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…
-XT
[
](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.
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:
… and the point is?
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?
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.
Wrong, on all counts. When you’ve made actual points, I’ve attempted to engage you in debate.
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 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.
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.
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
|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.
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
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.
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.
What does this even mean?