly what they are shooting at, which puts me in the same boat as you.

Let me make it very clear for you.

I have no idea what Hezbollah is actually trying to hit. You have no idea what Hezbollah is actually trying to hit.

Hezbollah has currently killed more soldiers than civilians. Israel has currently killed more civilians than soldiers.

This doesn't make Hezbollah the good guys (they're not. In fact, I strongly condemn their actions that prompted this latest go-round).

This doesn't make Israel the bad guys (they're not, but that could change depending on how this plays out down the road). I think Israel is in a tough place, and fully support their right to react. I just think they overreacted, and are being less discriminate than I would like in their target selection.

I hate civilian deaths, no matter who is doing the killing, and no matter how much one tries to avoid them. There is a line between "not one civilian death, no matter the cost" and "kill them all and let God sort them out". I just prefer to lean towards the former as far as humanly possible.

FinnAgain

08-07-2006, 02:47 AM

Just because one has an inaccurate weapon doesn't mean that they aren't attempting to hit a specific target.

If a weapon cannot be aimed at a specific target than that kind of limits it from being aimed at a specific target.

Who held forth on their aiming capabilities? It certainly wasn't me

Your post used the words 'aim' or 'aiming' four times, and started by shifting the burden of proof by saying that although you didn't know if they were aiming at military targets, you hadn't seen anything saying that they weren't aiming at military targets. You then went on to say that if they were aiming at military targets they were doing a better job than the IDF. Ignoring, for instance, that Hezbollah hides among civilians and thus the death toll of civilian deaths will almost always rise whenever Israel hits a Hezbollah position.

.Are you reading the news?

Yes, that's how I know that virtually every report about the katushas mentions that they are unguided.

Hezbollah, for whatever reason, is certainly killing a higher ratio of military to civilians than the IDF.According to CNN, 95 Israelis have died so far, 38 of them civilians. 706 Lebanese have died so far. In order to match Hezbollah's ratio,
423 of those would have had to have been Hezbollah members.

Shifting the goalposts. You did not claim that the ratio of civilians to soldiers/gueriallas was different, but that if Hezbollah were aiming at military targets, they were more efficient at targeting military assets than the IDF.

The correct comparison would be what percentage of Hezbollah unguided rockets were targeted at military targets (0% as they cannot be targeted at anything other than a large geogrphic area), vs what percent of IDF guided missiles/bombs were targeted at military targets ( greater than 0% as we know for a fact via video confirmation of IDF strikes on rocket emplacements) A number greater than zero is larger than zero. This should tell us whose rocket/missile attacks are better at targeting military assets.

You can also not handwave away the factors and context that contribute to this situation as 'whatever reasons'. They're tremendously important, not irrelevant.

I know of no news source, even biased ones, who have made such a claim. If you don't have evidence that 423 of them were, then it's all just speculation, which was my point in the first place.

No, it's an irrelevancy and you're attempting to change the subject. You did not claim that Israel killed more civilians than Hezbollah, you claimed that Hezbollah, if they were targeting military targets, was better at it than Israel was. Israel can have a 99% success rate for hitting Hezbollah targets, but because they're hiding among civilians, virtually all of those strikes will end up killing civilians as well.

If they're hiding in densely populated areas the ratio will be even higher. The ratio itself tells us nothing about whether or not the strikes were directed at military targets.

Common sense, however, tells us that if the IDF was striking targets that they believed were not military, deliberately, in order to strike random targets or deliberately strike civilians, that there would be no two stones standing together in all of Lebanon. Indicriminate bombing with Israel's arsenal would be carpet bombing.

Unless the IDF is just horribly lazy, and they just fire off a missile every now and again at some random location instead of actually fighting a war.

You don't know. I don't know. I'm not willing to make any factual claims about something which neither of us know.

You were the one who claimed that if Hezbollah was targeting military targets, than they were better at it than the IDF. That's a factual claim, albeit predicated on an if-then statement. Do you retract it?

You don't know what percent of IDF strikes hit Hezbollah members, and yet you claim that if Hezbollah is targeting Israeli military assets, they're better at it. Even though you have no idea how many IDF strikes have hit Hezbollah members. That's a factual claim based on things that you do not know, even though you say you don't do that, and only I do.

However, as Israel has released video of several missile strikes targeting rocket launchers, thus providing proof... we know that they are infinitely better at targeting military targets with missile strikes than Hezbollah is at targeting military targets with rocket strikes. After all, any number is infinite when divided by zero.

Israel doesn't have to have killed a greater percent of Hezbollah than civilians, they only have to have a greater percent of their strikes targeting Hezbollah than the percent of Hezbollah's rocket strikes that target the IDF. As we've already established that 0% of katusha strikes are targeted at the IDF, obviously the IDF having one single guided missile strike on Hezbollah means that they're better at targeting military targets.

Once again, I am not appraising their targetting, as I don't know exactly what they are shooting at, which puts me in the same boat as you.

No, it doesn't. Virtually every report about katushas has mentioned that they are unguided. Something not guided cannot be said to be aimed at anything other than a rough direction and range. You can shoot at something in a very general area, but you can't be said to be shooting at anything other than that general area. That's why they are refered to, time and again, as weapons of terror. Precision targeting, or any meaningful targeting, is impossible.

If I fire a weapon that I know will land "somewhere in or around New York City", I can't be said to be targeting any street address in NYC.

I have no idea what Hezbollah is actually trying to hit. You have no idea what Hezbollah is actually trying to hit.

Wrong. You have no idea what Hezbollah is actually trying to hit. I know that the rockets do not have the ability to target anything specific, so they cannot be trying to hit anything specific. You can't be trying to hit something if it's impossible to hit any specific thing/place that you're trying to hit.

If I fire a rocket that I know will land "somewhere in or near New York City" I cannot then reasonably claim to be targeting the South Street Seaport. I cannot reasonably claim to be targeting any specific group of people. I cannot claim to be targeting anything except "the area in and around New York City".

Hezbollah has currently killed more soldiers than civilians. Israel has currently killed more civilians than soldiers.

Relying on the statistics alone without context serves no purpose.

I just think they overreacted, and are being less discriminate than I would like in their target selection.

Cite?
Something other than the simple statistics? What evidence do you have that the IDF is being indiscriminate with its fire? The statistics tell us nothing specific. All it takes is one rocket launcher on top of an apartment building, and a strike that was without a doubt targeted at a military target will also kill a number of civilians. But the fact that one guerilla may be killed along with twenty civilians in the building doesn't mean that the strike wasn't targeted at the rocket launcher.

FinnAgain

08-07-2006, 02:53 AM

Fuck, posting when I'm this tired...

"If a weapon cannot be aimed at a specific target rather than a general area, that kind of limits it from being aimed at a specific target. "

Or

"If a weapon cannot be aimed at a specific target then that kind of limits it from being aimed at a specific target."

Take your pick.

Now I need some sleep. I doubt there will be any real refutation unless it can be explained how a rocket that will hit "in or near New York City" could be said to be targeted at anything other than that entire area.

I trust that's impossible enough that I can go to sleep now secure in the knowledge that my point has been made.

FRDE

08-07-2006, 06:58 AM

Well Gozu, the reason why you don't know any rabid Moslem fanatics is because you choose not to associate with them.

I am quite prepared to accept that a heck of a lot of Moslems think Hezbollah and Hamas are a bunch of turds, and that they would rather like to see them exterminated.

I know a fair bit about Israel, as a non Jewish individual who has been going there on business since 1991.

There are several things you should know, about 20% of Israelis are not Jewish, they are all sorts of other things, some Moslem, some Christian, there are Druze and Samaritans.
Bedouins serve in the IDF.

Also Israel is /not/ a religious state, there are some religious political parties, but they are a minority.

Like you, I am choosy about my friends, most of the Israelis I know are pretty liberal, don't think much of fanatics, regard orthodox Jews as freaks, and like nothing better than tucking into pork spare ribs in the suburbs of Tel Aviv.

I only know just one ardent Likud supporter, and she is a stupid cow, universally disliked in the large company that I deal with. My friends told me about her politics as a way of illustrating how thick she is.

As others said, in 1948, the Moslem Arabs were told to evacuate the place, by their leaders, which they did.

In 1967 the Israelis were pushed into war, and on paper they were very much the underdog. To their surprize they landed up conquering a lot more territory than they expected - next time I see my pals, who were in that shenanigins, I'll ask them what the general idea actually was.

The Israelis are very tolerant of other religions, anyone who has seen the hordes streaming out of the Domes on the Rock on Friday afternoon would be quite surprized, even more so because they are mainly 5' tall old men and the odour of hashish is overpowering ( last time no b*gger offered me a drag ).

Also, I was told that Israel /armed/ the PLO under Arrafat, and were disgusted to see those arms used against them.

Lebanon is interesting, about 25% of the population are Shi'ite, how many of those are Hezbollah is dificult to estimate, but because Hezbollah are well armed, well financed and impressively organized, they have a disproportionate influence on the country.

Israel is well aware that at least 75% of the Lebanese population want to have nothing to do with Hezbollah, and they have made a point of causing them minimum disruption.

According to everything I have heard on the BBC World Service, it is business as usual in Central Beirut.

The 'infrastructure' stuff has been aimed at making it difficult for Hezbollah to get supplies, by air, sea and by land from surrounding Syria. It is not aimed at 75% of the population, if anything it protects them.

To be honest, it is likely that very few Israelis particularly care whether the wives, children or mothers of Hezbollah 'freedom fighters' get killed, but they are acutely aware of World opinion, so they don't want unpleasant pictures of corpses turning up.

It is very possible that 75% of Lebanese are not that keen on the refugees.

Another thing that is generally not understood it that the 1967 border stuff is totally unacceptable - there is no way Israel is going to give up East Jerusalem or the new suburbs that they built around it. They are too proud of it, you see in 1948 they got the new city which is rubbish, in 1967 they got the old city and they have spent a fortune restoring it. It is a remarkable place.

All the Israelis want is to be left in peace, they have no territorial ambitions and accept that Ghaza and the West Bank cannot be 'occupied', and that it is very difficult to prevent a minority of militants terrorizing the population.

Ideally they would like to revert to pre-Intifada days.

Personally I think the 'Palestinians' are nuts, if they had any sense they would simply demand Israeli citizenship - politely, but firmly.

If you can, and my guess is you have a US passport, go and look at the place, I would not recommend it as a holiday excursion for someone elderly, but for someone moderately canny who is interested in getting a feel for a rather unusual place that reeks of ancient history - then it is one of the most interesting places I've ever been.

Personally I would abolish religion, but this Israel stuff is not really about religion or race, it is really that Israel is an outpost of the West in the Middle East.

monavis

08-07-2006, 07:02 AM

Any war is a terrible thing,name one war where innocent children and other innocent civilians were not killed. That is the price of war.

The mind set of the terrorists is; they hate the Jewish people more than they love their own families.This hatred is inbred in a lot of young children and keeps the hate and suspicion going from generation to generation.

The leaders of the terrorist movement get some ignorant person (usually a young uneducated person) to act as a suicide bomber the leaders such as Osama never go themselves because they are cowards and hide.

Why the Lebonese army didn't stop Hezbollah is something I do not understand. They seem to back Hezbollah. just as the Taliban allowed Osama Bin Laden to operate in Aphganistan.

FRDE

08-07-2006, 07:35 AM

Least Original User Name Ever

08-07-2006, 09:33 AM

Wow. My dictionary just began weeping.

Engaging in a delberate and systematic campaign to murder all the geography.
Good thing we're not mincing words.

I know that context and facts are anathama to your position about how Israel is deliberately trying to murder geography, but have you considered that those roads don't get bombed becasue Syria isn't using them to supply Hezbollah with weapons? Or because if there are violations on them, Israel can exercise police powers?

Don't let reality get in the way of a good rant though.

I know you're fighting for inclusion in the League of Bombastic Gentlemen, and that history isn't your strongsuit, but the 'revolutionaries' were the ones who commited to an unprovoked war against Israel in '48 with the stated goal of actual, rather than 'geogrpahic' genocide. Studying a bit of history, you'd notice that attacking civilians isn't 'effective' at accomplishing any military goals. You'd also notice Israel has tried time and time and time again to negotiate for peace with the Arabs and the Palstinians, and has consistently had groups like Hamas launch suicide attacks during negotiations.

And if you cared more about truth than ranting, you'd admit that Israel has not been targeting Palestinian civilians. But I guess recognizing that there's a country named Israel and it's done some stuff is probably the limit of your horde of facts here.

When Israel's enemies accept that it's not going away, and agree to negotiate as Israel has been asking for decades now? But don't let facts get in the way of truthiness. Trust your gut.

Where does your ignorance stop? It has to stop with reading history instead of making it up.

There is a long list of Israeli concessions, including but not limited to reversing the gains they made in '67 in exchange for other nations negotiating and giving up their stated goal of genocide. But again, if the facts don't fit your screed, ignore them.

Israel has already offered to do so, and I'm not quite sure how someone who knows nothing about the history of the region can determine who's 'in the wrong'. Why, exactly, is the nation that continually tries to make peace 'in the wrong'? Why is the nation that's been fighting defensive wars against genocidal enemies since its very birth 'in the wrong'? Feel free to respond with actual facts, or just make more stuff up.

If you don't know about history, it's perfectly valid to invent it.

So, to sum up: a moderate Arab would blame Israel for about 50% of events, but you say that Israel is entirely to blame. What, exactly, does that make you?

How nice of you to come in here to educate me.

I'm sorry, but Israel is not acting like a state that's trying to win over hearts and minds. The things they're doing are bad. Doing more bad things or escalating the conflict helps nothing out.

Instead of being childish and getting heated over this, let me ask you a question. If there were a peace negotiation, and concessions had to be made, which side do you think would have to give more up and why?

Personally, I can't see how ANY peace can be achieved if Israel doesn't give up either all or a very large chunk of the land they've occupied over the years.

Yes, the definition of "moderate" would probably see some equal culpability.
I don't say that Israel is completely to blame. Other factors make this wonderful shit soup.
I'm not Arab. I'm not a moderate Arab, either. Thanks for pushing your assumptions onto me as well.

Least Original User Name Ever

08-07-2006, 09:39 AM

I don't believe that was Bumps point.

History give context to whats going on and why. So, to answer your question...Who needs history? Well, you do appearently. :p

I was wondering when this one would get trotted out. It was definitely defense in depth, but it seems that the final redout is encircled, ehe? :p

Lets take a quick look at these crimes again, ehe? Not because its going to get through to you this time, but just for drill.

Hezbollah fires rockets deliberately at civilians with the intent to kill them. Check. Hezbollah fires said rockets in the proximity of their own civilian population in the hopes of using them as a screen, or for propaganda purposes when they are hurt or killed...again, deliberately. Check. Hezbollah stores their weapons and munitions in civilian buildings (houses, schools, hospitals, appartment buildings, etc)....again deliberately, and again with the intent to use those civilians and those facilities as both shield and propaganda tool. Check. Finally, Hezbollah uses civilian logistics networks (roads, bridges, etc) to transport military supplies to resupply their forces in the field, to resupply their expended rockets (see point one above), etc...again, deliberately, again to to be provided with both shield and propaganda tool. And also because, frankly, its easier to use the roads than to hump the stuff across country at night when they may be able to do so without attack. Check. Oh yeah...and Hezbollah STARTED this conflict deliberately. Check.

Israel on the other hand, was dragged into this conflict by Hezbollah (this is where that nasty 'history' stuff may give that worthless 'context' bit, ehe phantom? :p ). The IDF is deliberately targetting...Hezbollah, their paramilitary forces in the field, their logistics and their rocket vehicles. They are doing this because basically they are under attack and have been so, periodically, for quite some time...and they are at the point where enough is enough. In order to target Hezbollah, both their forces in the field, their logistics and their stores however, this means that unfortunately civilians will be exposed to fire. This is due to the nature of Hezbollah's tactics described above...simply put it would be impossible to engage Hezbollah on any level without some risk to civilians being hurt or killed. And to not engage is unacceptable to Israel.

Yeah, I can certainly see how "both sides are committing some crimes and doing some Very Nasty Things" is logically obvious to the non-partisan here. :dubious: After all, Hezbollah is deliberately firing on civilians with the intent to kill them, is fighting from within the shield of their own civilians and is deliberately putting them at risk...hell, is INVITING the Israeli's to come and kill them. While Israel is merely trying to get rid of a paramilitary force that has been periodically engaging them for some time (post occupation) and who started hostilities (again) THIS time.

Yeah...looks pretty even to me on the war crimes front...

-XT

So, Hizbollah, one day decided that it'd be a good reason to jump up and start kidnapping Jews and start killing civilians? You mean to tell me that they had nothing else BETTER to do? NOTHING happened that provoked a reaction (a horrible reaction, but a reaction nonetheless).

This is slowly turning into everyone beating their heads into walls, with nothing being gained on either side. Let's face it, there's really no cominbation of words that I can possibly say that can make you see my way. So far, I'm not convinced or swayed by any of your arguments either. Calling this a debate is mislabelling it at this point, no?

Quite a nasty "chicken or egg?" argument going on here.

Least Original User Name Ever

08-07-2006, 09:40 AM

Moderator's Note: If your dad wants to post on the board, he needs to register a screenname here. If nothing else, I don't want to have debates where a screenname has multiple personalities who start arguing with themselves.

Heh. He's got a screenname but he's too cheap to pay. I'll pony up the 15 bucks for him to shut him up.

When gonzomax comes back in here, that's good ol' dad.

My apologies.

Least Original User Name Ever

08-07-2006, 09:42 AM

I don't think that comparing the Taliban with the Lebanese army is that reasonable.

The Taliban liked Osama, he brought in money and appeared to share their rather peculiar views ( according to John Simpson the BBC world reporter the Taliban wear eye makeup, polished fingernails and gold high heeled sandals )

The Lebanese 'army' is sh*t scared of Hezbollah, but I would lay 10:1 that given a chance they will conduct a minor massacre.

In some ways the situation is similar to Eire and the IRA

I'm glad you brought up the IRA, because it seems that the struggle in Ireland is analagous to the situation in Israel. Because Ireland is stable (as far as I've heard and know) that gives me optimism in this Palesraeli (my word, yes, you may borrow it) situation.

Rune

08-07-2006, 10:48 AM

Instead of being childish and getting heated over this, let me ask you a question. If there were a peace negotiation, and concessions had to be made, which side do you think would have to give more up and why?Which concessions do you feel Israel would have to make to Hezbollah, considering they already withdrew from south Lebanon and this did not stop Hezbollah from attacking into Israel.

Personally, I can't see how ANY peace can be achieved if Israel doesn't give up either all or a very large chunk of the land they've occupied over the years.Of course “large chunk” is somewhat relative when we're talking about a nation (Israel) that's about the size of postage stamp, but you will remember that Israel already withdrew from Lebanon. Which large chunks of Lebanese land occupied by Israel should they withdraw from?

So, Hizbollah, one day decided that it'd be a good reason to jump up and start kidnapping Jews and start killing civilians?No they've alway though it is a really smashing idea to kill Jews. Take if from the horse's mouth. A quick Wiki look will give you half a dozen quotes on the genocidal nature of Hezbollah.

"if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."

“It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth”

"they [Jews]are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment.”

"There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."

“Peace settlements will not change reality, which is that Israel is the enemy and that it will never be a neighbor or a nation.”

“I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called "Israel." I consider its presence both unjust and unlawful.”

“The Jews invented the legend of the Nazi atrocities...Anyone who reads the Koran and the holy writings of the monotheistic religions sees what they did to the prophets, and what acts of madness and slaughter the Jews carried out throughout history... Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment.”

“If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli.- You'll notice Hezbollah is really trying to win over the hearts and minds here. Racism and genocide. It is dreams like this which people in the thousands march in western cities in support of, so I guess he has been able to touch some hearts and minds.

Sailboat

08-07-2006, 12:02 PM

"the victims of the US-sponsored Israeli genocide of innocent Lebanese civilians"

If it's a genocide, it's a pretty poor one. Isn't the term "genocide" reserved for attempts to wipe out an entire genetic line (usually a "racial" or ethnic group), and NOT for just plain old killing?

The Israelis aren't making much attempt to round up and "get" all the Lebanese. As genocide goes, it's lame.

If you truly meant to use it refer to killings with any intent other than to exterminate a specific genetic group, you've misused it, IMHO. Isn't that the "spin" decried by the OP?

Sailboat

gonzomax

08-07-2006, 12:33 PM

If you believe the war started 23 days ago over a raid in Israeki occupied land ,you are simply writing off years of conflict as irrelevant. Could be Israel is trying to pigeon hole the Arabs into non voting areas.Demographic trends a few years ago indicated as things were going along ,Palestinians and Arabs would soon have a voting majority in Israel. This is a oermanent solution..

Gozu

08-07-2006, 12:49 PM

Granted, Weirddave's assessment is light on facts and glosses over quite a bit (and exaggerates a bit as well)...but the core seems reasonably accurate to me. After all, he wasn't really attempting to give a historical disertation on the '48 conflict and the various parts played on all sides...just a quick and dirty couple of lines.

Which part specifically are you having a problem with? (not that this specifically touches on the OP, but I'm curious on your own take on 'history'...if this glossy look at the high points is 'propaganda' to you). Is it the full citizenship thing? Thats definitely overstated. But Israel DID ask the proto-Palestinians (i.e. Arabs living in the region) to stay, and did claim they would make provision for them. In addition, some of those Arabs who stayed ARE citizens today (you did know, I'm sure, that there are Israeli citizens of Arab decent). The majority chose to flee towards the liberating Arab armies in the hopes that they would smash Israel and they would live happily ever after (yeah, I'm exaggerating too :)). It didn't quite work out well for them though....

(not that I'm of the opinion that even if the combine Arab armies HAD smashed Israel that those proto-Palestinians would have reaped vast rewards in any case)

-XT

If Weirddave supported the palestinians, he would say something like:

The palestinians were living in peace, not bothering anybody. The U.K forcibly colonized them and imposed their rule in 1917. Before leaving in 1947,They gave the authorization to a bunch of jews after WW2 to create a state there on palestinian land. The arabs tried to reclaim their land, failed miserably against much better organized, equipped and U.S backed Israeli army. Israel claimed a bunch of land after those victories.Ever since, sporadic conflict has reigned. Israel thrives and kills 3.3 palestinians for each of their dead. The end.

Oh, and did I mention that the arabs were URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi]much nicer[/URL] to said jews than europeans. No pogroms, no Inquisition, no Hitler.

See, my description is also factually correct. And it's just as useless as Weirddave's. I just wish we could stop with all the f***ing spin. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys". All adults should realize that at one point or another if they're not complete idiots.

Gozu

08-07-2006, 12:50 PM

Fixed link from last post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi)

Gozu

08-07-2006, 12:57 PM

That said, it irks me when news sources present this conflict as a somewhat even-sided conflict.

I've been watching/reading (too damn much) news. I haven't noticed that happening. Can you elaborate on that?

Better late than never. H]here ([Quote:Originally Posted by Gozu) here is a pretty compelling proof of the Rampant Pro-Israeli bias in the U.S press.

Gozu

08-07-2006, 01:00 PM

Ack! I don't know what's wrong with me today! (Well, I know what it is...I didn't preview). Here is a fixed version of my last post. My apologies.

That said, it irks me when news sources present this conflict as a somewhat even-sided conflict.

I've been watching/reading (too damn much) news. I haven't noticed that happening. Can you elaborate on that?

Better late than never. Hhere (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/about_us/whoweare.html) is a pretty compelling proof of the Pro-Israeli bias in the U.S press.

08-07-2006, 01:09 PM

So, Hizbollah, one day decided that it'd be a good reason to jump up and start kidnapping Jews and start killing civilians? You mean to tell me that they had nothing else BETTER to do? NOTHING happened that provoked a reaction (a horrible reaction, but a reaction nonetheless).

You tell me. Why do YOU think Hezbollah started things then? Do you consider it justification?

This is slowly turning into everyone beating their heads into walls, with nothing being gained on either side. Let's face it, there's really no cominbation of words that I can possibly say that can make you see my way. So far, I'm not convinced or swayed by any of your arguments either. Calling this a debate is mislabelling it at this point, no?

The debate? Certainly its turning into such (been there for a while from my perspective)...simply because you STILL refuse to actually engage in the debate. And most of the folks on your side are exactly the same. You toss out raw statistics without context as if that proves something (but...but...BUT...Israel has killed more civilians than Hezbollah has! :eek: ). You make statements without backing any of it up...even with logic. You refuse to engage the points brought up by Finn or myself or any of the other people in the various threads...you just keep recycling the same bullshit over and over again. When your bullshit IS engaged, you move on to the next point and don't engage on the points covered...until you figure enough time has gone by, or you are in a different thread. In which case, you bring the point up again, as if its fresh and new.

So yes...calling this thing a 'debate' is mislabelling it. Only one side seems to be even attempting to engage IN the debate thus far. And I'll give you a clue here...it isn't your's (or you).

If you believe the war started 23 days ago over a raid in Israeki occupied land ,you are simply writing off years of conflict as irrelevant. Could be Israel is trying to pigeon hole the Arabs into non voting areas.Demographic trends a few years ago indicated as things were going along ,Palestinians and Arabs would soon have a voting majority in Israel. This is a oermanent solution..

Can you say 'strawman'? IOW, who exactly do you think is saying that this thing started 23 days ago, blah blah blah? Who was this meant to reply too...because I don't see anyone saying this.

And what, by gods hairy balls, does Palestinian voting have to do with the situation in Lebanon? Are you seriously contending that if Israel gave Palestinian's the vote (after anexing all of Palestine I suppose...why else would they let them vote?), this would some how magically fix things between Israel and Hezbollah? If so...well, why?

The palestinians were living in peace, not bothering anybody. The U.K forcibly colonized them and imposed their rule in 1917. Before leaving in 1947,They gave the authorization to a bunch of jews after WW2 to create a state there on palestinian land. The arabs tried to reclaim their land, failed miserably against much better organized, equipped and U.S backed Israeli army. Israel claimed a bunch of land after those victories.Ever since, sporadic conflict has reigned. Israel thrives and kills 3.3 palestinians for each of their dead. The end.

Can you say 'strawman' too? YOu are putting words into Weirddave's mouth, assuming you know what his position is...based on one rough summary post of the history of the '48 conflict. I note also that you didn't answer my own questions by engaging them, but instead answered with this strawman post of what you THINK is Wierdave's position. Your strawman being more factually incorrect than Dave's btw.

I think I'm winding down at this point folks. (listens for the cheers of joy that XT is finally going to shutup :p ). I know I promised some cites to DMC (one of the few on the other side to even attempt to engage the debate), but I'm not sure I'm up for continually beating my head against the wall here. We'll see...

-XT

Gozu

08-07-2006, 01:20 PM

If a weapon cannot be aimed at a specific target than that kind of limits it from being aimed at a specific target.

Your post used the words 'aim' or 'aiming' four times, and started by shifting the burden of proof by saying that although you didn't know if they were aiming at military targets, you hadn't seen anything saying that they weren't aiming at military targets. You then went on to say that if they were aiming at military targets they were doing a better job than the IDF. Ignoring, for instance, that Hezbollah hides among civilians and thus the death toll of civilian deaths will almost always rise whenever Israel hits a Hezbollah position.

Yes, that's how I know that virtually every report about the katushas mentions that they are unguided.

Shifting the goalposts. You did not claim that the ratio of civilians to soldiers/gueriallas was different, but that if Hezbollah were aiming at military targets, they were more efficient at targeting military assets than the IDF.

The correct comparison would be what percentage of Hezbollah unguided rockets were targeted at military targets (0% as they cannot be targeted at anything other than a large geogrphic area), vs what percent of IDF guided missiles/bombs were targeted at military targets ( greater than 0% as we know for a fact via video confirmation of IDF strikes on rocket emplacements) A number greater than zero is larger than zero. This should tell us whose rocket/missile attacks are better at targeting military assets.

You can also not handwave away the factors and context that contribute to this situation as 'whatever reasons'. They're tremendously important, not irrelevant.

No, it's an irrelevancy and you're attempting to change the subject. You did not claim that Israel killed more civilians than Hezbollah, you claimed that Hezbollah, if they were targeting military targets, was better at it than Israel was. Israel can have a 99% success rate for hitting Hezbollah targets, but because they're hiding among civilians, virtually all of those strikes will end up killing civilians as well.

If they're hiding in densely populated areas the ratio will be even higher. The ratio itself tells us nothing about whether or not the strikes were directed at military targets.

Common sense, however, tells us that if the IDF was striking targets that they believed were not military, deliberately, in order to strike random targets or deliberately strike civilians, that there would be no two stones standing together in all of Lebanon. Indicriminate bombing with Israel's arsenal would be carpet bombing.

Unless the IDF is just horribly lazy, and they just fire off a missile every now and again at some random location instead of actually fighting a war.

You were the one who claimed that if Hezbollah was targeting military targets, than they were better at it than the IDF. That's a factual claim, albeit predicated on an if-then statement. Do you retract it?

You don't know what percent of IDF strikes hit Hezbollah members, and yet you claim that if Hezbollah is targeting Israeli military assets, they're better at it. Even though you have no idea how many IDF strikes have hit Hezbollah members. That's a factual claim based on things that you do not know, even though you say you don't do that, and only I do.

However, as Israel has released video of several missile strikes targeting rocket launchers, thus providing proof... we know that they are infinitely better at targeting military targets with missile strikes than Hezbollah is at targeting military targets with rocket strikes. After all, any number is infinite when divided by zero.

Israel doesn't have to have killed a greater percent of Hezbollah than civilians, they only have to have a greater percent of their strikes targeting Hezbollah than the percent of Hezbollah's rocket strikes that target the IDF. As we've already established that 0% of katusha strikes are targeted at the IDF, obviously the IDF having one single guided missile strike on Hezbollah means that they're better at targeting military targets.

No, it doesn't. Virtually every report about katushas has mentioned that they are unguided. Something not guided cannot be said to be aimed at anything other than a rough direction and range. You can shoot at something in a very general area, but you can't be said to be shooting at anything other than that general area. That's why they are refered to, time and again, as weapons of terror. Precision targeting, or any meaningful targeting, is impossible.

If I fire a weapon that I know will land "somewhere in or around New York City", I can't be said to be targeting any street address in NYC.

Wrong. You have no idea what Hezbollah is actually trying to hit. I know that the rockets do not have the ability to target anything specific, so they cannot be trying to hit anything specific. You can't be trying to hit something if it's impossible to hit any specific thing/place that you're trying to hit.

If I fire a rocket that I know will land "somewhere in or near New York City" I cannot then reasonably claim to be targeting the South Street Seaport. I cannot reasonably claim to be targeting any specific group of people. I cannot claim to be targeting anything except "the area in and around New York City".

Relying on the statistics alone without context serves no purpose.

Cite?
Something other than the simple statistics? What evidence do you have that the IDF is being indiscriminate with its fire? The statistics tell us nothing specific. All it takes is one rocket launcher on top of an apartment building, and a strike that was without a doubt targeted at a military target will also kill a number of civilians. But the fact that one guerilla may be killed along with twenty civilians in the building doesn't mean that the strike wasn't targeted at the rocket launcher.

I don't understand why you two are arguing about this. Both sides think it's acceptable to kill civilians. Each side hates the other because of it. Simple.

If India decided that they had enough of all the cow-killings going on in the U.S and attacked, would they be wrong? What if the americans were eating kittens? What if they were eating the children of the homeless? What if they ate the americans of indian descent? (the OTHER indians this time). Who decides at what point one side is wrong and the other isn't? Does that person have to be a cow-eating one or not? You just have to accept that for it to be an absolute answer, there must be an absolute viewpoint. But there isn't one! There never will be. We humans like to disagree on things. So the only possible solution would be an ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny (http://media.putfile.com/ultimateshowdown) and reduce the human population to 1. Or maybe 2 if they're both mormons. The mormons never disagree.

esquimalt

08-07-2006, 01:22 PM

If Weirddave supported the palestinians, he would say something like:

The palestinians were living in peace, not bothering anybody. The U.K forcibly colonized them and imposed their rule in 1917. Before leaving in 1947,They gave the authorization to a bunch of jews after WW2 to create a state there on palestinian land. The arabs tried to reclaim their land, failed miserably against much better organized, equipped and U.S backed Israeli army. Israel claimed a bunch of land after those victories.Ever since, sporadic conflict has reigned. Israel thrives and kills 3.3 palestinians for each of their dead. The end.

Oh, and did I mention that the arabs were URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi]much nicer[/URL] to said jews than europeans. No pogroms, no Inquisition, no Hitler.

See, my description is also factually correct. And it's just as useless as Weirddave's. I just wish we could stop with all the f***ing spin. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys". All adults should realize that at one point or another if they're not complete idiots.

US gave no miltary support until 1962 to Israel & really did not provide anything close current levels until after the 1973 Yom Kippur Wars

Alessan

08-07-2006, 01:51 PM

If Weirddave supported the palestinians, he would say something like:

The palestinians were living in peace, not bothering anybody. The U.K forcibly colonized them and imposed their rule in 1917. Before leaving in 1947,They gave the authorization to a bunch of jews after WW2 to create a state there on palestinian land. The arabs tried to reclaim their land, failed miserably against much better organized, equipped and U.S backed Israeli army. Israel claimed a bunch of land after those victories.Ever since, sporadic conflict has reigned. Israel thrives and kills 3.3 palestinians for each of their dead. The end.

Oh, and did I mention that the arabs were URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi]much nicer[/URL] to said jews than europeans. No pogroms, no Inquisition, no Hitler.

See, my description is also factually correct.

No, it isn't . Most of what you wrote is factually incorrect. There's a difference, you know.

Captain Amazing

08-07-2006, 01:53 PM

No, it isn't . Most of what you wrote is factually incorrect. There's a difference, you know.

Correct, incorrect, it's two little letters!

Gozu

08-07-2006, 02:52 PM

Well Gozu, the reason why you don't know any rabid Moslem fanatics is because you choose not to associate with them.

And there are few of them, thankfully. Plenty of conservatives though.

I am quite prepared to accept that a heck of a lot of Moslems think Hezbollah and Hamas are a bunch of turds, and that they would rather like to see them exterminated.

I think of them the same way I think about those german soldiers in WW2 who were not nazis and who believed they were just fighting for their country.Many of them believe in what they're doing and sacrifice everything for their righteous cause. I'd disband them but not exterminate them. Never demonize people. Good and bad people everywhere. Hizbollah and Hamas are no exception.

I know a fair bit about Israel, as a non Jewish individual who has been going there on business since 1991.

There are several things you should know, about 20% of Israelis are not Jewish, they are all sorts of other things, some Moslem, some Christian, there are Druze and Samaritans.
Bedouins serve in the IDF.

True.

Also Israel is /not/ a religious state, there are some religious political parties, but they are a minority.

True.

Like you, I am choosy about my friends, most of the Israelis I know are pretty liberal, don't think much of fanatics, regard orthodox Jews as freaks, and like nothing better than tucking into pork spare ribs in the suburbs of Tel Aviv.

I only know just one ardent Likud supporter, and she is a stupid cow, universally disliked in the large company that I deal with. My friends told me about her politics as a way of illustrating how thick she is.

Unfortunately, there are many Likud supporters. As many as Bush supporters over here, proportionally speaking.

Also, I was told that Israel /armed/ the PLO under Arrafat, and were disgusted to see those arms used against them.

And I assume some early americans were disgusted to fight Indians to whom they had given rifles. These things happen often.

Israel is well aware that at least 75% of the Lebanese population want to have nothing to do with Hezbollah, and they have made a point of causing them minimum disruption.

Minimum disruption = not invading and not killing hundreds of civilians and causing billions worth of damage to a relatively poor country (compared to the U.S and Israel). Nobody forced them to do all this, no matter what anyone says. And they sure as heck didn't do it for a handful of kidnapped or killed soldiers.

The 'infrastructure' stuff has been aimed at making it difficult for Hezbollah to get supplies, by air, sea and by land from surrounding Syria. It is not aimed at 75% of the population, if anything it protects them.

I have seen lebanese people being interviewed and they seem to overwhelmingly disagree with you. Even the 75% who aren't hisbollah sympathizers.

To be honest, it is likely that very few Israelis particularly care whether the wives, children or mothers of Hezbollah 'freedom fighters' get killed, but they are acutely aware of World opinion, so they don't want unpleasant pictures of corpses turning up.

I agree with you 100%.

Another thing that is generally not understood it that the 1967 border stuff is totally unacceptable - there is no way Israel is going to give up East Jerusalem or the new suburbs that they built around it. They are too proud of it, you see in 1948 they got the new city which is rubbish, in 1967 they got the old city and they have spent a fortune restoring it. It is a remarkable place.

Jerusalem does not belong to them alone. It belongs to all 3 major religions and they should all have equal say in it. Since there are 2 bn christans, 1.2 bn muslims and only a few dozen millions jews in existence, I'd say this is a fair deal to them. How much have they spent restoring it? i'm sure they can deduct that amount from all the indemnizations they owe the palestinians who lost their houses, lands and other properties when they went into exile or flew to protect their spouses and children from all the violence. Assuming those lands, houses and properties were taken by the jews. Fair is fair.

All the Israelis want is to be left in peace, they have no territorial ambitions and accept that Ghaza and the West Bank cannot be 'occupied', and that it is very difficult to prevent a minority of militants terrorizing the population.

I believe they still have a number of settlements in those territories you speak of. Are you sure they have no territorial ambitions?

Personally I think the 'Palestinians' are nuts, if they had any sense they would simply demand Israeli citizenship - politely, but firmly.

Would that be extremely humiliating to them? Anyways, the two palestinians I met seemed fairly sane to me. One of them was some cab driver who clearly hated Israel but I didn't hold it against him, assuming he probably had valid reasons. I paid the bastard 45 bucks. So much for solidarity amongst muslims ;P

If you can, and my guess is you have a US passport, go and look at the place, I would not recommend it as a holiday excursion for someone elderly, but for someone moderately canny who is interested in getting a feel for a rather unusual place that reeks of ancient history - then it is one of the most interesting places I've ever been.

Good advice.

Personally I would abolish religion, but this Israel stuff is not really about religion or race, it is really that Israel is an outpost of the West in the Middle East.

Indeed.

pantom

08-07-2006, 03:04 PM

xtisme, FinnAgain: ignoring the Human Rights Watch report cited above isn't going to make it go away.
They're impartial observers, as their merciless dissection of Hizbullah shows (and they're correct; every katyusha fired is in effect a new war crime) and they conclude that Israel has indeed deliberately targetted civilians.
My objection to what Israel is now doing is the same reason I wrote off the Palestinians long ago: if you target civilians, you gain nothing but hate from the victims. It doesn't win you anything. And militarily it's worthless. Not to mention, as I have before, that the precipitate way in which they made all of Lebanon pay for what happened at the border killed any chance of cooperation from the rest of Lebanon in the enterprise of neutering Hizbullah, and undermined potential allies who now can't be seen to cooperate with Israel without being labelled traitors.
All of which does wonders for the receiving end's will to resist, though, a lesson Israel should have known from its own history. All in all, remarkably crude, cruel, and stupid. That our dolt of a Prez supports them wholeheartedly in this enterprise is a measure of its stupidity and short-term orientation at the expense of long-term security.
Meantime, Iran gets closer and closer to nuclear nirvana.

Gozu

08-07-2006, 03:06 PM

No, it isn't . Most of what you wrote is factually incorrect. There's a difference, you know.

Why didn't you point the flaws in it? That way, I can write another statement which is JUST as anti-Israel and which also happens to be factually correct. Even by your standards. Do you doubt it can be done?

Here is a factual description of the united states:

Bunch of europeans came, massacred the natives, put the few remaining in tiny reservations, enslaved black people and thrived.

The end.

I was trying to make a point, Alessan. That point was that these short, simplistic statements who clearly favor one side over the other are actually quite worthless and certainly out of place here in great debates. Once again, there are no good guys, there are no bad guys. Not when you're talking about whole populations and countries.

I thought it would please you that I do not think of Israelis as bad guys. Heck, I'm pro-Israel in principle. I just wish things had worked out better. For both sides.

Gozu

08-07-2006, 03:09 PM

istara

08-07-2006, 05:29 PM

My understanding is that the Israelis (and the US) misread the situation on two significant points.

Firstly that Hezbollah was the disorganised, rabble-like force it may have been in the early days. It is not. Given its resources, it is an extremely well-organised, proficient military organisation.

Secondly that demonising Hezbollah would cause more Lebanese to ostracise them. In fact the opposite has happened: there is unprecedented support in Lebanon and throughout the wider Arab world, and it is growing. More worryingly, there is significant and growing Sunni support for Hezbollah (which is a Shiaa organisation). This war has become a huge awareness campaign and PR drive for Hezbollah.

08-07-2006, 06:08 PM

Hadn't intended to jump back into this, but since my name was mentioned...

xtisme, FinnAgain: ignoring the Human Rights Watch report cited above isn't going to make it go away.

Ignoring mine (and Finn's) responses to the HRW report doesn't make them go away...in fact, they are STILL right here in the thread! Imagine that! :eek:

They're impartial observers, as their merciless dissection of Hizbullah shows (and they're correct; every katyusha fired is in effect a new war crime) and they conclude that Israel has indeed deliberately targetted civilians.

You are again making assumptions here. First off, that HRW ARE impartial observers. I have my doubts. Secondly, that they have PROOF that Israel has 'indeed deliberately targetted civilians'. They CLAIM to have such proof, but in the response you chose to ignore from me on this I asked (and ask again)...show me the money! Lets see this proof. They can SAY anything they want...and it will still be a load of hot air until they come up with said proof.

You see, what they HAVE is anecdotal information from folks who were bombed (not exactly unbiased or even reliable sources), claiming that, nope...there was no Hezbollah in these parts. Israel just bombed us 'cause we are civilians.

At least, thats all the 'proof' I've seen from HRW thus far on the subject. Now, if you want to dig up what they are contending is their proof and present it, then I can look it over and see if it shifts my position on this.

But then, you'd actually be engaging in the debate...wouldn't want to spoil the record, ehe?

My objection to what Israel is now doing is the same reason I wrote off the Palestinians long ago: if you target civilians, you gain nothing but hate from the victims. It doesn't win you anything. And militarily it's worthless. Not to mention, as I have before, that the precipitate way in which they made all of Lebanon pay for what happened at the border killed any chance of cooperation from the rest of Lebanon in the enterprise of neutering Hizbullah, and undermined potential allies who now can't be seen to cooperate with Israel without being labelled traitors.

Again, you are making assumptions...namely that if Israel chose to do nothing and just take it up the ass without batting an eye or lifting a finger, that this would have somehow translated into good will and fellowship from their buddies the Lebanese. Again...I have my doubts. History does not seem to be on your side on this one, though I suppose there is a first for everything.

Here's your big chance to actually engage the question. What SHOULD Israel have done? What was the 'correct' response to the constant cross border raiding, most recently marked by the capture of these two soldiers? How long should they have let things just go on? Forever? What should their response been to the buildup in recent years of Hezbollah's paramilitary capabilities? Nothing?

Feel free to respond in depth.

All of which does wonders for the receiving end's will to resist, though, a lesson Israel should have known from its own history. All in all, remarkably crude, cruel, and stupid. That our dolt of a Prez supports them wholeheartedly in this enterprise is a measure of its stupidity and short-term orientation at the expense of long-term security.

Uhuh. I can see that their long term security prospects were certainly on the rise from not doing anything before. Hell, their various neighbors were all just starting to trust and love Israel before they willfully attacked poor Lebanon and started laying the country to rest. Just the other day, before all this nasty Israeli aggression, Iran was saying how much they burn for Israel and wanted to give them a present.

I'm sure the constant raids on Israel were just the various peaceloving groups in the region being playful and showing Israel that they care...

I tend to agree with you.

There's a shocker. :p

Secondly that demonising Hezbollah would cause more Lebanese to ostracise them. In fact the opposite has happened: there is unprecedented support in Lebanon and throughout the wider Arab world, and it is growing. More worryingly, there is significant and growing Sunni support for Hezbollah (which is a Shiaa organisation). This war has become a huge awareness campaign and PR drive for Hezbollah.

They are fighting Israel...of course they are going to be popular. Oh, thats right! :smack: I forgot that the Arab World(tm) had just recently started to love Israel and accept them as a neighbor! Before all this started of course...

-XT

FinnAgain

08-07-2006, 08:56 PM

Hadn't intended to jump back into this, but since my name was mentioned...

He loves us, he really really loves us!

Ignoring mine (and Finn's) responses to the HRW report doesn't make them go away...in fact, they are STILL right here in the thread! Imagine that! :eek:

Well, I don't know... I certainly haven't pointed out, time and time again, that precise targeting becomes almost impossible during the fog of war if you can't always tell your enemy from the civilian population, and that outright mistakes will happen much more often.

For those reading along, by the way this is the methodology of the HRW statement. (http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/3.htm#_Toc142299221) Notice, by the way HRW's metric:

on-site investigations did not identify any signs of military activity in the area attacked, such as trenches, destroyed rocket launchers, other military equipment, or dead or wounded fighters.

You wouldn't find dead or wounded fighters if they were dressed exactly the same as dead or wounded civilians, and you wouldn't, say, find caches of explosives if they all cooked off in secondary explosions... like whatever caused a building in Quana to suffer enough damage to be 'flattened' upwards of six or seven hours after the IDF hit it.

Would HRW have the expertise to distinguish a crater caused by an IDF strike from a crater caused by ammo cooking off after an IDF strike?

Also, on the topic of their actual investigations:

Security conditions did not permit on-site visits to many of the villages or other sites where civilian casualties are documented in this report, but in all cases Human Rights Watch located eyewitnesses to attacks.

Not exactly the most reliable way of 'proving' something, is it?

Notice as well HRW's, erm... 'logic' about responsibility. (http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/5.htm#_Toc142299223)

Human Rights Watch research established that, on some limited occasions, Hezbollah fighters have attempted to store weapons near civilian homes and have fired rockets from areas where civilians live. However, such practices do not justify the IDF’s failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians.

Um... yes they do. That's exactly why it might be very very difficult to have valid intel, and why the fog of war would be much more extreme.

Other gems include but are not limited to:

On July 15, for example, a group of villagers from Marwahin left the area in a convoy, in part because Hezbollah was attempting to store weapons behind their homes, and residents feared a retaliatory IDF strike.9 Two rockets believed to have been fired from Israeli helicopters struck a white pick-up and a passenger car in the convoy on the road between the villages of Chamaa and Biyada, killing twenty-one civilians (see “Attacks on Fleeing Civilians”). A U.N. team trying to retrieve the bodies came under fire from the IDF.10 While the villagers’ flight could be attributed in part to Hezbollah’s unlawful attempt to store weapons in Marwahin—the main reason for flight was the Israeli warning to evacuate within two hour—Human Rights Watch found no evidence to suggest that Hezbollah fighters were near the civilian convoy when it got hit.

No evidence to suggest Hezbollah was near the convoy? What, were they looking for Hezbollah tracks? I know what bear tracks and rabbit tracks look like, what exactly would a Hezbollah track look like to prove that they were around there, or that Israel had good reason to think they were around there? Maybe HRW had a Hezbollah-O-meter?

Yet more quality stuff:

On Saturday July 15, at about 9:30 p.m., an Israeli Apache helicopter fired into the home of Ibrahim Suleiman, a wage laborer, in the village of Houla, located on the Israel-Lebanon border 25 kilometers east of Tyre. “Neither he nor his children were involved in Hezbollah, nor was there any [Hezbollah] resistance in the town at the time,”

Oh, there were no Hezbollah folks in the entire town, and this guy's neighbor knows. For sure. Without a doubt. And he inspected his neighbor's basement, and knew whether or not there were rockets in it. Without a doubt. And he knew where the man's children were, at every hour of the day, and what they were doing, without a doubt.

On HRW's credibility wrt Israel, there has been a pattern of a rush to judgement, on Jenin, and Quana, on the blast that killed several Palestinians on a beach, etc... They have a habit of often taking Arab claims as gospel and treating Israel's as lies-to-be-disproven.

At least in discussion over their role in the conflict Israel is in with many of the other nations in the region, HRW is hardly a great source.

pantom

08-07-2006, 09:57 PM

A U.N. team trying to retrieve the bodies came under fire from the IDF.

That's from your own little quote.
Those guys wear blue helmets, I believe. Shiny blue ones. That reflect light. That can easily be seen from a helicopter.
But there's a lot more in there. If you choose to disbelieve this and the sheer weight of hundreds dead, while the number of Hizbullah dead might number maybe 100 (0 dead in the initial ambush, 0 dead in the rocket strike that killed the 12 reservists; as for the rest, all we have are Israeli claims, which, this being war, should be discounted as mere propaganda), well, there's not much to say, is there?
As for answering what the alternative would be, in depth, I have elsewhere, repeatedly, and been ignored, repeatedly. So, no. Not doing it again. Feel free to dig up the relevant posts and answer them, if you wish.
Besides which, this BS about how the only alternative is that the Arabs were proposing peace & love is your usual tactic of the excluded middle. Which you know, but you don't care. You just keep doing it, over and over and over like you're dealing with someone who's never seen that tactic before.
I have.
Meantime, you ignore pretty much the entirety of Lebanese history and the pre-war words and actions of Saad Hariri (Sunni), Walid Jumblaat (Druze), and the leader of the Maronite Christians (Christian, just in case that passed you by), all of whom, at one time or another, called for the disarming of Hizbullah. Even Siniora (Sunni) came close, although he put up the fig leaf of a national conference or something where it could be discussed.
No, no cites, because this stuff is ridiculously easy to find, for everyone but Israeli intelligence, Fox News, and you guys.
But like my posts on the alternative to what's happening now, feel free to, you know, do a little research.
Carry on.

FinnAgain

08-07-2006, 11:44 PM

That's from your own little quote.

My 'own little quote'?
You mean, the direct citation of HRW's claims?
Kay.

And certainly we didn't just hear about four UN agents who 'came under fire', that the UN took Israel to task for... while they participated in a coverup and didn't mention that one of the UN's own agents at that UN post had confirmed that Hezbollah was operating all around them with static positions. Odd that the UN hid that fact, and lying, said that they knew there were no Hezbollah fighters around them when in fact they knew that they were.

Luckily we don't even have the UN's word here, or a definition of what 'under fire' means, whether they were in (or near) the blast zone of missiles with other targets, or targeted directly by cannon fire, or what. But you don't need to focus on these little details, as you'll just ignore it and refuse to actually debate.

Or do you plan on addressing the flaws in HRW's methodology?
Any time now.
I know you 'forgot' to do so in your most recent post.

Those guys wear blue helmets, I believe. Shiny blue ones. That reflect light. That can easily be seen from a helicopter.

:rolleyes:
After all the dust and debris kicked up by an attack, it's perfectly easy to clearly tell that people on the ground are UN.
So says pantom, military expert without peer.

And, of course, it's not like Hezbollah has ever used UN uniforms before. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1428913.stm) And the UN didn't lie and cover up evidence that they had a freaking video tape that could have possibly helped free other kidnapped IDF soldiers. Ignore all of that, pantom, nay, General pantom, nay, Grand Commander pantom knows all about targeting from a helicopter. He's an expert. Trust him.

Funny, then that the only source given for this attack on UN agents was not a UN source, but the same Lebanese testimony that HRW used to 'prove' that Hezbollah wasn't anywhere near the strike. Check HRW's own citation for that claim. It's numbered 10.

But there's a lot more in there.

Based on the same questionable methodology that... wow, you totally didn't even address as you went merrily skipping along with your expert opinion on targeting-via-helicopter.

Ignoring refutations and changing the subject? That's sure novel behavior.

Here, instead of fleeing as fast as you can from the actual discussion, I'll help you out and start a sentence for you: "Witness testimony is totally reliable, a single person's testimony is a perfectly accurate source for intel about an entire village, convoy, or area, and there is no need to collect physical evidence or hear counter testiomny and evidence from those who planned and executed the strike because..."

See, now, if you're interest is debate rather than flailing about, you'll fill in the information after that 'because'. I won't hold my breath.

If you choose to disbelieve this and the sheer weight of hundreds dead, while the number of Hizbullah dead might number maybe 100 (0 dead in the initial ambush, 0 dead in the rocket strike that killed the 12 reservists; as for the rest, all we have are Israeli claims, which, this being war, should be discounted as mere propaganda), well, there's not much to say, is there?

Not much to say, other than that your argument is the very height of hypocrisy and you believe that Israeli claims should be discounted as mere propaganda, but Lebanese claims, in isolation and without being connected to any actual factual examination, are proof of HRW's claims.

And, no, I don't choose to 'disbelieve' anything. HRW hasn't proven anything except that they have testimony of people who in many cases couldn't possibly know the things they claimed for sure. You remind me of the tinfoil hatters who claim that because witnesses at the WTC described certain things happening "like a bomb" means that the US government really wired the building for detonation. Certainly a witness or two saying that there were no Hezbollah in the area proves that, and that the US bombed the WTC.

You also have no idea, at all, how many Hezbollah fighters have been killed. Unless, of course, you correctly ID'd them all while expertly directing firing solutions from your vantage point high in an attack helicopter.

As for answering what the alternative would be, in depth, I have elsewhere, repeatedly, and been ignored, repeatedly. So, no. Not doing it again.

Tell you what, why don't you cite the relevant posts?
If, you know, they exist.

Feel free to dig up the relevant posts and answer them, if you wish.

Feel free to support your own claims instead of shifting the burden of proof, if you wish.

Besides which, this BS about how the only alternative is that the Arabs were proposing peace & love is your usual tactic of the excluded middle.

Or, I never said that, anywhere, and you're making it up.
What's that about usual tactics and BS?
Did you read me writing that imaginary post from your gunner's seat in an attack 'copter?

Which you know, but you don't care.

That you claim I've said things that I didn't, and pretend that your imaginary 'gotcha' means I've commited the fallacy of the excluded middle? Naw, doesn't really bother me. I don't expect much more from you.

Meantime, you ignore pretty much the entirety of Lebanese history and the pre-war words and actions of Saad Hariri (Sunni), Walid Jumblaat (Druze), and the leader of the Maronite Christians (Christian, just in case that passed you by), all of whom, at one time or another, called for the disarming of Hizbullah.

What on earth are you talking about? What, exactly, is your point? I've ignored... what exactly?

I could've sworn that President Emile Lahoud, a Christian (his religion is irrelevant, just in case that passed you by), came out strongly in support of Hezbollah.

See, because I have been reading the news, which you so very adorably accuse me of not doing, I know things like

Sunni and Christian politicians often publicly declare their solidarity with the Shiite Hezbollah, which routinely refers to itself as a Lebanese national “resistance movement.” (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060807fa_fact)

But I'm wary to engage you on this tangent, as I'm sure you'll crow about how this is relevant... somehow. Please explain how we're all 'ignoring' the fact that there are opposition groups in Lebanon?

Do these groups somehow prove that Hezbollah is not launching rockets at Israel? No? More obfuscation that has nothing to do with your original (abandoned) claim that the HRW demonstrated anything? Care to touch on that point, or is supporting a driveby simply too difficult?

No, no cites, because this stuff is ridiculously easy to find, for everyone but Israeli intelligence, Fox News, and you guys.

Again, what are you ranting about? There was opposition to Hezbollah in Lebanon? No shit, really? :rolleyes: You're claiming that Mosad didn't know that... why? Did you read their intel briefs from your attack 'copter, too?

What exactly do you think that proves? Nobody has denied that. Nobody. Care to stop doing battle with that strawman and come back to at least pretending to be in a debate while you can't be bothered with discussing the claims that you raised? Or you can continue kicking ass on the big ol' pile of straw, slapping yourself on the back, and yelling at the strawman "Hah, I got you guys!"

Are you at the stage where you think people are 'ignoring' conclusions that you've drawn in your head? Should I be able to see whatever using here that exists solely in your noggin? Can I see that from a 'copter, too?

Because you've certainly made no claims of logical conclusions to be drawn from those facts.

But like my posts on the alternative to what's happening now, feel free to, you know, do a little research.

Or, feel free to, ya know, actually debate the cite that you're championing, and explain how their methodology is valid and their conclusions accurate.

Or run away, evade, obfuscate, and then toss in some pablum about how a well known fact (that Hezbollah had oposition) somehow constitutes people ignoring... something. Who the fuck knows, as you certainly made no claims in this thread regarding that. Much like your other posts that people have cruely ignored, but that you can't be bothered to repeat, let alone actually cite.

Mmm hmmmmmmm.

Least Original User Name Ever

08-07-2006, 11:59 PM

You tell me. Why do YOU think Hezbollah started things then? Do you consider it justification?

The debate? Certainly its turning into such (been there for a while from my perspective)...simply because you STILL refuse to actually engage in the debate. And most of the folks on your side are exactly the same. You toss out raw statistics without context as if that proves something (but...but...BUT...Israel has killed more civilians than Hezbollah has! :eek: ). You make statements without backing any of it up...even with logic. You refuse to engage the points brought up by Finn or myself or any of the other people in the various threads...you just keep recycling the same bullshit over and over again. When your bullshit IS engaged, you move on to the next point and don't engage on the points covered...until you figure enough time has gone by, or you are in a different thread. In which case, you bring the point up again, as if its fresh and new.

So yes...calling this thing a 'debate' is mislabelling it. Only one side seems to be even attempting to engage IN the debate thus far. And I'll give you a clue here...it isn't your's (or you).

Can you say 'strawman'? IOW, who exactly do you think is saying that this thing started 23 days ago, blah blah blah? Who was this meant to reply too...because I don't see anyone saying this.

And what, by gods hairy balls, does Palestinian voting have to do with the situation in Lebanon? Are you seriously contending that if Israel gave Palestinian's the vote (after anexing all of Palestine I suppose...why else would they let them vote?), this would some how magically fix things between Israel and Hezbollah? If so...well, why?

Can you say 'strawman' too? YOu are putting words into Weirddave's mouth, assuming you know what his position is...based on one rough summary post of the history of the '48 conflict. I note also that you didn't answer my own questions by engaging them, but instead answered with this strawman post of what you THINK is Wierdave's position. Your strawman being more factually incorrect than Dave's btw.

I think I'm winding down at this point folks. (listens for the cheers of joy that XT is finally going to shutup :p ). I know I promised some cites to DMC (one of the few on the other side to even attempt to engage the debate), but I'm not sure I'm up for continually beating my head against the wall here. We'll see...

-XT

Are you kidding me? I asked you and it's somehow acceptable for you to say "go first"?

Bleh. Why would Hizbollah kidnap an Israeli or do such things? It's a response to Israeli actions.

Saying there's a debate doesn't make it a debate. Saying that my position is wrong doesn't simply make it go away.

Has Israel done anything wrong in this entire prolonged situation?

Is the UN trying to pass (and has been trying to pass) resolutions on Israeli actions because they simply aren't happening or is it because the rest of the world has a different perspective, or is there another reason?

Additionally, I don't get how saying that if Palestinians could vote in Israeli elections how that'd make things better.

08-08-2006, 12:02 AM

Not much more to really add to what Finn just said, but:

But like my posts on the alternative to what's happening now, feel free to, you know, do a little research.

That exploding sound was my trusty dusty irony meter. It pegged out around the second sentence of your post, and then went critical. I'm cleaning off the dust shards (and something that smells remarkably like bullshit) from my desk now as a result of your post.

Do you think that anyone but the faithful are buying that tripe you posted? Dude....its ALL HERE IN THE FUCKING THREAD! Its like you think that no one can, you know, scroll back and LOOK at whats been said. By you. By me. By Finn. By the others. It hasn't all magically changed. Your strawman haven't suddenly sprang to life from our previous posts. You haven't, you know, actually ENGAGED in the debate...just posted bullshit. Even your bullshit hasn't, you know, been ignored. In fact, though you've posted tripe, you have actually BEEN engaged with that tripe. Hell, even your follow up tripe has been engaged in the debate.

Anyway, its obvious that thing all is going no where.

-XT

Least Original User Name Ever

08-08-2006, 12:04 AM

The first thing (actually, second. I think you said something about how killing people is bad) you've said that I agree with.

FinnAgain

08-08-2006, 12:06 AM

Bleh. Why would Hizbollah kidnap an Israeli or do such things? It's a response to Israeli actions.

:rolleyes:
A response to which actions, in specific, on what dates, in specific?

Or, as you've done each and every time you're challenged on factual grounds, change the subject.

08-08-2006, 12:13 AM

Are you kidding me? I asked you and it's somehow acceptable for you to say "go first"?

Gee...here I thought this was Great DEBATES. I figured, well, asking you to actually engage in the debate was, I don't know...like, something valid to do. I didn't realize that it would be such a strain.

Bleh. Why would Hizbollah kidnap an Israeli or do such things? It's a response to Israeli actions.

:p So, you've been putting in your two cents worth (ok, its over priced) for gods know how many posts now...and you don't have a clue as to what has been going on? Why am I not surprised? :smack:

The rest of your post is...well, its classic. I can't resist:

Has Israel done anything wrong in this entire prolonged situation?

This gets a WTF?, Doh! AND LMFAO...all in one! :p

Is the UN trying to pass (and has been trying to pass) resolutions on Israeli actions because they simply aren't happening or is it because the rest of the world has a different perspective, or is there another reason?

:p (The REALLY funny thing is...you don't know why this is so funny, do you?? I'm literally on the floor here)

Additionally, I don't get how saying that if Palestinians could vote in Israeli elections how that'd make things better.

:p You know, had you actually read what I posted, included the part I quoted from (I belive) phantom there, you'd have realized something vital...it wasn't MY strawman bullshit. It was someone else's and I was asking pretty much the same question you are. Maybe you should take it up with him, ehe?

Anyway, thanks for the laughs. It was a hell of a rough week last week, and its bad already this week as well. I really needed a good laugh.

-XT

Least Original User Name Ever

08-08-2006, 12:20 AM

:rolleyes:
A response to which actions, in specific, on what dates, in specific?

Or, as you've done each and every time you're challenged on factual grounds, change the subject.
Um. Squatting in Palestinian land to start the Israeli state? Creating settlements in Palestine?

Pick one.

Weirddave

08-08-2006, 12:37 AM

Um. Squatting in Palestinian land to start the Israeli state? Creating settlements in Palestine?

Pick one.
You really, really need to read some basic history if you're going to pretend to have any inkling of what you are talking about. Prior to 1948, the land belonged to the BRITISH, and it was theirs to dispose of as they saw fit, which they did by creating Israel. They were supposed to create Palestine too, which (warning: The following statement is conjecture on my part, because it never had a chance to happen) they probably would have done shortly thereafter except that the Arabs in the area completely wigged out at the outrageously provocative existence of Israel and attacked, putting paid to THAT idea.

Now I'm going to wait for Gozu to come in and tell me what I really think.

08-08-2006, 12:49 AM

Um. Squatting in Palestinian land to start the Israeli state? Creating settlements in Palestine?

:rolleyes: Here is a brief, quick and dirty Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine) history of Palestine. Its far from comprehensive, but it has most of the basic facts (at least from what I skimmed looking for it...I usually use another cite, but I can't remember where I get it from now. I have it saved on my computer at home). Do yourself a favor...read through the Wiki cite carefully and learn something of the history before posting this kind of thing here.

I'll just post a few highlights here (note: if you are going to toss out a cite, this is what you SHOULD do. Keep it in mind in the future, when you want to toss in cites of your own. As opposed to your standard...drop in link with no explaination and hope someone puzzles out your point):

Ottoman period

After the Ottoman conquest, the name disappeared as the official name of an administrative unit, as the Turks often called their (sub)provinces after the capital. Since its 1516 incorporation in the Ottoman Empire, it was part of the vilayet (province) of Damascus-Syria until 1660, next of the vilayet of Saida (seat in Lebanon), shortly interrupted by the 7 March 1799 - July 1799 French occupation of Jaffa, Haifa, and Caesarea. On 10 May 1832 it was one of the Turkish provinces annexed by Muhammad Ali's shortly imperialistic, Egypt (remained nominally Ottoman), but in November 1840 direct Ottoman rule was restored.

Still the old name remained in popular and semi-official use. Many examples of its usage in the 16th and 17th centuries have survived.[1] During the 19th century, the "Ottoman Government employed the term Arz-i Filistin (the 'Land of Palestine') in official correspondence, meaning for all intents and purposes the area to the west of the River Jordan which became 'Palestine' under the British in 1922". [2] Amongst the educated Arab public, Filastin was a common concept, referring either to the whole of Palestine or to the Jerusalem sanjaq alone.[3]

The Ottoman Sultan discouraged all large-scale immigration to Palestine, replying to a request by Rabbi Joseph Nantonek for permission to settle Jews in 1876 that "almost all lands in Palestine were occupied, and that the autonomy sought by Nantonek was incompatible with the administrative principles of the state" and decrees against mass settlement were issued by the Ottoman government in 1884, 1887 and 1888.[4] Significant numbers of Jews began making Aliyah to the Holy Land in 1882[5] to build collective farms and eventually established the new city of Tel Aviv in 1909.[6] However, during 1891-1900 the total number of Jews in Palestine was never more than 60,000 people out of a total population of 500,000, which demonstrated that "the Ottoman policy of allowing individuals to immigrate and to settle, but prohibiting large groups from doing the same, was successful".[7] When Ottoman control came to an end, following World War I, the number of Jews in Palestine had declined to 55,000.[8]

The 19th and 20th centuries

In European usage up to World War I, "Palestine" was used informally for a region that extended in the north-south direction typically from Raphia (south-east of Gaza) to the Litani River (now in Lebanon). The western boundary was the sea, and the eastern boundary was the poorly-defined place where the Syrian desert began. In various European sources, the eastern boundary was placed anywhere from the Jordan River to slightly east of Amman. The Negev Desert was not included. [Biger]

Under the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, it was envisioned that most of Palestine, when freed by Ottoman control, would become an international zone not under direct French or British colonial control. Shortly thereafter, British foreign minister Arthur Balfour issued the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which laid plans for a Jewish homeland to be established in Palestine eventually.

The British-led Egyptian Expeditionary Force, commanded by Edmund Allenby, captured Jerusalem on 9 December, 1917 and occupied the whole of the Levant following the defeat of Turkish forces in Palestine at the Battle of Megiddo in September 1918.[9]

British Mandate (1920-1948)

Formal use of the English word "Palestine" returned with the British Mandate. During this period, the name "Eretz Yisrael" (Hebrew: ארץ ישראל) was also part of the official name of the territory.

In April 1920 the Allied Supreme Council (the USA, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan) met at Sanremo and formal decisions were taken on the allocation of mandate territories. The United Kingdom accepted a mandate for Palestine, but the boundaries of the mandate and the conditions under which it was to be held were not decided. The Zionist Organization's representative at Sanremo, Chaim Weizmann, subsequently reported to his colleagues in London:

"There are still important details outstanding, such as the actual terms of the mandate and the question of the boundaries in Palestine. There is the delimitation of the boundary between French Syria and Palestine, which will constitute the northern frontier and the eastern line of demarcation, adjoining Arab Syria. The latter is not likely to be fixed until the Emir Feisal attends the Peace Conference, probably in Paris."[10]

UN Partition

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181), a plan to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict by partitioning the territory into separate Jewish and Arab states, with the Greater Jerusalem area (encompassing Bethlehem) coming under international control. Jewish leaders (including the Jewish Agency), accepted the plan, while Palestinian Arab leaders rejected it. Neighboring Arab and Muslim states also rejected the partition plan. As armed skirmishes between Arab and Jewish paramilitary forces in Palestine continued, the British mandate ended on May 15, 1948, the establishment of the State of Israel having been proclaimed the day before (see Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel). The neighboring Arab states immediately attacked Israel following its declaration of independence, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War ensued. Consequently, the partition plan was never implemented.

Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and neighboring Arab states eliminated Palestine as a distinct territory. It was divided between Israel, Egypt, Syria and Jordan.

In addition to the UN-partitioned area, Israel captured 26% of the Mandate territory west of the Jordan river. Jordan captured and annexed about 21% of the Mandate territory. Jerusalem was divided, with Jordan taking the eastern parts, including the old city, and Israel taking the western parts. The Gaza Strip was captured by Egypt.

For a description of the massive population movements, Arab and Jewish, at the time of the 1948 war and over the following decades, see Palestinian exodus and Jewish exodus from Arab lands.

From the 1960s onward, the term "Palestine" was regularly used in political contexts. Various declarations, such as the 1988 proclamation of a State of Palestine by the PLO referred to a country called Palestine, defining its borders with differing degrees of clarity, including the annexation of the whole of the State of Israel. Most recently, the Palestine draft constitution refers to borders based on the West Bank and Gaza Strip prior to the 1967 Six-Day War. This so-called Green Line follows the 1949 armistice line; the permanent borders are yet to be negotiated. Furthermore, since 1994, there has been a Palestinian Authority controlling varying portions of historic Palestine.

-XT

Gozu

08-08-2006, 12:55 AM

Hadn't intended to jump back into this, but since my name was mentioned...

You are again making assumptions here. First off, that HRW ARE impartial observers. I have my doubts.

Then why don't you go ahead and discredit them? They carry more weight than you I think.

Secondly, that they have PROOF that Israel has 'indeed deliberately targetted civilians'. They CLAIM to have such proof, but in the response you chose to ignore from me on this I asked (and ask again)...show me the money! Lets see this proof. They can SAY anything they want...and it will still be a load of hot air until they come up with said proof.

Here is your proof: Propelled explosives shot within the vicinity of human beings can kill them. If you're in a car with my nemesis and i decide to unload an Ak47 on the car to kill him and end up killing you as well, did I deliberately target you? Same goes with building full of people and a hizbollah gunman or a hizbollah cache of weapons.

You see, what they HAVE is anecdotal information from folks who were bombed (not exactly unbiased or even reliable sources), claiming that, nope...there was no Hezbollah in these parts. Israel just bombed us 'cause we are civilians.

Yes. And they must be liars. I'm sure Israel's intel, aim and individual actions of soldiers are blessed with divine perfection. Couldn't possibly screw up. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident)

At least, thats all the 'proof' I've seen from HRW thus far on the subject. Now, if you want to dig up what they are contending is their proof and present it, then I can look it over and see if it shifts my position on this.

You want him to dig up bodies and show'em to you? Or maybe attach brain readers to the heads of the israeli soldiers and read their thoughts? How do you suppose one can give proof of such things? How do cops do it? Evidence and testimony. I'll let you interpret them.

Lo
Again, you are making assumptions...namely that if Israel chose to do nothing and just take it up the ass without batting an eye or lifting a finger, that this would have somehow translated into good will and fellowship from their buddies the Lebanese. Again...I have my doubts. History does not seem to be on your side on this one, though I suppose there is a first for everything.

I believe this is called false dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy) . Do try to avoid it in the future.

Here's your big chance to actually engage the question. What SHOULD Israel have done?

Increased security at the border maybe? I dunno, seems logical to me.

What was the 'correct' response to the constant cross border raiding, most recently marked by the capture of these two soldiers?

Oh, I don't know...defend themselves with all those state-of-the art weapons they got? Not go out alone in the dark?

How long should they have let things just go on?

Years and years. Decades. In fact, it would've taken hundreds of years of kidnapped soldiers to get to the body count we have now. Counter-productive I say. And it's not like one day, nobody is going to be kidnapped or killed. Happens all the time, even here in the good old U.S of A. Do you see the U.S army bombing the projects to get back at drug dealers? It's called m-e-a-s-u-r-e-d response.

Forever?

Nah. Conflict probably won't last more than a century or two at the very most.

What should their response been to the buildup in recent years of Hezbollah's paramilitary capabilities?

THIS! This was the perfect solution! I'm so glad everything is finally working out! Oh wait...

Nothing?

Probably would have been a lot better than this.

Uhuh. I can see that their long term security prospects were certainly on the rise from not doing anything before. Hell, their various neighbors were all just starting to trust and love Israel before they willfully attacked poor Lebanon and started laying the country to rest. Just the other day, before all this nasty Israeli aggression, Iran was saying how much they burn for Israel and wanted to give them a present.

Hatred for Israel before: ***********************************
Hatred for Israel after : ***********************************************

Draw your own conclusion.

I'm sure the constant raids on Israel were just the various peaceloving groups in the region being playful and showing Israel that they care...

Yes. Darn those constant raids. They made Israel a living hell. I would much rather live in southern Lebanon or the west bank. It's all groovy over there. Seriously though, don't blow things out of proportion. Why don't you get us some numbers on those raids you speak of. Ya know, show us how many Israelis are killed at the lebanon border every year. And how many lebanese for good measure.

-XT[/QUOTE]

FinnAgain

08-08-2006, 12:58 AM

Um. Squatting in Palestinian land to start the Israeli state? Creating settlements in Palestine?

Remind me again, where in Lebanon is Palestine?

And, damn, deja vu all over again. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7617053&postcount=86) I already responded to this falsehood. You ignored it (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7617407&postcount=88) and instead of providing proof talked about that land was 'in their minds' taken away. I tried to get you to actually debate and/or provide proof for your claims. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7617478&postcount=91) rather than the current behavior you changed the subject (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7618648&postcount=96).

You are making stuff up. Stop it.

xtisme was absolutely right about what you do. You pretend to debate, but instead toss out false claims. When asked to provide proof, you evade, and change the subject. After a certain ammount of time has passed, you make the first false claims again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

And then you complain that there can't be a debate. :smack:
There can't be because you refuse to discuss topics that you bring up. People have tried to debate your claims with you, but you just drop them as soon as they're contradicted and make new claims. Then drop those and move on to new ones, or earlier ones, not deigning to actually engage in the debate that's been offered to counter your claims.

Freakin' stop it.

Pick one.

How about neither, and you actually answer why Hezbollah would have a valid reason to attack Israel in response for Israeli actions?

Instead of, ya know, yet again ignoring that people are trying to engage you in debate while you change the subject? Instead of, yet again, refusing to substantiate your claims, in this case that Hezbollah was responding to Israel, and trying to change the subject to Palestine?

Or is this like [b]Gozu[/u]'s argument that if India wasn't directly attacked, but objected to cows being killed, then they could violate the Nuremberg Principles and launch a war of aggression?

istara

08-08-2006, 01:11 AM

They are fighting Israel...of course they are going to be popular. Oh, thats right! :smack: I forgot that the Arab World(tm) had just recently started to love Israel and accept them as a neighbor! Before all this started of course...

-XT
No - you're missing the point. Hezbollah were already "fighting" Israel before this took place, but they weren't universally popular. The point is that Israel's actions against them have made them popular.

Gozu

08-08-2006, 01:21 AM

You really, really need to read some basic history if you're going to pretend to have any inkling of what you are talking about. Prior to 1948, the land belonged to the BRITISH, and it was theirs to dispose of as they saw fit, which they did by creating Israel.

Tell me. How did the land you aforemention come to be in the possession of the british? Didn't they colonize it like they did India and Egypt among others? Did they own the land there too? Was it simply due to their immense generosity that they didn't give large chunks of land to the amish or the hippies to create their own states? Please answer these questions.

They were supposed to create Palestine too.And they probably would have done shortly thereafter except that the Arabs in the area completely wigged out at the outrageously provocative existence of Israel and attacked, putting paid to THAT idea.

Yeah! Darn those pesky arabs! What were they doing there in the first place? Sheesh. Always in the way I tell ya.Shit, man. You're right. Here is what I'm going to do. First, I'm gonna send my good friend Charles to kick your ass, then he's gonna make you his bitch for a few months. Then I'm gonna come to your house and take over a couple of rooms, and a bathroom, and the kitchen. But don'tcha worry! Before Charles leaves, He probably will make an XTian state for you to live in the apartment. Just be cool and everything's gonna be alright.

Now I'm going to wait for Gozu to come in and tell me what I really think.

It is my opinion that you think crooked or that you are a hypocrite.

08-08-2006, 01:24 AM

Then why don't you go ahead and discredit them? They carry more weight than you I think.

You, um, want me to prove a negative? Its not up to me to disprove THEIR claim my friend...its up to THEM to prove their own claim. that you belive them with no proof speaks more towards your own bias in this than it does to anything else.

I've already given why I require said proof, as well as why I'm skeptical of their claims.

Here is your proof: Propelled explosives shot within the vicinity of human beings can kill them. If you're in a car with my nemesis and i decide to unload an Ak47 on the car to kill him and end up killing you as well, did I deliberately target you? Same goes with building full of people and a hizbollah gunman or a hizbollah cache of weapons.

This proves what exactly?

Yes. And they must be liars. I'm sure Israel's intel, aim and individual actions of soldiers are blessed with divine perfection. Couldn't possibly screw up.

To repeat the above...this proves what exactly? How do these events relate?

(Here is a clue...if Israel screwed up and hit the wrong target, its not a war crime as defined by your precious HRW. See, they claim Israel is deliberately and indiscriminately targetting Lebanese civilians. Fuckup does not equal deliberate targetting...least not in this universe. So....which is it Gozu? Fuckup or war crime? What exactly are you argueing here my man?)

You want him to dig up bodies and show'em to you? Or maybe attach brain readers to the heads of the israeli soldiers and read their thoughts? How do you suppose one can give proof of such things? How do cops do it? Evidence and testimony. I'll let you interpret them.

You don't seem to be getting the point (though hats off that you are actually engaging the points I made...for a change). You see, HRW claims that Israel is committing war crimes, based on their own narrow definition of that. Digging up the bodies and showing them to me or anyone else is worthless...it proves nothing. You see, its about INTENT....not about raw statistics.

So...do you HAVE 'evidence and testimony' from Israeli soldiers or Israeli military/civilian officials stating that Israel is deliberately and indiscriminately firing on Lebanese civilians? If so, trot that shit out. If not...they you are again blowing smoke.

Hey, its not MY definition of war crimes being used here. And unfortunately for you, its rather easy to see the intent for anyone who has a clue about how the military actually works between what Hezbollah is doing wrt its rocket attacks vs what Israel is doing wrt its interdiction and logistics bombing efforts...if we put events into context.

I believe this is called false dichotomy . Do try to avoid it in the future.

:p Sure it is.

Increased security at the border maybe? I dunno, seems logical to me.

Thats it? Well, thats certainly a comprehensive answer there Gozo. I'm sure Israel NEVER thought to increase their border security, considering the history of suicide bombers slipping across the border, of cross border raids, etc. Naw...its too 'logical' for them to have every given it a whirl I'm sure.

This leaves aside how 'increaded security at the border' would help with things like rocket attacks...but I'm sure you will work that part in at somepoint.

Oh, I don't know...defend themselves with all those state-of-the art weapons they got? Not go out alone in the dark?

Maybe the Easter Bunny will save them? Or, er, the Jewish equivelant I suppose. ;)

Years and years. Decades. In fact, it would've taken hundreds of years of kidnapped soldiers to get to the body count we have now. Counter-productive I say. And it's not like one day, nobody is going to be kidnapped or killed. Happens all the time, even here in the good old U.S of A. Do you see the U.S army bombing the projects to get back at drug dealers? It's called m-e-a-s-u-r-e-d response.

Years and years, ehe? Decades? Hm...that seems about right. The situation HAS gone on about that long now. And of course, you are glossing over the fact (once again) about those suicide bombings, attacks on civilians and the odd rocket attack tossed into Israel. Years and years...decades worth.

BTW, another bad analogy on your part. How about we modify it somewhat. Lets say those drug dealers liked to slip across the border occationally to blow things up. Once in a while, just to be playful, they also toss a few rockets at our border towns. Then lets say they slip across and kidnap a few of our soldiers (who also happen to be, you know, citizens). This goes on for a few years.

What do you suppose the US's 'measured' response would be in that case Gozu? How about France's response? The UK's? India? China? I don't know...why don't you pick ANY county in the world who would put up with that shit without a military response. I'm sure there are a few out there somewhere...

Nah. Conflict probably won't last more than a century or two at the very most.

True enough. In addition, since Israel is a democracy, eventually the people are going to get pissed off at inaction and demand the government Do Something(tm)...and if the current government is unwilling, then they will vote in some folks who will.

THIS! This was the perfect solution! I'm so glad everything is finally working out! Oh wait...

hehe...glad we are finally in agreement. ;)

Probably would have been a lot better than this.

From Hezbollah's/Lebanon's perspective? Undoubtably true. From Israel's though? :dubious: What do you base this on besides your own preconceptions both of how things are going and how things will turn out?

Hatred for Israel before: ***********************************
Hatred for Israel after : ***********************************************

Draw your own conclusion.

:p That no matter what Israel did or does, they aren't going to win any friends in the region...unless they decide to roll over and let the Arabs walk all over them.

My conclusions from these series of threads are remarkably similar, interstingly enough. ;)

Yes. Darn those constant raids. They made Israel a living hell. I would much rather live in southern Lebanon or the west bank. It's all groovy over there. Seriously though, don't blow things out of proportion. Why don't you get us some numbers on those raids you speak of. Ya know, show us how many Israelis are killed at the lebanon border every year. And how many lebanese for good measure.

Naw...I'll let you do it, since its your assertion that its no big deal.

-XT

Gozu

08-08-2006, 01:25 AM

Or is this like Gozu's argument that if India wasn't directly attacked, but objected to cows being killed, then they could violate the Nuremberg Principles and launch a war of aggression?

My argument was not that they could but whether or not they would be morally justified in doing so. I don't think the Nurememberg Principles had anything to do with it.

Just making sure we're clear.

08-08-2006, 01:42 AM

No - you're missing the point. Hezbollah were already "fighting" Israel before this took place, but they weren't universally popular. The point is that Israel's actions against them have made them popular.

No, I got the point...I was being sarcastic.

Hezbollah has been engaged in low level fighting with Israel for some time...and due to this continued fighting they were relatively popular, both in Lebanon and in the wider Middle East (especially with the Shia). They are now QUITE popular because they are fully engaged with Israel in what is to all intents and purposes a full scale war...both with the Shia (who they already enjoyed a measure of popularity) and even with Sunni groups (who they didn't before) The point of course being...if you fight Israel you are going to gain in popularity with certain large blocks of people in the region. People pre-disposed to dislike or even hate Israel, reguardless of the actual situation.

Why do you think Israel should factor this in when responding to attacks? Do you think they should just allow these various groups to take pot shots at them, kidnap their soldiers, occationally send in some mope with explosives strapped to him/herself who walks into a bus station or cafe? What do you feel is a reasonable response for Israel...and one that won't cause its neighbors to hate them more?

Finally, is it your contention that if Israel did nothing in response to these periodic attacks and abductions that they would gain in popularity with their neighbors? That somehow this would lessen their antipathy toward Israel, would lessen the attacks? If so...why?

-XT

Gozu

08-08-2006, 02:06 AM

You, um, want me to prove a negative? Its not up to me to disprove THEIR claim my friend...its up to THEM to prove their own claim. that you belive them with no proof speaks more towards your own bias in this than it does to anything else.

I've already given why I require said proof, as well as why I'm skeptical of their claims.

No, I wanted you to discredit them. Organizations and people are discredited all the time. if I say that Doctors without Borders are full of shit, I will have to explain why. I can then say: well look at their books, they take in 4 times as much money as they appear to be spending. And here is a Times article that exposes the ties of 3 members of the board with the New jersey mob. And so on and so forth.

(Here is a clue...if Israel screwed up and hit the wrong target, its not a war crime as defined by your precious HRW. See, they claim Israel is deliberately and indiscriminately targetting Lebanese civilians. Fuckup does not equal deliberate targetting...least not in this universe. So....which is it Gozu? Fuckup or war crime? What exactly are you argueing here my man?)

Should I shoot the car with you in it? You tell me, man.

You don't seem to be getting the point (though hats off that you are actually engaging the points I made...for a change). You see, HRW claims that Israel is committing war crimes, based on their own narrow definition of that. Digging up the bodies and showing them to me or anyone else is worthless...it proves nothing. You see, its about INTENT....not about raw statistics.

So...do you HAVE 'evidence and testimony' from Israeli soldiers or Israeli military/civilian officials stating that Israel is deliberately and indiscriminately firing on Lebanese civilians? If so, trot that shit out. If not...they you are again blowing smoke.

I do not believe Israel is deliberately and indiscriminately firing on Lebanese civilians. I just believe they don't give a shit if they kill them as long as they get their targets. Again, should I shoot the car? As far a screw ups, they happen as well and they only make things worse. That's why they're called screw ups I guess. If they made things better, they'd be called something else.

Hey, its not MY definition of war crimes being used here. And unfortunately for you, its rather easy to see the intent for anyone who has a clue about how the military actually works between what Hezbollah is doing wrt its rocket attacks vs what Israel is doing wrt its interdiction and logistics bombing efforts...if we put events into context.

I didn't use the word warcrime. I don't actually give a shit about whether something is called a warcrime or not. Already addressed the other half of your quote earlier.

Thats it? Well, thats certainly a comprehensive answer there Gozo. I'm sure Israel NEVER thought to increase their border security, considering the history of suicide bombers slipping across the border, of cross border raids, etc. Naw...its too 'logical' for them to have every given it a whirl I'm sure.

You asked for possible courses of actions. I gave you some. If you give me a six figure salary, a staff and flow me to Israel and let me study the situation. I ought to have more viable suggestions for you within a year or so.

This leaves aside how 'increaded security at the border' would help with things like rocket attacks...but I'm sure you will work that part in at somepoint.

Give me hard numbers on the damage these rocket attacks do and the amount of casualties per year. Then we'll talk about how dire the situation is.

Maybe the Easter Bunny will save them? Or, er, the Jewish equivelant I suppose. ;)

Everybody dies.

Years and years, ehe? Decades? Hm...that seems about right. The situation HAS gone on about that long now. And of course, you are glossing over the fact (once again) about those suicide bombings, attacks on civilians and the odd rocket attack tossed into Israel. Years and years...decades worth.

[quote]BTW, another bad analogy on your part. How about we modify it somewhat. Lets say those drug dealers liked to slip across the border occationally to blow things up. Once in a while, just to be playful, they also toss a few rockets at our border towns. Then lets say they slip across and kidnap a few of our soldiers (who also happen to be, you know, citizens). This goes on for a few years.

Wow! Those are some evil dealers. I wonder why they're doing all of this. Care to enlighten me?

What do you suppose the US's 'measured' response would be in that case Gozu? How about France's response? The UK's? India? China? I don't know...why don't you pick ANY county in the world who would put up with that shit without a military response. I'm sure there are a few out there somewhere...

Yeah, they should TOTALLY invade mexico and bomb the shit out of Tijuana. It's not like anyone is gonna miss a few hundred mexicans. Heck, i got 200 right here in my neighborhood. *

True enough. In addition, since Israel is a democracy, eventually the people are going to get pissed off at inaction and demand the government Do Something(tm)...and if the current government is unwilling, then they will vote in some folks who will.

I guess that's also why Hamas and Hizbollah exist. Because people wanted something to be done. Human nature is the same everywhere.

From Hezbollah's/Lebanon's perspective? Undoubtably true. From Israel's though? :dubious: What do you base this on besides your own preconceptions both of how things are going and how things will turn out?

Well, a hundred Israelis are dead now. I'm sure things would've been better for them if this invasion hadn't taken place. I'm sure their families also think like me.

Preconceptions of how things are going? What preconceptions? I just heard about the hundreds of dead and the billions in damages to lebanon.All from the american press. If they're lying to me, you let me know. Also, what preconceptions? How does the word even apply here? Moving on...

preconceptions of how things will turn out. Ok, now that makes sense. From what I have witnessed, hizbollah is now more popular than ever thanks to the israeli invasion. Won't that mean more young men will join their ranks? Won't it mean that more rich saudis will give them money to buy weapons? Won't it mean that Israel will gain some more antipathy from the rest of the arab world? Doesn't all this mean that the current events suck for everybody concerned? (except maybe hizbollah and the israeli politicians who will gain political capital for this)

That no matter what Israel did or does, they aren't going to win any friends in the region...unless they decide to roll over and let the Arabs walk all over them.

The arab animosity is not groundless as you make it sound. And once again, this is a false dichotomy. There is plenty of middleground between rolling over and invading a country.

My conclusions from these series of threads are remarkably similar, interstingly enough. ;)

Probably true.

Naw...I'll let you do it, since its your assertion that its no big deal.

HA! It was YOUR assertion that they WERE a big deal. Don't you try to weasel your way out of it! I only demanded you provided a valid cite for YOUR claims.

FinnAgain

08-08-2006, 02:50 AM

My argument was not that they could but whether or not they would be morally justified in doing so. I don't think the Nurememberg Principles had anything to do with it.

The NP's have everything to do with it. Violation of one's religion, association with other races or cultures, etc... is not justification for launching a war of aggression.

As for HRW, just look at their rush to judgment in Jenin, in Quana, in the blast that killed serveral Palestinians on a beach recently. Look at the fact that their own report discredits itself, as it is based on nothing other than non-expert testimony, that it deliberately states that it won't even consider the difficulties in precise targeting that Hezbollah has caused.

What else needs be said?

And by the way, will you please stop repeating this falsehood that Britain went in and took land that the Palestinians owned away from them? I'm reasonably certain that you're no longer speaking for other people's incorrect views, so please stop repeating them.

It's not equal to someone coming into your house, beating you up, and stealing some of your land.

It's equivelant to someone buying public land, you (or the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) launching a series of pogroms, the current owner of the land having the public land partitioned along ethnic majority lines, getting to keep living on the land and become a citizen of the partition area you are part of, but then rejecting the partition, wanting all of the land which did not belong to you in the first place, and launching a war whose stated goal was genocide.

FinnAgain

08-08-2006, 03:14 AM

Wow! Those are some evil dealers. I wonder why they're doing all of this. Care to enlighten me?

"So, the Klan kept lynching 'uppity' blacks. I wonder why they were doing all of that. Care to enlighten me?"

Why is it every time some genocidal faction tries to take out a bunch of Jews, we are asked what they did to deserve it? :dubious:

Yeah, they should TOTALLY invade mexico and bomb the shit out of Tijuana.

Either that or hit the targets and logistical supply routes that are of military value.
I have no idea why these discussions always have this canard about the 'value of life'. A sovereign state, especially a democratic one, is tasked with the protection of its citizens. That is its first priority and, for the most part, the only valid role of governments; the protection of life and property of their citizens.

Won't it mean that more rich saudis will give them money to buy weapons?

Probably not, because Iran is one of the major supporters of that proxy force and the Saudis do not want Iran to be the prime power of the region.

Won't it mean that Israel will gain some more antipathy from the rest of the arab world?

Israel existing is all the excuse that most of its enemies need, based on, among other things, the very falsehoods you keep repeating about 'stolen' land that the Palestinians 'owned' in '48. That and blatant racism and stated genocidal goals.

What, do you think, would happen if Israel announced that its goals included the murder of every Muslim on earth?
Why, then, is there a virtual null-reaction to Israel's enemies saying that their goals include the murder of every Jew on earth?

I would ask, how much good will did Israel's offer of returning its 1967 gains earn? Was it not responded to with the Three Noes?

What good will did Israel gain from recently dismantling settlements? From pulling out of Gaza? Lebanon?

Racism is inherently irrational. Blacks could not sit down over tea and ask the Klan, politely, if they'd please stop killing them. Israel has tried, again and again and again, to negotiate for peace. Egypt and Jordan agreed to it. How many times has Israel had to fight with them, recently?

Other nations responded to Israel's pleas for peace with renewed calls for genocide. How many times has Israel had to fight with them, recently?

The arab animosity is not groundless as you make it sound.

No, much of it is firmly based in genocidal racism and deliberate lies about the founding of Israel.

And once again, this is a false dichotomy. There is plenty of middleground between rolling over and invading a country.

No, not in this case. Anything less than protecting its citizens from attack is rolling over. A country that respond to being attacked, unprovoked, by giving things up only signifies weakness and suggests a future course of action for any wackjob with a grudge. A country that does absolutely nothing to stop military attacks shows that they are impotent, and encourages more attacks.

Or would you have advised Lebanon to give up territory that Israel had no legitimate claim to if Israel just started, unprovoked, randomly bombing Lebanese cities? Would you have advised Lebanon to simply sit there and allow itself to be attacked?

And please don't complain when you make suggestions that simply have no chance of working. No, guarding the border does nothing to stop rockets sailing over it. And no, they don't have to be the most lethal weapon possible to still constitute a deliberate attack upon a country, and especially upon the country's civilian populace.

Israel has tried just guarding its border, it was met with cries of an "apartheid wall". Israel has tried negotiating, again and again, they have been met with calls for genocide. Israel has unilaterally given up territory, that territory became a base for military forces to attack Israel from.

It's quite easy to say "This isn't the best course of action."
But I've not seen one person, not one single person who said that, who could come up with a better one.

This is a situation where Israel has to choose the least-bad option. There are no good ones, and certainly no perfect ones. Should the occupation of the territories end as soon as possible? Yes. Should Palestine be a full state with viable economic and agricultural abilities? Yes. But tell me how Israel can do that when it can't find any partners willing to negotiate for peace?

Every nation on earth has a right to self defense. All Israel wants is to live in peace. If Lebanon and Hezbollah agreed to that, if Hezbollah laid down their arms, there would be peace tomorrow. If every Arab country did, there would be peace tomorrow. There would be peace and prosperity tomorrow if the agressors simply agreed to peace, as Israel has been requesting, pleading, and negotiating for for deacades. Recognize Israel, agree to peace treaties, stop unprovoked attacks, renounce terrorism, crack down on terrorists and certainly don't fund and equip them. And there would be peace tomorrow.

What would happen tomorrow if Israel laid down its arms?

FRDE

08-08-2006, 05:04 AM

Gozu

There are a few things that need pointing out.

Eire, or Southern Ireland, was nervous of the IRA
- while the IRA were concerned with getting a united Ireland, they had a political agenda that does not fit well with democracy.
- now the IRA is little more than a criminal organization making money from protection rackets, bank robbery and drug dealing

While some foolish people in Eire supported the IRA, the IRA were a lot more of a threat to Eire than anywhere else.

The British did /not/ set up Israel, it was actually the USA that swung the UN vote.

The British inherited the area from the Turks, who happened to be on the wrong side in WWI.

I once read that about 1900 the population of 'Palestine' was about 100,000
As others have posted, the migration had started well before the British were on the scene.

Until 1948 the Jews /bought/ the land from the land owners, this annoyed the Felahin who were tenant farmers. There was steady friction.

It is likely that a British officer called Orde Wingate trained up young Jews in his speciality, guerilla warfare. He was recalled from the area.

The Jewish guerillas (Irgun, Hagannah) targeted the British, remember the explosion in the King David Hotel ? Also they hung British soldiers, something they are not very proud of.

There was a problem at the end of WWII, one heck of a lot of displaced Jews wanted to get to 'Palestine', the British tried to prevent them, the novel Exodus by Leon Uris gives a feel for what was going on.

Incidentally, a relative of mine was a British Officer who was killed out there. A load of Jews were working themselves up into a tantrum on one end of a bridge, he went over to talk to them, they stoned him. Not very civilized.

Before 1967, the West Bank was under Jordanian control, the Ghaza Strip was under Egyptian administration. It is interesting that neither state wants to regain their lost territory.

You are quite right that demographics is at the root of Israel's problems, they and the Palestinians have been conducting a breeding race. If the WB and G palestinians got Israeli citizenship then they would 'democratically' control the government.

It took Israel quite a long time to wake up to the fact that 'occupying' other people is not really acceptable nowadays, the trouble is that the WB and G are full of the less desirable 'Palestinians' - the smart ones have got out and are doing very well in the Middle East, USA etc.

You probably don't know, but it is common knowledge that the British Foreign Office, is and long has been, sympathetic to Arabs in general. Probably this dates back to recruitment of people who studied Arabic and Arab culture at Oxford and Cambridge.

You may be surprized, but I was told around 1975, by a very well informed USA guy, that the USA solution for the Middle East was to set up a triangle consisting of Egypt, Israel and Iran. Israel to supply the technology, Egypt the manpower and Iran the money.

Egypt did a deal with the USA, unfortunately Iran, which was developing nicely, suddenly reverted to a medieval state. Iranian students and the growing middle class started objecting to the Shah, like Russia in 1917, the Revolution was hijacked by ruthless hardliners who got the backing of peasants.

It is very likely that some of this is behind Iran's loathing of both the USA and Israel.

The big problem in the Middle East (certainly Saudi, Syria, Egypt and 'palestine') is that the population is seriously skewed towards young males who don't have much to keep them occupied. Young males are easily radicalized. The first three of the above have governments that are extremely nervous of their own populations.

We in the West tend to get fed a biased form of history, and I suspect that Middle Eastern history is equally inaccurate.

There is another point, one heck of a lot of Israelis are Middle Eastern Jews, they sort of 'belong' in the area. I'm not entirely sure, but I think that the large majority of Israelis were born there, and their parents were born there.

msmith537

08-08-2006, 07:07 AM

You know, you guys can argue and nitpick like a couple of school girls all day long, but I would be willing to bet that 90% of the problems in the Middle East would be resolved if people stopped fucking with Israel. It might be my biased Western media talking, but it seems like the Arabs are the ones constantly with the suicide bombers and rocket attacks and abducting soldiers on Israeli soil. Not the other way around.

monavis

08-08-2006, 07:31 AM

I'm glad you brought up the IRA, because it seems that the struggle in Ireland is analagous to the situation in Israel. Because Ireland is stable (as far as I've heard and know) that gives me optimism in this Palesraeli (my word, yes, you may borrow it) situation.

The Taliban is indeed not like the Lebanese army,but the Lebanese army should have been able to stop the Hezbollah from getting so much of an arms build up. They certianlyl must have been building up for years since it was not intended to be used in Lebanon then what did they need arms for? Now I believe with the help of Iran they purposely wanted to get an a war with Israel so the Iran government could come out looking like uninterested parties and take the world's attention away from their nuclear project. Iran has openly stated it wanted the end of Israel,so in supporting the Hezbollah they could keep their noses clean!

Monavis

Shodan

08-08-2006, 07:53 AM

Although adding anything to what xtisme, and especially FinnAgain, have to say about the current situation is rather like gilding the liy, nonetheless...
Everybody dies. Well, true enough. But I wonder how it would sound applied to Lebanese civilians.
I guess that's also why Hamas and Hizbollah exist. Because people wanted something to be done. Human nature is the same everywhere.
Actually, I believe Hamas' and Hizbollah's express reason for existence is to destroy Israel. Which is the "something" that many Arabs want to be done.
The arab animosity is not groundless as you make it sound. And once again, this is a false dichotomy. There is plenty of middleground between rolling over and invading a country.
I think the problem is that every time Israel tries to occupy that middle ground (by withdrawing from Gaza, negotiating land for peace, closing down the settlements, etc.) Hamas and Hizbollah respond with increased terrorism.

For example, Israel withdraws from Lebanon after 22 years. The response from Hizbollah is to dig tunnels under the border, and build up an inventory of rockets - in Lebanon - and use them to attack Israel.

In other words, whenever Israel tries to make peace, the terrorists respond by increasing their attacks. What choice does Israel have except to try to destroy the military infrastructure that the terrorists have built up, and reduce the attacks that way?

And as long as I have you here, perhaps you could answer a question. Why don't moderate Arabs blame Hizbollah and the other terrorists for trying to maximize civilian casualties among their own supporters? Doesn't that bother you?

If you hate Israel so much because they accidentally bombed a building with children in it*, why don't you at least mildly dislike Hizbollah for trying to prevent people from evacuating areas the IDF says it is going to attack?

Regards,
Shodan

*Has there been any reliable word on what was going on in that building, or why it collapsed hours after the attack?

Weirddave

08-08-2006, 10:40 AM

Tell me. How did the land you aforemention come to be in the possession of the british? Didn't they colonize it like they did India and Egypt among others? Did they own the land there too? Was it simply due to their immense generosity that they didn't give large chunks of land to the amish or the hippies to create their own states? Please answer these questions.

Xtisme has already posted text and links tracking that history back 5 centuries. How far back do you want to go?

Yeah! Darn those pesky arabs! What were they doing there in the first place? Sheesh. Always in the way I tell ya.Shit, man. You're right. Here is what I'm going to do. First, I'm gonna send my good friend Charles to kick your ass, then he's gonna make you his bitch for a few months. Then I'm gonna come to your house and take over a couple of rooms, and a bathroom, and the kitchen. But don'tcha worry! Before Charles leaves, He probably will make an XTian state for you to live in the apartment. Just be cool and everything's gonna be alright.

None of this has anything but the most tenuous relationship to the actual situation, at least not without you saying "X is like Y because", but I'll take a swing at the general principle involved here: If I am living in a house that you own, you have every right to notify me that I must leave (consistent with any lease in the case of home rental of course. Geopolitics don't quite work the same way, but it's an analogy, not an exact situation) if you desire. You can sell the house to someone else and then I'll be subject to their rules. You can tell me that you're renovating the house into a duplex and that I'll have to move into just one side of it as you intend to rent the other half. You can do all of those things and more, and from my POV I have very little recourse. If my response it to firebomb your house attack your family and start shooting at you in an attempt to claim the house for myself, then I am in the wrong.*

If you're in a car with my nemesis and i decide to unload an Ak47 on the car to kill him and end up killing you as well, did I deliberately target you?

Nope. But again, your analogy is flawed. You, Gozu the private citizen, have no right to attack someone you think of as your "nemesis" at all. However, let's try and adjust the scenario so it more mirrors reality. Lets suppose that you, Gozu, are not acting as a private citizen, but as the chief of police for Townsville. I am in a car (probably as a hostage. I'll count the people of Lebanon's inability to oust Hezbollah from their midst as them being held hostage to Hezbollah's actions for the purpose of this analogy.) with your nemesis, who just so happens to be randomly shooting citizens on the streets of your town as he drives around. If you use deadly force against your nemesis to protect the citizens of your town, and in the process I get killed, did I deserve to die? Absolutely not. That's not the question, however. The question is, was your use of deadly force justified, even though it resulted in my death? Absolutely.

There is plenty of middleground between rolling over and invading a country.

Perhaps you could suggest one course of action that the Israelis have not tried in the past 50 years that falls in this middle ground, and what you see the likely results as being if they tried it? You keep banging on this drum, but I don't see you offering any suggestions.

Increased security at the border maybe? I dunno, seems logical to me.

So, do you support Israel's attempt to build a wall to protect themselves VIA increased border security? If not, why not, and while you're at it, can you tell me how a wall will protect Israel from rockets that fly over it?

*FTR, I do not contend that the Israelis were completely innocent in '48. They did make mistakes, and there is blood on their hands as well, but this particular analogy is dealing with the reaction of the proto-Palestinians and other Arabs to the formation of Israel.

Finally, I have one issue with your "debate" style. You posted this as a quote from me: They were supposed to create Palestine too.And they probably would have done shortly thereafter except that the Arabs in the area completely wigged out at the outrageously provocative existence of Israel and attacked, putting paid to THAT idea.

When what I said was:
They were supposed to create Palestine too, which (warning: The following statement is conjecture on my part, because it never had a chance to happen) they probably would have done shortly thereafter except that the Arabs in the area completely wigged out at the outrageously provocative existence of Israel and attacked, putting paid to THAT idea.

You edited my quote by removing part of it to alter what I said. That's not cricket old bean, and I believe that it is also against the rules of this message board.

chowder

08-08-2006, 10:58 AM

gonzomax

08-08-2006, 11:11 AM

There was a program on Link tv with one of what they call refusniks. These are Israeli pilots who refuse to fly missions into Lebanon. Their claim is they are blowing up the infrastructure and killing manyi innocent civilians. They feel it is wrong and feel very guilty. Well programed and trained indi8viduals who can think for themselves and rejecy mainstream propaganda. There is hope.

Nietzsche

08-08-2006, 11:37 AM

:rolleyes:
A response to which actions, in specific, on what dates, in specific?
You don't mind if I answer that one, do you?
How about those over flights (with their accompanying sonic booms over populated areas) Israel promised to stop a long time ago (http://transcripts.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/06/29/israel.lebanon.flights/index.html) but never did?
Countless other "raids" and such by Israel into Lebanese territory have been taking place since Israel supposedly withdrew in 2000.

Triskadecamus

08-08-2006, 11:42 AM

Who were the Palestinians before there was an Israel? Where was Palestine before there was an Israel? Why was there no outcry against the Jordanians for their oppression of the sovereign rights of Palestine? Why didn't the Religion of Peace speak out against the cruel oppression of the Egyptians, the Syrians, and the Lebanese against the downtrodden people of Palestine? Where was the outrage of the Islamic World when the Ottomans were the ones deciding the fate of Palestine? Perhaps we should have given it back to the Germans, or the Romans, or the Mongols, or any of the other interests which have ruled Palestine. Have the Palestinians ever ruled Palestine? Saladin was a Kurd, perhaps we should give it to them. We have never given the Kurds anything but promises; why not let them fight with the Palestinians for a generation or so?

The United States would have served its own interests better if it had convinced the British to allow us to put the new Jewish Homeland in New Jersey in 1948. Think of the savings in transportation costs alone. The weapons shipment costs for defense against the Trenton Liberation Front, and the Newark Liberation Army would have been far less, and we could have sent the Pennsylvania National Guard in to monitor cease fires for pennies.

Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

How dumb do you have to be to forget this lesson in less than a generation? Dumb enough to be President, I guess.

Tris

msmith537

08-08-2006, 11:46 AM

Hurrah for some common sense at last.

Well pointed out sir, 10/10

Well the simplest answer usually is the best one. Problem is that no one ever likes it.

gonzomax

08-08-2006, 12:09 PM

FinnAgain

08-08-2006, 12:15 PM

How about those over flights (with their accompanying sonic booms over populated areas) Israel promised to stop a long time ago (http://transcripts.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/06/29/israel.lebanon.flights/index.html) but never did?

So Hezbollah attacked in 2006 because of something that happened in 2001?
Little delayed reaction, that? (We don't even need to get into the fact that lebanon was still at war with Israel and Syria was still funding and equipping Hezbollah.)

Again, Hezbollah attacked this time in reaction to which events, in specific, on which dates, in specific? No uncited and undated "raids" please. And nothing half a decade ago, please.

Because by your 'logic', Israel was justified in overflying Lebanon because Hezbollah had been attacking it five years earlier.

Countless other "raids" and such by Israel into Lebanese territory have been taking place since Israel supposedly withdrew in 2000.

Countless? Why don't you count... oh... five in 2006? Or: cite?
Especially for any 'raids' which would have given Hezbollah a pretext to launch a military attack just a few weeks ago?

Nietzsche

08-08-2006, 01:37 PM

So Hezbollah attacked in 2006 because of something that happened in 2001? Little delayed reaction, that?
Yeah, that must be it.
It's not like the article was pointing out that Israel promised to stop the over flights six years ago, but never did according to the UNifil observers reports:

The Secretary-General stated further that the air violations also remained a matter of significant concern. As long as Israel carries on with its policy of overflying Lebanon whenever it sees fit to do so, it risked provoking retaliatory acts from the Lebanese side.
cite (http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/3629251.html)(pdf)

No? Still too far back in history for you? Okay, how about the most recent report?

Persistent Israeli air incursions into Lebanese airspace also disrupted the fragile calm.
cite (http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/792428.6.html)(pdf)

Again, Hezbollah attacked this time in reaction to which events, in specific, on which dates, in specific? No uncited and undated "raids" please. And nothing half a decade ago, please.
You stated earlier in your post that the war between Israel and Lebanon was still technically going on (with Syria supplying arms). In a war, regardless of cold/warm/hot stages, events are not always directly linked. I'm not sure what your ridiculous demands for cites for "which specific events EXACTLY" is meant to be anything other than obfuscation or the "intellectual dishonesty" you keep accusing others of.

Nietzsche

08-08-2006, 01:50 PM

Sorry, links don't work.
Please try this (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/background.html). Links to reports can be found within the bodies of the paragraphs.

FinnAgain

08-08-2006, 03:20 PM

Yeah, that must be it.
It's not like the article was pointing out that Israel promised to stop the over flights six years ago, but never did according to the UNifil observers reports

No. They gave assurances that they would be suspended. Suspended does not mean stopped. But I guess accurately reporting on what your own cite says is too much for you.

Want to talk some more about intellectual dishonesty?

You stated earlier in your post that the war between Israel and Lebanon was still technically going on (with Syria supplying arms). In a war, regardless of cold/warm/hot stages, events are not always directly linked.

You are deliberately and wilfully ignoring what I was actually responding to.
A statement was made that Hezbollah captured Israeli troops in response to Israel actions. And in was made the context of talking about whether or not Hezbollah was justified in launching their attacks.

Please, continue to ignore the context, circumstances, background, and thrust of the questions before you wielded your hamfisted 'gotcha'.

You may now want to compalin that it's just ever so very horrible of me to expect that those actions which he was claiming Hezbollah responded to actually be identified. How very intellectually dishonest of me. :rolleyes:

Of course, Least original then failed to provide any actions that Hezbollah was responding to, and instead talked about something that happened to the Palestinians.

So yes, a claim was made that they were directly linked. And now you're deliberately ignoring that, with massive intellectual dishonesty I'd point out. But you already knew that. And you still have not suggested any specific instances within six months time of Hezbollah's attack that they could've been 'responding to'.

I'll also note that in your cherry picking of the PDF's you gave us, you 'forgot' to mention that it is was stated, in both of them, that Hezbollah was the one to break periods of calm and/or ceasfires. But I guess that 'responding to' a period of peace and a lack of violence by launching attacks for events happening months before is just par for the course in your rhetoric.

I'm not sure what your ridiculous demands for cites for "which specific events EXACTLY" is meant to be anything other than obfuscation or the "intellectual dishonesty" you keep accusing others of.

Ahhh, the "I know you are but what am I!" defense.
Hopefully followed up by the "I'm rubber you're glue!" defense.

And simply for the record, no, it wouldn't be me obfuscating or lacking intellectual honesty, I'd be you making stuff up as I never used the word exactly, let alone all in caps. I asked for substantiation of the claim that Hezbollah was responding to Israeli actions. I know that in your haste to manufacture some 'gotcha', you've ignored what the acutal question under discussion was.

And no, the fact that there's a declared state of war does not mean that the claim of Hezbollah's response to Israel actions can be handwaved away.

But if you can't argue with any degree of intellectual honesty, need to invent a discussion that didn't actually occur, misrepresent my actual claims for substantiation... well, go for it.

And I can't help but wonder if a report that ends in January provides events that Hezbollah was acting in "response to" in July. Is a response time of six months generally considered good where you're from?

So, just to sum up for those playing along:

-Least original claims that the current attacks by Hezbollah were in "response to" Israeli actons.
-When pressed on what those actions were, he talks about a totally different country/people and conveniently 'forgets' talking about Hezbollah or Lebanon.
-Nietzche then cites something from 2001, and claims that answers my question to Least original to provide proof of his claims of an event in July of 2006.
-I point out that it's half a decade old, and that the claim was that Hezbollah's current action was in "response to" Israeli actions.
-Nietzche then claims that in a war events are not 'directly linked', and even though the claim I was responding to was that Hezbollah acted in "response to" Israeli actions, that it was intellectually dishonest to ask what those actions that Hezbollah was 'responding to' were.

As should be obvious to anybody reading along, claiming that an event in January was 'responded to' in July is simply absurd, especially if it could have been 'responded to' at any point up till then. And that there had been relative peace along the border. It also ignores that fact that if you commit an unprovoked attack six months after something you claim is provocation, then you can't be said to be responding to anything, but intiating something.

Does anybody here seriously think that Nietzche is arguing with intellectual honesty? That if Israel had waited until january of 2007 to bomb Hezbollah, that he would be arguing that it was in "response to" events in July of this year? Or that he would be arguing, as Least original did, that the 'response' was justified?

Ah well.

08-08-2006, 03:21 PM

The Palestinians I guess were people living for generations in land someone else owned. Maybe because they had the power and said so, it belonged to the Brittish. Then the UN said it belonged to the Israelis. Living there for gemerations apparently entitled them to nothing.No land rights no human rights.

So, I basically wasted my time with those cites concerning the history of Palestine. Big surprise there that you didn't even bother reading them.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make someone fight their own ignorance. C'est la vie...

Sorry, links don't work.
Please try this. Links to reports can be found within the bodies of the paragraphs.

Reading this over now. Would have been nice if you could have quoted what you thought were the relevant paragraphs though. :p What I've noticed so far is that (according to UNIFIL), Israel had daily voilations of the blue line due to its overflights...which seem to have been mostly recon flights (with the odd attack on a Syrian radar array and such). Hezbollah's violations, however, seem to have been in the form of raids and rocket/artillary attacks on IDF positions in the SF region.

So, yes...it does look like Israel was violating the blue line fairly consistently (according to UNIFL 'daily') with overflights into Lebanon air space. Yes...thats not a good thing. But...don't you think that Hezbollah violating the blue line with actual direct attacks is a bit steep as pay back for this? Or, perhaps was DRIVING these Israeli violations? Seems reasonable to me.

I've only skimmed your paragraph though so far so I may be missing some stuff...I doubt I'll have much time today to really engage in this part of the discussion unfortunately. Work is not permitting.

-XT

Nietzsche

08-08-2006, 04:37 PM

No. They gave assurances that they would be suspended. Suspended does not mean stopped.
Nice! By suspended, they didn't mean stopped. They meant... what? They'd have to stay after school? They were forbidden to go to the beach with their friends? "Suspended" in this context (since you seem to be so all about the context) means stopped, at least for a while. But according to the UNifil folks, they never even reduced, let alone "suspended" or stopped.

But I guess accurately reporting on what your own cite says is too much for you.
Not at all. What's apparently too much is for you to pull your head out of your ass long enough to read something.

Want to talk some more about intellectual dishonesty?
Engaging with the likes of you, I'm sure I'll be presented with plenty of examples.

You are deliberately and wilfully ignoring what I was actually responding to.
A statement was made that Hezbollah captured Israeli troops in response to Israel actions. And in was made the context of talking about whether or not Hezbollah was justified in launching their attacks.
And my point was that there have been plenty of "justifications". You just don't like them because they make your pathetic attempts at making a point (that the Hezbollah's July attacks were unjustified) look like the steaming pile of piping hot bullshit that they are. You may not like the fact that in wars, not all actions stem directly and conveniently from some other very recent event. There have been cross-border skirmishes and attacks from Israel and Hezbollah since 2000. You want to pretend that none of those matter and that this single event in July is absolute proof that Hezbollah is at fault for everything that's happened since, then so be it.
Good luck to you Finn.

But...don't you think that Hezbollah violating the blue line with actual direct attacks is a bit steep as pay back for this?
I don't know if you've ever experienced a sonic boom, particularly one at low altitude. The shockwave produced is over 200 decibels. That qualifies as a percussion bomb. So no, I don't think firing rockets in retaliation that did no serious damage, caused no loss of life is any worse than daily over flights with their accompanying sonic booms.

I've only skimmed your paragraph though so far so I may be missing some stuff...
It's got a lot more details, but I think you've already hit on the gist of what I was trying to point out; that there have been skirmishes at the border since 2000 by both sides and that Hezbollah's July attacks were no worse than what had been happening for the past 6 years. The only thing disproportionate was Olmert's premature ejaculation in response this time.

Gozu

08-08-2006, 04:45 PM

Finally, I have one issue with your "debate" style. You posted this as a quote from me:

When what I said was:

You edited my quote by removing part of it to alter what I said. That's not cricket old bean, and I believe that it is also against the rules of this message board.

I cleaned up your mistake. You were being redundant when you said it was a conjecture. Of COURSE it's a conjecture. Unless you can travel to parallel universes, I GET that it's conjecture.

In a nutshell:

Right: They probably would have done this if that had happened.
Wrong: This is just conjecture because this never happened but they probably could have done this if that had happened.

Nothing to do with my debating style. I haven't used any Ad-hominem attacks and have been reasonably polite I hope.

In any case. I must now withdraw from this debate. It is, indeed, taking way too much of my time to answer the handful of people arguing with me.

FinnAgain

08-08-2006, 05:37 PM

Nice! By suspended, they didn't mean stopped. They meant... what?

S-u-s-p-e-n-d-e-d.
2 a : to cause to stop temporarily <suspend bus service> b : to set aside or make temporarily inoperative <suspend the rules> (http://merriamwebster.com/dictionary/suspend)

Do I now need to define the word "temporarily" too?
Because, Israel never said that they'd be stopped indefinitely, but suspended. (the definition of which you now know. Fighting ignorance is neat) They were suspended. Then Hezbollah broke a ceasefire in October of 2000.

It's all there in the cite you provided.
You could, ya know, try reading it.
Just a thought.

"Suspended" in this context (since you seem to be so all about the context) means stopped, at least for a while. But according to the UNifil folks, they never even reduced, let alone "suspended" or stopped.

:rolleyes:
Are you really going to make stuff up when all I have to do is quote the actual report to show you're doing so? Okay...
Do you also require me to cite other periods that the UN report discusses where the overflights were indeed reduced?

Or would you like to continue making stuff up?

On 24 July, further to his report of 20 July, the Secretary-General informed the Security Council that the Israeli authorities had removed all violations of the line of withdrawal.
From the end of July until early October 2000, the situation in the UNIFIL area of operations was generally calm, except for numerous minor violations of the line of withdrawal, the so-called Blue Line.

The UN report then says those minor violations were: (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N00/712/72/IMG/N0071272.pdf?OpenElement) attritubed mainly to military positions or fences that were built, and then corrected once the UN made mistakes known. Funny... nothing about overflights. They go on to say "Except for hizbollah's attack on October 7th, the area was relatively calm."

Funny... nothing about overflights. At all.
Could it be you were just making things up?
Why yes... yes it could.

For those reading along, look at item 5, where it clearly says that Hezbollah had violated the ceasefire.
For those reading along, note the end of item 5 where they clearly say
"Following this incident, the Israeli air force resumed flights over Lebanese territory..."

Now, I ask you, can something which was never suspended... be resumed?
Or is nietzche lying?

Not at all. What's apparently too much is for you to pull your head out of your ass long enough to read something.

So the fact that you evidently didn't understand what "suspend" means, or that the UN confirmed that there were no Israeli violations of the line of withrdrawal means... that you can treat GD as if it was the Pit?

And my point was that there have been plenty of "justifications".

None of which you can cite within six months. But you want to complain about imaginary instances of intellectual dishonesty consisting of, among other things, actually reading the articles that you present but can't be bothered to read.

You just don't like them because they make your pathetic attempts at making a point (that the Hezbollah's July attacks were unjustified) look like the steaming pile of piping hot bullshit that they are.

Excellent factual refutation. The fact that there was a period of relative peace that Hezbollah shattered with an attack, which, by the way, your own cite that you presented, but did not read, confirms, is proof that Hezbollah was justified in responding. Kaaaaaaaay. :rolleyes:

New hostilities on the Israeli-Lebanese border started on 12 July 2006 when Hizbollah launched several rockets from Lebanese territory across the Blue Line towards IDF positions near the coast and in the area of the Israeli town of Zarit. In parallel, Hizbollah fighters crossed the Blue Line into Israel, attacked an Israeli patrol and captured two Israeli soldiers, killed three others and wounded two more.

Likewise, the most recent report, which you seem unable to find, let alone read or cite:

2. The situation in the UNIFIL area of operation remained tense and volatile, although it was generally quiet during most oi‘the reporting period. This situation completely changed on 12 July, when the current hostilities broke out and the area was plunged into the most serious conflict in decades.
3. The crisis started when, around 9 a.m. local time, Hizbollah launched several
rockets froin Lebanese territory across the withdrawal line (the so-called Blue Line) towards Israel Defense Forces (IDF) positions near the coast and in the area of the Israeli town of Zarit. In parailel, Hizbollah fighters crossed the Slue Line into Israel and attacked an IDF patrol.
[...]
19. In a serious breach of the ceasefire in the early morning of 28 May,
unidentified armed elements launched at lcast eight rockets fiom the general area of Aynata across the Blue Line into Israel. Three rockets impacted inside an IDF position on Mount Meron, in Upper Galilee, some 8 kilometres south of the Line, causing material damage and lightly wounding one soldier. Hizbollah denied any involvement in the attack. Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Lebanon initially claimed
responsibility in retaliation for the killing of a leading member in Lebanon and his
brother on 26 May in a car bomb explosion in Saida. The claim was retracted later
that day. ( http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/437/22/IMG/N0643722.pdf?OpenElement)

You may not like the fact that in wars, not all actions stem directly and conveniently from some other very recent event.

And you may not like the fact that you're deliberately ignoring that even your own cite says that the ceasefire was broken by Hezbollah in May. Your own cite says that it was Hezbollah who launched attacks and broke ceasefires and periods of peace, but you want to pretend that they support your claim that an attack during peace is in "response to" something else?

Wow.

There have been cross-border skirmishes and attacks from Israel and Hezbollah since 2000. You want to pretend that none of those matter and that this single event in July is absolute proof that Hezbollah is at fault for everything that's happened since, then so be it.

No, that'd be you creating a strawman and pretending that it's me. Or can you cite anywhere, at all, where I said that Hezbollah is responsible for "everything that's happened since." You can't, can you? I never said that, did I? You're lying, aren't you?

Your own cite stated that Hezbollah violated the ceasefire and initiated the current conflict.
Do you normally cite things which say you're wrong? And then pretend that you're in the Pit when they call you on it?

It's got a lot more details, but I think you've already hit on the gist of what I was trying to point out; that there have been skirmishes at the border since 2000 by both sides and that Hezbollah's July attacks were no worse than what had been happening for the past 6 years.

Except that your own cite says... do we really need to do this dance again? Please continue to ignore what your own cites says.

tomndebb

08-08-2006, 05:52 PM

What's apparently too much is for you to pull your head out of your ass long enough to read something.If you feel a need to hurl personal insults, take it to the Pit.

Do not do this again in this Forum.

[ /Moderating ]

08-08-2006, 05:52 PM

I don't know if you've ever experienced a sonic boom, particularly one at low altitude. The shockwave produced is over 200 decibels. That qualifies as a percussion bomb. So no, I don't think firing rockets in retaliation that did no serious damage, caused no loss of life is any worse than daily over flights with their accompanying sonic booms.

Why yes, in fact I have. Maybe I'm missing something here. Your cite seems to indicate that those air violations were mostly in response to Hezbollah attacks and raids across the border.

I'm not sure why you feel that because those attacks did little or no damage (I see nothing that indicates this was always the case btw), that this somehow makes it ok...or that it takes away any justification for Israel to do overflights (and even low level supersonic runs) into Lebanon in retaliation. Or that, having violated the ceasefire and provoking those overflights, that Hezbollah is then justified in firing more rockets or in more cross border raids...because their attacks are ineffective. I'm really struggling to grasp the logic here. It SEEMS to all be there in your own cite.

It's got a lot more details, but I think you've already hit on the gist of what I was trying to point out; that there have been skirmishes at the border since 2000 by both sides and that Hezbollah's July attacks were no worse than what had been happening for the past 6 years. The only thing disproportionate was Olmert's premature ejaculation in response this time.

Thats true I suppose. Again though, I'm failing to understand why Hezbollah's repeated violations of the ceasefire, their rocket attacks and cross border raids, are ok...are considered the status quo. And that Israel, getting sick of 6 years (6 YEARS!) of this bullshit is some how 'disproportionate' of a response. True, these attacks were no worse than the others. Hezbollah fired more rockets at the northern towns in Israel, using them to cover a cross border raid that killed 2 or 3 IDF soldiers (I forget...working from memory here) while taking captive 2 more. All this provoked by...well, gods know what this time.

No, this was no worse than their other raids...but the fact that these raids have been going on for 6 years now with no end in sight sort of speaks clearly to at least the supposition that perhaps, just perhaps mind you, that this wasn't exactly a 'disproportionate' response...nor was it exactly 'premature ejaculation'.

-XT

FinnAgain

08-09-2006, 03:07 AM

[the] cite says that the ceasefire was broken by Hezbollah in May.

Just to clarify, the cite given does not specifically blame Hezbollah for the initial strikes, but 'unknown' Lebanese terrorists. They also talk about 'unknown' terrorists firing on Israeli positions. However, they state that this in the context of discussing how Hezbollah controls southern Lebanon:

Control of the Blue Line and its vicinity appears to have remained for the most part with Hizbollah. During the reporting period, Hizbollah maintained and reinforced a visible presence in the area, with permanent observation posts, temporary checkpoints and patrols. It continued to carry out intensive construction works to strengthen and expand some of its fixed positions, install additional technical equipment, such as cameras, establish new positions close to the Blue Line and build new access roads.

The UN report says that the followup attacks came from in/around the village of Hula, which, the UN cite states, has had a strong Hezbollah presence. Hezbollah denied that they were responsible for the attacks coming from their territory, and the UN was (evidently) unable to confirm or deny that. But the UN's lack of definite knowledge is not surprising, as Hezbollah was attempting to control UN access to their territory:

UNIFIL encountered an increase of temporary denials of access by Hizbollah in different areas along the Blue Line. On one occasion Hizbollah searched a UNIFIL vehicle and temporarily confiscated United Nations equipment. In general, the Force was able to regain and assert its freedom of movement within a short period of time and, in some instances, with the assistance of the Lebanese authorities.

Other sources, like the the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/29/world/middleeast/29mideast.html?ex=1306555200&en=e5695e6f28950990&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), however, reported that after Israel retaliated against the group they believed to be responsible for the rocket attacks, mortars and rockets were launched at Israel and that the IDF found Hezbollah to blame for those attacks.

I find several things likely: that the group that launched the first rocket strikes did not intend to launch a full offensive. I base this on the fact that no group took responsibility or stated that they would launch further attacks. For all practical purposes, after Israel responded to those attacks, the conditions of the cease fire were back in effect. Israel did not continue its offensive, and conducted rather limited strikes in retaliation for the rocket attacks. But then, of course, forces from Hezbollah controlled areas joined in and launched attacks. In my view, this makes Hezbollah equally guilty of breaking the ceasefire as whatever group it was that launched the original rocket attacks, especially as Hezbollay simply joined in the fun without having been attacked themselves. But I'd wager that reasonable people can differ on that point.

So I suppose that one not only had to read the cite but also other news reports to know that the most likely situation was that certain militia groups attacked Israel, and then after Irael responded and ceased attacking militant targets held responsible for the rocket attacks, Hezbollah took the opportunity to attack. I would certainly view that as Hezbollah violating their part in the ceasefire, but I'd wager that reasonable people can disagree on that point.

Just wanted to make that clear and make explicit my conclusions and the logic behind them. .

(yeesh, that's a lot of ink spilled)

monavis

08-09-2006, 06:52 AM

To add to this debate;There is a picture in this morning's Chicago Tribune of a picture doctored to make it look like the Israeli strike was worse than it was.

All wars have their propaganda,but the press that favors Hezbollah and it's ilk can try to sway public opinion. The Lebanese were warned in many ways to get out of certian areas as Isreal intended to bomb there. Some say the People were too poor to leave and some say Hezbollah made them stay as shields so they could use them for propaganda.

Terrorists do not care who gets hurt or killed, they just want things their way,even if it means giving a little bread to a poor man to gain support. There is no question that Hezbollah wants the end of Isreal and will do all in it's power to see that it happens. Iran 's leader has openly stated such, and is giving Hezbollah support. Israel is trying to stop the way the arms come to Hezbollah and have warned people to leave the area, some refused to do so.

Israel is fighting to exist,Hezbollah just wants to kill all Jews, it is no different than the Nazis.

Monavis

Rune

08-09-2006, 07:08 AM

To wit:

Hezbollah: The Zionist entity’s weakness is ‘their strong adherence to this world’…our strength is the willingness to sacrifice our blood and children.Hezbollah: If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli.And this is why we should trust a negotiated settlement with Hezbollah, which is crying foul and for an immediate ceasefire:
Hezbollah: Even if [an agreement] is signed we will continue to view [Israel] as an illegitimate and illegal entityHezbollah: I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called "Israel." I consider its presence both unjust and unlawful.

Monty

08-09-2006, 10:09 AM

I think you mean "...should not trust..."

Weirddave

08-09-2006, 11:17 AM

I cleaned up your mistake. You were being redundant when you said it was a conjecture. Of COURSE it's a conjecture. Unless you can travel to parallel universes, I GET that it's conjecture.

You don't get off that easy. Yes, it was conjecture, and I made very, very sure to state that I was treating it as conjecture, but you removed that caviat to make your own point, Bad form.

Nothing to do with my debating style. I haven't used any Ad-hominem attacks and have been reasonably polite I hope.

Yea, you have been polite. But legions of posters have amply demonstrated thet you are full of shit.

In any case. I must now withdraw from this debate. It is, indeed, taking way too much of my time to answer the handful of people arguing with me.

If you must withdraw, go ahead. But before you do, I would appreciate it if you would answer the questions that I asked. Can you do that? I'll limit my responce to one burning question:

Perhaps you could suggest one course of action that the Israelis have not tried in the past 50 years that falls in this middle ground, and what you see the likely results as being if they tried it? You keep banging on this drum, but I don't see you offering any suggestions.

Riddle me that, Batman, and I'll be satisfied. Oh, and if you want to be honest, you'll answer my other questions too. You're a self proclaimed moderate arab, prove it. What is your response to this?
do you support Israel's attempt to build a wall to protect themselves VIA increased border security? If not, why not, and while you're at it, can you tell me how a wall will protect Israel from rockets that fly over it?

Running away makes your position weak. Shore it up, this is your chance.

gonzomax

08-09-2006, 11:47 AM

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/40033/ The truth is in the middle.

08-09-2006, 01:02 PM

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/40033/ The truth is in the middle.

Just for future reference...as a rule of thumb I've found that web sites that have pictures of GW bhuk nakid (*shudder* Isn't THAT something stomach churning first thing in the morning?? Yikes! :eek: ) and wearing a crown on their front page to, perhaps, not be the most unbiased sources of information available. YMMV.

:p

-XT

Weirddave

08-09-2006, 01:06 PM

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/40033/ The truth is in the middle.
What a load of leftest crap. You really need to learn the definition of the "middle", friend.

tomndebb

08-09-2006, 03:16 PM

Yea, you have been polite. But legions of posters have amply demonstrated thet you are full of shit.And you are out of line.

Do not launch personal attacks against other posters in GD--take it to the Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

silenus

08-09-2006, 06:01 PM

News agencies are now reporting that Iranian fighters have been found among the Hezbollah dead. Of course, it is the Israelis that are reporting this, and there is no outside proof yet, but if it is correst? Layers upon layers, but so much for a UN-brokered cease-fire if true.

Larry Borgia

08-09-2006, 06:40 PM

Just for future reference...as a rule of thumb I've found that web sites that have pictures of GW bhuk nakid (*shudder* Isn't THAT something stomach churning first thing in the morning?? Yikes! :eek: ) and wearing a crown on their front page to, perhaps, not be the most unbiased sources of information available. YMMV.

:p

-XTJust FTR, Scott Ritter, author of the linked article, is a former marine who served as Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq 1991-98. He was one of the few people who correctly predicted that we would find no WMDs in Iraq. You can certainly disagree with him, but his arguments deserve attention, and shouldn't be dismissed as if he were some ill-informed blogger.

08-09-2006, 06:45 PM

Pick out what you think is relevant to the OP then and lets discuss it. I'll be honest...considering the posting history of gonzomax/Least Original User Name Ever (whichever one is which...they seem interchangable), I took one look at the obviously biased web site and dismissed it as yet another drive by cite of dubious worth. Not worthy of my time to hash through (I did so early on with his drive by's, much to my embarrassment).

So....if you think his cite is relevant to the discussion, pick out the parts you want to discuss and post em in here.

-XT

Larry Borgia

08-09-2006, 07:36 PM

Most of Ritter's points have already been made in these and other threads about this issue. I was only making a drive-by posting because I admire Ritter, and I think he's a guy who shouldn't be dismissed.

Weirddave

08-09-2006, 08:22 PM

And you are out of line.

Do not launch personal attacks against other posters in GD--take it to the Pit.

[ /Moderating ]
There wasn't anything personal about it Tom. He's been posting nonsense. I didn't say he was a shit, I said he was full of shit. There is a big difference. He's been posting that shit throughout this thread. I thought we were allowed to dismiss what a person posts here, but not the person themself. Have you changed the rules again?

tomndebb

08-09-2006, 09:06 PM

I didn't say he was a shit, I said he was full of shit. There is a big difference. He's been posting that shit throughout this thread. I thought we were allowed to dismiss what a person posts here, but not the person themself. Have you changed the rules again?The expression "you are full of shit" is a direct personal insult. If you wanted to claim that the arguments were worthless, you could have said that his argument/position/logic/whatever was full of shit. It would have been one more pointless, inflammatory comment, but it would have been within bounds for this Forum.

Since I have not changed any rules in the past, it is unlikely that I would begin changing rules now. Implying that I have changed rules, either on past occasions or on this one, may help you rationalize getting caught breaking a rule, but it does not change the event.

Gozu

08-10-2006, 11:43 PM

You don't get off that easy. Yes, it was conjecture, and I made very, very sure to state that I was treating it as conjecture, but you removed that caviat to make your own point, Bad form.

I believe we are at an impasse. My answer to your answer would be the exact same answer I gave you before. I shall leave it for each reader to decide who's right about this.

Yea, you have been polite. But legions of posters have amply demonstrated thet you are full of shit.

Once again, I shall leave that to the readers. I did mean it when I said I was done debating.

If you must withdraw, go ahead. But before you do, I would appreciate it if you would answer the questions that I asked. Can you do that? I'll limit my responce to one burning question:

What's the point? You'd have to answer my answers and It'll be like I didn't withdraw. But hey, I'll humor you anyways if it's just a couple of last questions.

1- I think about the only thing I'm sure of is that Israelis should never have allowed all those religious zealots to start their illegal settlements in Gaza and the west bank. They should have done everything possible to weaken Hamas and Hezbollah. I'm not sure their helicopter raids, bulldozings, tanks invasions and missiles have been very successful. I could be wrong of course. Maybe they were successful. Maybe this is the very best outcome for Israel. Who knows.

That said, an Israeli man of moroccan origin once told my father that the conflict had been somewhat beneficial to Israel in the early years because people unite against external threats. Israelis, he said, were from vastly different countries and backgrounds and each clique (french jews, russian jews, american jews, etc.) tended to keep to itself. I'm not sure if the guy knew what he was talking about but it wouldn't be all that surprising to me if the policy makers knew and used this on some level (IE: mandatory military service. I could boost patriotism and create bonds between citizens of different backgrounds I suppose). I seem to remember european kings sometimes declared wars to distract the populace from something or other. So maybe this is the light version?

Riddle me that, Batman, and I'll be satisfied. Oh, and if you want to be honest, you'll answer my other questions too. You're a self proclaimed moderate arab, prove it. What is your response to this?

2- I don't like the idea of a wall. Whether it be between Israel and Palestine, in the middle of germany or between the U.S and mexico. We should be creating bridges, not barriers. Besides, tunnels can be dug under walls so what's the point...

Running away makes your position weak. Shore it up, this is your chance.

Read the title of the thread. This is not called " You're all wrong and I'll show you why!". I've given my point of view. Some people have read it. Maybe a few thought it was a positive contribution to this board. That's all I set out to do. I already knew I knew I wasn't going to change anybody's mind about all this of course.

aaaand it took me 90 minutes to write this answer...you tricked me. Never again!

FRDE

08-11-2006, 07:53 AM

Well Gozu, the Israelis did not exactly want to build the wall, although I've been saying that they should for years.

Walls historically have been more symbolic than a real defensive barrier, well mainly I'm thinking of China and Hadrian's Wall.

An Israeli once described the settlements as 'pepper', they were a provocation, but I'm not sure that the people living there were religious nutters, more they appreciated cheap accomodation - land and housing is rather expensive in Israel, especially for new immigrants.

I suppose your Moroccan Jewish guy had a sort of point, racially the Israelis are incredibly diverse, you will find black guys, Indians, the whole lot, it is kind of handy having 'race' passed through the mother.

You'll also be a bit surprized by the 'Arabs', having servicemen over there during and prior to WWII had some interesting effects.

It would be interesting to do some mass DNA analysis.

Alessan

08-11-2006, 08:19 AM

That said, an Israeli man of moroccan origin once told my father that the conflict had been somewhat beneficial to Israel in the early years because people unite against external threats. Israelis, he said, were from vastly different countries and backgrounds and each clique (french jews, russian jews, american jews, etc.) tended to keep to itself. I'm not sure if the guy knew what he was talking about but it wouldn't be all that surprising to me if the policy makers knew and used this on some level (IE: mandatory military service. I could boost patriotism and create bonds between citizens of different backgrounds I suppose). I seem to remember european kings sometimes declared wars to distract the populace from something or other. So maybe this is the light version?

Certainly, the universal draft is a great social unifier - that's something we're actually quite proud of. And yes, outside enemies can bring a country closer together than it would be otherwise. But to say that an Israeli government would start a war in order to create solidarity and benefit from it shows a distinct lack of understanding of our political culture. Believe me, if the Israeli voters start to believe that the government is needlessly throwing away Israeli lives, you bet your ass it will unite - against the Israeli govenment. That's a little quirk of living in a parliamentary democracy with a notoriously argumentative press.

2- I don't like the idea of a wall. Whether it be between Israel and Palestine, in the middle of germany or between the U.S and mexico. We should be creating bridges, not barriers.
The thing about bridges is, that they're usually built over rivers. Rivers are excelent barriers. If there was a river betwen Israel and its enemies we wouldn't have to build walls - we'd build bridges.

Well, drawbridges.

Gozu

08-11-2006, 09:01 AM

Certainly, the universal draft is a great social unifier - that's something we're actually quite proud of. And yes, outside enemies can bring a country closer together than it would be otherwise. But to say that an Israeli government would start a war in order to create solidarity and benefit from it shows a distinct lack of understanding of our political culture. Believe me, if the Israeli voters start to believe that the government is needlessly throwing away Israeli lives, you bet your ass it will unite - against the Israeli govenment. That's a little quirk of living in a parliamentary democracy with a notoriously argumentative press.

We are in agreement.

The thing about bridges is, that they're usually built over rivers. Rivers are excelent barriers. If there was a river betwen Israel and its enemies we wouldn't have to build walls - we'd build bridges.

Well, drawbridges.

Lol.

gonzomax

08-12-2006, 09:51 AM

How about when we want a war ( and we do) we have a vote. Then the army is composed of people that voted for it only. Committed soldiers no horrible peaceniks.
All roads and bridges are dual purpose.. They were built to link one place to another. Not to make a road for arms. Someones strategic target is someone elses avenue to church, school ,work and hospitals. And relatives they move back and forth too.

Shodan

08-12-2006, 11:32 AM

How about when we want a war ( and we do) we have a vote.I am not sure what you mean here. Is it that the people of Lebanon wanted a war with Israel, and that's why they voted for Hizbollah? Or that the government of Lebanon wanted a war with Israel, and that is why they assisted Hizbollah in obtaining weapons?

Or are you saying that Hizbollah should have asked the people of Israel if they wanted a war before they invaded Israel?

If it is the last, I would agree.
Then the army is composed of people that voted for it only. Committed soldiers no horrible peaceniks. And no forcing the people of Lebanon to stay in a place so that Hizbollah can use them for propaganda purposes when they get killed. And no firing rockets at Israeli civilians, either.
All roads and bridges are dual purpose.. They were built to link one place to another. Not to make a road for arms.Sorry, but by definition a dual-purpose road can be used to move arms. And if Hizbollah uses them to move arms, then they become a legitimate military target.
Someones strategic target is someone elses avenue to church, school ,work and hospitals. And relatives they move back and forth too.
And the more Hizbollah and the other terrorists hide behind the people of Lebanon, the more the line between strategic target and civilian becomes blurred.

I asked this before, but I don't seem to remember a response. Hizbollah is trying as hard as they can to make sure that as many Lebanese civilians get killed as possible. Israel is not deliberately targetting civilians; Hizbollah is.

Hizbollah, in other words, is hiding behind the people of Lebanon. They would rather the innocent die than die themselves, because they value good propaganda more than the lives of the Lebanese. Does this bother you?

Why, or why not?

Regards,
Shodan

gonzomax

08-12-2006, 08:22 PM

When I posted the Ritter comments ,I knew they would be totally rejected. There is no otjher side to you. Are cluster bombs designed to distinguish affiliation. Saying over and over that Israel is not targeting Lebonese is silly. Words not deeds. 5 weeks of bombing. Lots of innocent Lebonese are being damaged. Homes houses ,infrastructure. It wont go away with a cease fire. In my opinion there a lot of potentiall hatreds being formed. When it ends and people finally come out and survey the wreckage, they might not say oh well they didnt mean to harm me. \ ps note i said i<n my opinion, it is now your turn to give me the facts.

gonzomax

08-12-2006, 08:31 PM

Sorry Shodan I dont understand. Hezbollah is wanting lebaoes killed. Israel is killing them. It is Heabollah fault.
The people of Lebonon did not vote for Hezbollah. A small amount of people in local areas did. My understanding is that they have a small presence and are mostly tolerated.
I picture Hezbollah like a small political party. Legitimate targets, assuming such things exist, would be the Hall thet hang in .Their centers . But I see them indistinguishable from the other people.I think you attach too much power to them.

gonzomax

08-12-2006, 08:36 PM

Shodan when I see some arguements offerered ,I think what if. Then stretch to logical absurdity. I know we will never vote on wars. It might end them. There is way toouch money in them.

FRDE

08-13-2006, 04:24 AM

Only about 25% of Lebanese are Shi'ite
- it is unlikely that the other 75% voted for Hezbollah

Last night I heard confirmation of something I have suspected for some time, Israel is dropping leaflets in North Lebanon pointing out that Hezbollah are entirely responsible for any disruptions.

In some ways it is a bit of a nuisance that the UN has got its act together, if Israel does not appear to go in for the 'ceasefire' then they'll look bad. And unlike Hezbollah they care a lot about appearances.

It looks as if they have the retreat covered, if Hezbollah were sensible they would wait for UN troops to arrive, that or try to sneak over the Syrian border.
Israel's best bet would be to get hold of a few Katyushas and lob them at Israel, at about 11am on Monday - but maybe Hezbollah will do that for them.

It looks to me as if Israel has done rather a neat job, there are 800,000 refugees being a litter problem in N. Lebanon, so attrition is around 1%, provided Hezbollah are not allowed to regroup in N Lebanon, they will have achieved what they wanted without looking too bad - even if Hezbollah go along with the 'ceasefire'.

One interesting point, I should imagine that communications are a bit tricky in S. Lebanon, mobile phones are great for homing devices, and transmitters will have been an early target. Tonight Israel will probably have to drop leaflets in Arabic explaining the ceasefire and that there is no way any male between 14 and 60 is going to get into N Lebanon.

I think I would put a map on the back, describing the route to Damascus.

The comical thing is that the Lebanese 'government' has agreed to the 'ceasefire', yet the Lebanese 'government' certainly does not represent Hezbollah
- I wonder whether they appreciate the irony

Shodan

08-13-2006, 12:30 PM

Sorry Shodan I dont understand. Hezbollah is wanting lebaoes killed. Israel is killing them. It is Heabollah fault. Well, yes, pretty much. Hizbollah is eager to use Lebanese civilian deaths as propaganda.

Israel is not trying to kill civilians, for the most part. Hizbollah is trying to force them to do so, by hiding among them and using them as shields. Do you believe this is a bad thing? Do you blame them for it, therefore?
The people of Lebonon did not vote for Hezbollah. A small amount of people in local areas did. My understanding is that they have a small presence and are mostly tolerated. And Israel, in its turn, did not vote for them at all. Yet Hizbollah attacked them.

It has to do with your point that only those that want to be in a war, should be in a war. Israel did not want to be in a war, therefore they did things like withdraw from Gaza and Lebanon, negotiate land for peace, and so forth. Yet Hizbollah attacked them. And Hizbollah wants to force war even on those Lebanese who did not vote for Hizbollah.
I picture Hezbollah like a small political party. Legitimate targets, assuming such things exist, would be the Hall thet hang in .Their centers . But I see them indistinguishable from the other people.I think you attach too much power to them.
The power I am attaching to them is the power to blur or remove the distinction between legitimate targets and civilian ones. Hizbollah is doing everything in its power to get Lebanese civilians killed, even to the point of preventing them from evacuating areas that the IDF has warned that they are going to attack.

So the IDF, with their warnings, does what it can to keep its target legitimate. Hizbollah, by hiding among civilians, firing off rockets from civilian areas, preventing civilians from evacuating, etc., does what it can to raise the casualty rates among civilians as high as possible. For PR.

One side is doing what it can to reduce civilian casualties (as much as can be expected in such a war). The other is trying to maximize them. Which side do you condemn the most?

Regards,
Shodan

Rune

08-13-2006, 12:42 PM

The people of Lebonon did not vote for Hezbollah. A small amount of people in local areas did. My understanding is that they have a small presence and are mostly tolerated.Hezbollah and a few like-minded parties got 80% of the votes of south Lebanon in the last election.

gonzomax

08-13-2006, 01:49 PM

Did you say South Lebanon. Now you have to define north and south. When it ends Hezbollah will likely start to help the people recover from the bombing. They will rebuild and offer food and jobs. The chastised Lebonese will of course refuse ,They will say you forced Israel to bomb us even though they did not want to. It is all your fault.
They will then turn on Hezbollah and kill them all. They will then ,having seen the light, back any and all proposal offered by the peaceful Israelies. Yes this is a great victory.
As they rebuild schools and roads they will ask Israel if they are connected to other countries would they be allowed. Should rivers be damned because munitions can be shipped on them. perhaps a wall around the country would suffice. And Israelies can set up check points to make sure.

The Flying Dutchman

08-13-2006, 04:47 PM

The Flying Dutchman

08-13-2006, 04:53 PM

gonzomax

08-13-2006, 05:02 PM

President of Lebonon on 60 min tonite.

gonzomax

08-13-2006, 08:33 PM

Pres of Iran oops.

Shodan

08-14-2006, 07:15 AM

FRDE

08-14-2006, 09:41 AM

@Gonzomax
It looks as if you have been tippling, no criticism, alcohol is useful for shuffling the mental pack of cards.

Hezbollah is a minority in Lebanon, they live in specific areas and they get their money from peculiar sources - well probably just one source - and Iran is very peculiar.

It looks as if the Hezbollah non-combatents are streaming back, which rather surprizes me as they don't have much to go back to. I guess they are just 'following orders'.

The Israelis are probably very annoyed (one of my friends rang me last night, his views are probably less extreme than most), they feel humiliated because their hands were tied, but I have a nasty feeling that just one Katyusha will make them forget about 'World opinion'.

I would not be at all surprized if Israel announced a pattern of retalliation, carpet bomb 1km squared around any sign of aggressive activity.

What now worries Israel is that they have been made to look vulnerable, but only because they have (reluctantly) stuck to standards of decency.

Alessan

08-14-2006, 11:32 AM

I don't suppose there is any chance you could respond to other posters' positions seriously. Because this kind of crap is just silly.

"Moderate Arab" point of view, eh? Feh.

Regards,
Shodan

The OP, Gozu, is the moderate Arab in question. gonzomax is ethnically and dispositionally undefined.

Shodan

08-14-2006, 12:08 PM

Sorry, I can't keep the various goz* Dopers straight.

Regards,
Shodan

08-14-2006, 12:13 PM

The OP, Gozu, is the moderate Arab in question. gonzomax is ethnically and dispositionally undefined.

Not that Gozu was a raving lunitic or anything, but if s/he represents the views and viewpoint of the 'moderate Arab' faction all I can say is...gods help you guys Alessan.

But...at least gonzomax is probably not one of those supposed 'moderate Arab' voices of reason. Then you would REALLY be up shit creek without means of propulsion...

-XT

RedFury

08-14-2006, 12:37 PM

From an Israeli himself. I wonder, does this make him a "self-hating Jew" in the view of the rabid Zionists in this thread?

To failure's credit (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/749680.html)

The bad (and predictable) news: Israel is going to come out of this war with the lower hand. The good (and surprising) news: This ringing failure could spell good tidings. If Israel had won the battles in an easy, sweeping victory of the kind Israelis prayed so much for, it would have caused enormous damage to Israel's security policies. Another slam-bam win would have brought disaster upon us. Drugged with power, drunk with victory, we would have been tempted to implement our success in other arenas. Dangerous fire would have threatened the entire region and nobody knows what might have resulted.

On the other hand, the failure in this little war might teach us an important lesson for the future, and maybe influence us to change our ways and language, the language we speak to our neighbors with violence and force. The axiom that "Israel cannot allow itself a defeat on the battlefield" has already been exposed as a nonsensical cliche: Failure might not only help Israel greatly but, as a bonus, it might teach the Americans the important lesson that there is no point in pushing Israel into military adventures.

<snip>

If indeed the war ends as it is ending, maybe more Israelis will ask themselves what we are killing and being killed for, what did we pound and get pounded for, and maybe they will understand that it was once again all for naught. Maybe the achievement of this war will be that the failure will be seared deeply into the consciousness, and Israel will take a new route, less violent and less bullying, because of the failure. In 1967, Ephraim Kishon wrote, "sorry we won." This time it is almost possible to say, it's good we did not win

08-14-2006, 12:46 PM

From an Israeli himself. I wonder, does this make him a "self-hating Jew" in the view of the rabid Zionists in this thread?

What do you suppose this proves? Are all Spanish in lock-step over everything your government does Red? If they disagree with your government, does this make them right and everyone else wrong? Could it be that perhaps you feel he's in the right because, well, you agree with him?

-XT

RedFury

08-14-2006, 01:04 PM

Could it be that perhaps you feel he's in the right because, well, you agree with him?

But of course.

08-14-2006, 01:07 PM

:p Thought you'd get a kick out of that part.

-XT

gonzomax

08-14-2006, 01:51 PM

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact Written by Jewish Pulitzer prize winner. long

FinnAgain

08-14-2006, 02:07 PM

What is this, driveby link day?

We've got red, doing his same old song and dance. He provides an opinion piece, suggests that anybody who pays attention to facts and context is 'rabid', beats up on his imaginary strawman fabout how people have been accused of anti-semitism for criticizing Israel by any poster in this thread, and as usual fails to actually debate any issue. With any luck, we will be given another video with blatant spin and deliberate ignorance of facts and context, and/or the word "bias" will be used at least a dozen more times in lieu of addressing refutations.

Then we've got gonzo providing the same driveby link he did in another thread, with nary a word of elaboration or analysis. He seems to be suggesting, much like red was, that the fact of the author's religion or ethnicity matters... at all. I'm not even sure what to say about that, let alone this practice of debating-by-avoiding-all-debate.

It's almost like some folks don't know the difference between voicing an unsupported opinion and engaging in a rational debate. Almost...

Magiver

08-14-2006, 02:50 PM

it is now time for me to ask the question which has perplexed me for several days. How the hell do you define a "moderate Arab". Is he like a "moderate dutchman" ? Or a "moderate American". What constitutes a "moderate" ethnicity ?I dunno. The same way you define the "religion of Peace"? There's a relationship in there somewhere so if you figure out a good definition it should apply to both.

FWIW I went to a structured open forum given by a local Mosque after 9/11. Since I have nothing to gauge Muslims by except for their ability to spontaneously combust I'll assume this group of Muslim-Americans fell into the "moderate" category.

I would compare a moderate Arab (I'm assuming that's supposed to be moderate Muslim) with a Fundamentalist Christian and go so far as to say they are to the right of that description. They were very polite but I don’t expect to see any of them at a blues festival. They were a pretty conservative lot.

What I found most telling was their explanation of the destruction of the Buddha statues in Afghanistan as justifiable under Islamic Law (false idols not allowed). This amounted to tacit approval of the event. When I asked about the pyramids of Egypt I got a deer-in-headlights look.

Alessan

08-14-2006, 02:53 PM

From an Israeli himself. I wonder, does this make him a "self-hating Jew" in the view of the rabid Zionists in this thread?

To failure's credit (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/749680.html)

Ah, Gideon Levy. Just another one of our knee-jerk Lefties (not that we lack knee-jerk Righties, either, although none of them publish in Haaretz, of course). Our country's always wrong, our country's always too violent, too insensitive, too arrogent, blah blah blah. I hear you have people like that in the U.S., too. I read his article, occasionally, and he makes some pertinent point once in a dog's age, but I usually just skim past it. You know about Sturgeon's Law? How 90% of everything is crap? That applies to op-ed pieces, too. God bless the free press.

No calls to destroy Israel, though. At least none that I noticed.

So, am I a "rabid Zionist"? I'm a Zionist, certainly, so in your eyes I may be a priori rabid. I did bite my wife earlier, but there were... extenuating circumstances.

08-14-2006, 03:40 PM

What is this, driveby link day?

I think EVERY day is driveby link day for this guy (Red NORMALLY at leasts makes the effort to quote what he thinks is the relevant parts). He seems to think that one should simply post a link and then hope that people will read the link and be able to tease out what the hell was his point....and that THIS is engagement in debate. Then he gets hurt feelings and looks around in obvious puzzlement when people tell him he isn't doing so. C'est la vie.

(Oh, and his other tactic is to post something in one thread, ignore comments, questions or disagreement with it, then wait what he obviously feels is a sufficient time to then post the exact same thing in another thread in the hopes that THIS time it will get traction without him having to bother pointing out what the hell he finds relevant, if anything, in said link)

-XT

gonzomax

08-14-2006, 08:15 PM

08-14-2006, 08:49 PM

What is a drive by link. Oh wait it is a way to say my posts have less value than yours which are probably a walk by poster. It wouldnt be childishly poisoning the well .It wouldn't fit in with insults and slurs. No it is so smug and childish. Growup.

No ass...a driveby link is just what it says. Its when you repeatedly simply link an article without bothering to quote what you think are the relevant parts, but instead simply hope that we dig through the whole thing and then guess what the fuck your point was. DO YOU GET IT OR ARE YOU SIMPLY TOO DENSE TO UNDERSTAND?? If you REALLY want to debate, then when you link something you should do some fucking work and quote what you think is relevant AND then perhaps explain WHY the fuck you think its relevant....instead of your standard driveby bullshit.

Sheesh.

-XT

gonzomax

08-14-2006, 08:52 PM

Let me splain.
Israel according to the Hersch article says the war plans had been drawn with assistance from the US for quite a while. Thet were in place long before June 12 kidnappings. When I thought they were a rediculous reaction to skirmashing ,you said they started it. \The pentagon noted that there were many cross border incidents. They were waiting for the timing to be right. When I said tha,t you said I didn't know what I was talking about.Is The pentagon should get it's info from you.
Richard Armitage, a radiical lefty , I guessSaid"if the most dominant military force can't pacify a country of 4 millionwe should rethink Iran a country of 70 million The only thing bobmbing has acheived so far is to unite the population against Israel"
When I said it you guys totally rejeted it and said they woulfd turn on Hezbollah.
Neocons and some Israelis thought the bombing would persuade Christians and Sunnis would turn against hezbollah. Israel flew over 9,000 missions.
Israel used Kosovo as a model. Wesley Clark ,said In Kosovo the air attacks were to force diplomatic result. "in my experience air campaigns must be backed with boots and the will to finish."
Divisions about he cost to lebanon and damage from the bombing has caused rifts in the US and Israel. CNN reported Israeli support has dropped from over 80% to 60.
Israel though toughness would win but islamic martrydom changed things. Hezbollah has ties to the Shiite population .Bekaa valley, and S. Beirut where it has a radio station, hospitals' schools, and charities.
Sounds like a point I made. and was ridiculed for.
Supporters say main goal of bombimg, to turn Lebanes e against Hizbollah isnt working.Strategic bombing has been a failed concept for 90 years. But. they keep doing it.
Funny these sound like ideas I presented in my "drive Bys".

FinnAgain

08-14-2006, 09:31 PM

Resolved: Written by Jewish Pulitzer prize winner. long
High quality debate, not a driveby. "Growup".
:dubious:

Let me splain.

Who has been stopping you?
Answer that, and you may begin to grok why your posts are mostly worthless drivebys.

Oh, and, learn what poisoning the well actually means. Stating that you lengthy seven word analysis of the postiion consisting of " Written by Jewish Pulitzer prize winner. long" isn't a debate. That isn't poisoning the well. Seriously, learn what the phrase means before you use it again. I'll even help fight your ignorance. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html)

It's also laughable that you think that mentioning that the guy is Jewish means anything, at all.

Newsflash: Jews, Israelis, not, in fact, the Borg.
Gonzo baffled, shocked.

Israel according to the Hersch article says the war plans had been drawn with assistance from the US for quite a while. Thet were in place long before June 12 kidnappings.

Discussed before in a vacuum by posters who make much more of an effort than you. They also seem to have ignored that those plans were in response to Hezbollah arming itself with rockets for about six years now.

When I thought they were a rediculous reaction to skirmashing ,you said they started it.

The vast complexities of the situation reduced to "They started it". Brilliant. When you can't argue against what someone actually says, use your characteristic tactic of making your arguments as absurd as you can, and then claiming that your own intellectual dishonesty is someone else's fault.

Could I have actually said, many times in many different threads, that this was not just a reaction to the capture of two soldiers, but simultaneous rocket attacks on Israeli civilians as well as almost a month of attacks prior to that, and about six years on and off before that? Is it really so hard to debate what people actually say?

You do know why people use strawmen, right?

When I said tha,t you said I didn't know what I was talking about.

What are you talking about now? Cite?
What exchange are you refering to? I'm fairly certain that you're mischaracterizing it, as is characteristic for you, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I certainly never denied that Israel had valid reasons to attack Hezbollah before now. Quote whatever I said in response to whatever you said.

I guessSaid"if the most dominant military force can't pacify a country of 4 millionwe should rethink Iran a country of 70 million The only thing bobmbing has acheived so far is to unite the population against Israel"

Okay... and the 15,000 UN troops called in to help pacify southern Lebanon, as well as Hezbollah's inability to rearm with anything approaching ease don't fit in.

When I said it you guys totally rejeted it and said they woulfd turn on Hezbollah.

Cite, or are you making things up again?

Neocons and some Israelis thought the bombing would persuade Christians and Sunnis would turn against hezbollah. Israel flew over 9,000 missions.

Remind me how many times Lebanon agreed to have 15,000 UN troops help reign in Hezbollah? Before the current war, that is.

Hezbollah has ties to the Shiite population .Bekaa valley, and S. Beirut where it has a radio station, hospitals' schools, and charities.
Sounds like a point I made. and was ridiculed for.

It's sad, but you probably actually believe that.
Nobody has argued that Hezbollah doesn't have support in south Lebanon.

Again, cite?
I suspect you are again making things up, and deliberately distorting what was actually said. Either that, or sadly, you honestly aren't able to accurately report what was said... for whatever reason.

Or, perhaps more to the point, this seems to get at why you seem totally unable to comprehend what a debate consists of. Saying that Hezbollah has ties to south Lebanon isn't a point, it's a fact in a vacuum. It seems you're unable to tell the difference.

When I was getting my M.Ed, the greatest professor I've ever had used something called the "So what?" test. In short, any statement you make has to have logical support, elaboration, and implicit reasoning for its conclusions. Do you think "Written by Jewish Pulitzer prize winner. long" passes the "So what?" test?

Supporters say main goal of bombimg, to turn Lebanes e against Hizbollah isnt working.

Ooooooh, supporters say that. And here I thought that the Israeli government and the IDF were saying that degrading Hezbollah's capacity to wage war was the main goal of the bombing.

Strategic bombing has been a failed concept for 90 years. But. they keep doing it.
Funny these sound like ideas I presented in my "drive Bys".

This is so very sad. You honestly seem to think that " Written by Jewish Pulitzer prize winner. long" is not a driveby, but participation in a debate.

And no, strategic bombing is not a failed concept. Do you remember how many hours the ground war went on for during Desert Storm?

New day, same old song and dance. Will you accurately report what others say, instead of fighting against these silly strawmen and claiming victory? Will you engage on the disputed points, or switch the topic?

Magiver

08-14-2006, 09:58 PM

Let me splain.
Neocons and some Israelis thought the bombing would persuade Christians and Sunnis would turn against hezbollah. Whoa there Lucy, while your splainin thins you're going to have to splain that one. hezbolla is not a Christian backed organization. How do you turn against and organization you were never a part of? And you will never turn Iranian/Syrian backed Sunni's away from hezbolla because they ARE Hezbollah. Its a defacto army state inside a state. This was about straws and Israel has reached its last. They now have a UN approved defacto army marching into Lebanon. Just like it was in the days of Reagan.

Hezbolla just won Lebanon a ticket to ride back to 1980 (minus a few passengers). I'm sure they will spin the occupation of UN troops into some kind of victory until the reality of the set-back hits them and then it's back to killing the UN troops.

gonzomax

08-15-2006, 01:05 AM

poisoning the well-adverse information about someone pre emptively given for intention of discrediting what person says/
Drive by poster-someone who doesnt think things out and just haphazardly posts them.
When you refer to me as a drive by you are telling people not to place value on what I say. It is a perfect usage.

gonzomax

08-15-2006, 01:07 AM

The jewish part was not for you. If someone took thre time to read it they might have thought he was possibly anti semetic. It was for them.

gonzomax

08-15-2006, 01:15 AM

Whoa there Lucy, while your splainin thins you're going to have to splain that one. hezbolla is not a Christian backed organization. How do you turn against and organization you were never a part of? And you will never turn Iranian/Syrian backed Sunni's away from hezbolla because they ARE Hezbollah. Its a defacto army state inside a state. This was about straws and Israel has reached its last. They now have a UN approved defacto army marching into Lebanon. Just like it was in the days of Reagan.

Hezbolla just won Lebanon a ticket to ride back to 1980 (minus a few passengers). I'm sure they will spin the occupation of UN troops into some kind of victory until the reality of the set-back hits them and then it's back to killing the UN troops.
I did not say Hezbollah was Christian org. actually the opposite. The thought was that when Israel bombed them ,the people would turn against them and blame Hezbollah and turn on them, Christians were part that they thought would turn against them.
With no understanding why , I saw CNN ,and PBS news panels say Hezbollah won the war. Certainly not on the terms we are used to. They took a lot more damage. But, in the mideast when someone stands up to the aggressors and survives ,he is a hero. If Sadaam had escaped and we finally withdrew ,he may have been seen as a hero. They think a little differently than we do.

08-15-2006, 01:34 AM

Thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=384086) for you gonzomax...sorry, you didn't get top billing and have to share with rjung, but you just weren't worth a pit thread of your own.

-XT

gonzomax

08-15-2006, 01:42 AM

gonzomax

08-15-2006, 01:56 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081400362_pf.html nAnother thought against preconceptions.

gonzomax

08-15-2006, 01:58 AM

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1219280.ece Israeli view.

gonzomax

08-15-2006, 02:10 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1844811,00.html Lebonese view.

Weirddave

08-15-2006, 02:30 AM

Finnagain,

You actually seem to understand what Gonzo has been saying here. Could you explain it to the rest of us? Maybe not to the rest of us, but to me? I'm sorry, I want to engage in debate, but I haven't understood a thing he's saying for a while now. I don't think I'm a stupid man, but I can't parse his point at all. Reading his posts makes me want to put my head gently down into a gentle pool of icy cold water. Cool, cool water.......

08-15-2006, 02:40 AM

Weirddave, I figure we should put anything not directly related to the OP into the pit thread I made for good ole gonzo. Not that it looks like this thread is going anywhere with all these driveby links and gods know what code phrases...but its the decent thing to do. Besides, Finn's last post pretty much said it all...

:p

-XT

FinnAgain

08-15-2006, 03:27 AM

New day, same old song and dance. Will you accurately report what others say, instead of fighting against these silly strawmen and claiming victory? Will you engage on the disputed points, or switch the topic? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7680735&postcount=210 )

So you're going to ignore all the requests for cites and to engage in actual debate, change the subject, and continue driveby posting.
Check.

poisoning the well-adverse information about someone pre emptively given for intention of discrediting what person says

So cite, anywhere, that I said that because you have not behaved honorably, that you cannot possibly in the future?

You seem totally unable to grasp the fact that you don't say anything in your driveby links. "Lebanese view" is hardly a logical argument with a premise, conclusion, and supporting factual details. It's just spam. Yes, that's what some-but-not-all Lebanese folks feel. Does that pass the "So what?" test?

How can I discredit such pearls of wisdom as "Lebanese view."
What's there to debate?

One can assume that you support your links' views, but to what degree, and based on what reasons? Would you care to share them with us?

Your driveby posts all read like:

Music. Video. Animated. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=gFR9eYrOfas)

... and the point is?

Drive by poster-someone who doesnt think things out and just haphazardly posts them.

Your thoughts/words, not mine.
I have no idea what your thought process is, because you don't share it.

"Lebanese view" isn't a premise that we can really debate other than the fact that you should've increased your driveby word count by 50% and included the qualifier "a Lebanese view."

Nor does your driveby display any thinking that I can puzzle out beyond the ability to google something, spam the thread, and then post a two word summary of your link. I'm not even sure what you're getting at, let alone what you think you're getting at.

What, exactly, do you think your point is?
I'm honestly curious.
Could you use sentences that we can actually read, too? Your post about Hezbollah rockets is nonsense.

Twas brilling, and the slivey toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

You could try to work on expressing your thoughts, as we're real good at reading text here, but not quite as good at reading minds. Do you agree with these "views" you've presented? Which parts do you disagree with? What are the implications?

What would you like to debate, that some people hold those views? Yes, some people do. Is that what you want? Will that make you stop posting driveby links and refusing to engage in debate?

When you refer to me as a drive by you are telling people not to place value on what I say.

Your imagination, not reality.
I'm asking you to quit spamming threads and actually debate if you're going to.
You seem unable to comprehend that, however, and further elaboration would best be placed in your Pit thread.

It is a perfect usage.

Wrong, on all counts. When you've made actual points, I've attempted to engage you in debate.

You actually seem to understand what Gonzo has been saying here. Could you explain it to the rest of us?

Fuck if I know. I may have more than my share of brain farts when it comes to typing, but even I can't puzzle out what many of his sentences mean. I think he's trying to say something along the lines of "Israel bad, hulk smash", but I'm really not sure.

As he refuses to respond to points and isntead changes the subject, and thinks that two word driveby linkage is debating in good faith, I can't really puzzle it out.

I'm sorry, I want to engage in debate, but I haven't understood a thing he's saying for a while now.

I think we're all in that same boat. I'd really like to know what the heck he thinks he's saying. Does he agree 100% with the articles he's cited? Does he disagree? On what points? For what reasons?

Damned if I know.

Finn's last post pretty much said it all...

Danke. I wasn't going to start a Pit thread because I didn't think he was the effort, but as you've done it I might as well vent a bit in it. There's really nothing much more to be said here.

FRDE

08-15-2006, 05:23 AM

Well at least I now know what 'drive by posting' is.

Gonzomax probably had a few valid points, and a few rather odd ones.

What enraged Israel was the Katyushas, skirmishing is one thing, but having 50km rockets packed with ball bearings chucked at you is ... something of a provocation.

While I am certain that Israel anticipated those rockets being used, and drew up plans, I don't really think that they needed any help from the USA in 'planning'.

Gonzomax had a good point about the Israelis hoping that the 75% of the population who detest Hezbollah, would turn on them, as they have turned on others in the past.

Probably he is right about declining support, world wide, people don't generally like to see images of destruction.

I reckon the main goal of the bombing was to stop the Katyushas, the secondary goal was to make S. Lebanon an uninhabitable wasteland, the third was to provide a graphic example of what happens to people who lob rockets at Israel and the fourth was to do as little damage to non-Hezbollah areas.

This is a BBC site
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4791873.stm

|In the last six years, Hezbollah's magnanimity towards the large Christian population in the south - including many who are seen as collaborators with Israel - has broadened its support, as has this latest round of what many Lebanese regard as armed resistance. |

I must confess I find the above rather comical, Maronites take $US from people who are allied with Syrian occupiers, and therefore 'support' the people who are poking sticks at a bear.

We have yet to see the real outcome, Hezbollah has shown that terrorist tactics hiding within a civillian population are very effective. Not that it is news to anyone.

Also that 'boots on the ground' are useless in an urban environment, and they are not much use in rough terrain like Afghani mountains - not a novel idea.

Israel has demonstrated that it is prepared to pull its punches, due (my interpretation) to World opinion.

75% of Lebanon has demonstrated that it is afraid to tangle with the other 25%

It will be interesting to see what happens.
The UN is sending in some rather no-nonsense 'peace' troops.

Rune

08-15-2006, 05:45 AM

The UN is sending in some rather no-nonsense 'peace' troops.I thought the UN peace keepers had no mandate to forcefully disarm Hezbollah (and the Lebanese government has vowed it'll not forcefully disarm Hezboallh either). Apparently Hezbollah is supposed to freely give up its weapons. But maybe the UN forces will send a no-nonsense strongly worded letter to Nasrallah? I'm sure that would help.

FRDE

08-15-2006, 06:29 AM

I thought the UN peace keepers had no mandate to forcefully disarm Hezbollah (and the Lebanese government has vowed it'll not forcefully disarm Hezboallh either). Apparently Hezbollah is supposed to freely give up its weapons. But maybe the UN forces will send a no-nonsense strongly worded letter to Nasrallah? I'm sure that would help.

If they have arms, then they will be tempted to use them.

Obvously they'll bury them, but it will only take one incident to get the carrying of arms a civil offence.

I don't think Nasrallah will last long, isn't he still in Syria ?

My bet would be a car bomb

FinnAgain

08-15-2006, 06:44 AM

Obvously they'll bury them, but it will only take one incident to get the carrying of arms a civil offence.

Maybe, and maybe not...
And if the last six years are any indication, the UN doesn't have the ability/desire to actually do anything about Hezbollah even when rockets are being fired.

I suppose that we'll see what happens. There is cause for hope, but not much. IMO.

Rune

08-15-2006, 07:07 AM

Already the UN agreement is being watered down. Keep weapons in the north. Keep weapons in the south. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750448.html The captured Israeli soldiers are still in Hezbollah hands and apparently Israel is negotiating their release for freeing some Hezbollah terrorists (one of the terrorists Hezbolla wants freed, crushed the head of a 5yo girl he had taken hostage), setting the table for the next go around. Well Israel knows this better than anyone. And, despite (or because of) much noise about disproportionate reaction, Israel seems to have allowed itself to conduct the battle haltingly and hesitantly, with one hand tied on the back.

Israel lost. Hezbollah lost. Lebanon lost big time. The only one who won is Iran. They managed to shift world focus from their nuclear ambitions.

Shodan

08-15-2006, 07:29 AM

FRDE

08-15-2006, 07:35 AM

Strictly speaking it is not the last six years

For five of those years the Syrians were doing a superb job of 'peace keeping', they got ignominiously kicked out one year ago.

I agree that Hezbollah were tooling up during the Syrian 'occupation', but I have serious doubts that anyone would have fired a Katyusha at Israel while they were around.

Historically the UN have been a mish-mash of rather remote nationalities.
- the French with Turkish veterans are not quite Scandinavians and Ghanaians
- culturally 75% of Lebanon is close to France
- and despite US jeering, the French are pretty hard nosed
- I am not sure about the Malaysians, but 'running amok' comes from their reaction to apparently minor provocation (mostly I guess, they are there, because they speak English, which is handy on the Southern Border).

Like you, I am watching and waiting, but I am slightly optimistic
- both sides 'lost'
- one is a growling bear that was restrained by chains
- the other is living in a toilet

I don't normally bet, but I think I would give 3:1 on relative peace

tomndebb

08-15-2006, 08:38 AM

No ass...
. . .
DO YOU GET IT OR ARE YOU SIMPLY TOO DENSE TO UNDERSTAND?? C'mon, xtisme, you know better. If you have a problem with a poster you can Pit him, ignore him, or engage him, but you cannot launch a direct personal insult at him in this Forum.

[ /Moderating ]

08-15-2006, 11:28 AM

I know Tom...my apologies. I lost it there. And I knew I was in for it with you guys...deservedly so too.

My apologies to gonzo for that in GD as well.

-XT

Puzzler

08-15-2006, 11:58 AM

No light penetrates the black hole you live in. You know it all and are way beyond learning. There is no other side.
The argument that Israel only kills civilians because the rockets are in neighborhoods in rediculous. If the rockets were in a military base. And Israel owns the skies and can bomb at will. What would happen to them . Let me think about it.
Their rockets wouldn't last 24 hours.

Let me see if I understand what is it you are trying to say:

1. Israel is much more powerful military, especially regarding air force.

2. Hezbollah wants to keep rockets with which to threat the Israeli cities.

3. OTOH, Hezbollah knows that to keep the rockets in a military base (that is, to separate combatants from civilians) would result in an imminent destruction, due to point (1).

4. Therefore, they chose to store them at civilian neighborhoods. This way, either Israel would avoid hitting them, or Israel will, and end up killing civilians.

Is that correct?

But if so, why is the assertion that "Israel only kills civilians because the rockets are in neighborhoods" ridiculous?

gonzomax

08-15-2006, 12:11 PM

08-15-2006, 12:17 PM

gonzomax

08-15-2006, 12:26 PM

What does this even mean?

I get the first three sentences, but not the next paragraph. Can you expand a bit, gonzomax?

Regards,
Shodan
I have in previous arguments sent posts. Once an article by Scott Ritter a former arms inspector in Iraq. He has a lot of cred in many circles. xt dismissed it because it had a picture of Bush he didn't like.
I suggested a reading of the bradblog in election argument. He said why do I want to read something called the bradblog.
This latest article was by a jewish ,Pulitzer prize winning writer. I included the Jewish part to fend off a potential anti semetic rant. Then , in some circles, Pulitzers give weight to opinions. I had to argue why I did that instead of discussing the article.
Then I said his snotty name calling was poisoning the well. He again noted my stupidity and when I showed that it was a perfect use he blew up. He is proof of my theory that children come in all ages.
There are mant examples of his dismissing discussions due ti his arrogance and know it all stance.

I do not believe he shows the slightest interest in arguments. He just shows off how smart he thinks he is. Ive endured many insults ,and I believe the article backs up much of what I said.

Captain Amazing

08-15-2006, 12:43 PM

Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

08-15-2006, 01:16 PM

gonzomax

08-15-2006, 01:47 PM

The article is long but this thread and other in the same ilk have continued for a month.
1. When it first started I didn't believe the war was about th kidnapping of 2 soldiers. It was much to huge are response and in my estimation the wrong way to free them. Talks are generally the way with concessions on both sides.
The article says "the pentagon noted cross border incidents for some time. Thats what I said. Also that they had all the plans in place and were waiting for the right incident.
2. In the article Richard Armitage said if the dominant military force in the area can't pacify a nation of 4 million we should rethink Iran with 70 million. The only thing bobmbing has acheived so far is uniting the population against the Israelis.
The damage to the infrastructure can be noted,but the buildings do not threaten Israel the people do. I think the actions have radicalized more of the people against Israel and ultimately made them less safe.

Shodan

08-15-2006, 02:00 PM

. What does it mean. It means that since Israel has a huge advantage in the war., that if the Hezbollah rockets were put in a military base outside towns, the Israelis would either send missles or air craft and destroty every last one. Thats all. It would be very poor military tactics and result in the loss of all rockets.
Okay, well, thanks for the clarification.

If I understand you, Hizbollah are justified in using Lebanese civilians as shields, because otherwise the Israelis would only strike at military targets.

But, as Captain Amazing points out, then the IDF is justified in striking at the rockets. If military necessity is a good enough reason for Hizbollah, then it is a good enough reason for the IDF. Yes? The damage to the infrastructure can be noted,but the buildings do not threaten Israel the people do. As I understand it, the IDF is destroying the buildings and other infrastructure that allows Hizbollah to invade and otherwise threaten Israel. As you note, these kind of "cross-border incursions" have been going on for a while. It seems that Israel finally go fed up with doing nothing, and, when Hizbollah invaded and killed some of their soldiers and kidnapped two others, decided to remove the threat (as much as possible). I think the actions have radicalized more of the people against Israel and ultimately made them less safe.Possibly true, but the other actions of Israel - withdrawing from Gaza and Lebanon, negotiating as you recommend - don't seem to have reduced the attacks from Hizbollah and the other terrorists. Just the opposite - it gave Hizbollah the chance to build up their inventory of rockets and prepare the cross-border incident that resulted in the kidnapping and death of ten IDF soldiers.

You mentioned -
Talks are generally the way with concessions on both sides. What further concessions do you recommend for Israel? What concessions do you suggest for Hizbollah, and what should Israel do if those concessions are not carried out?

Regards,
Shodan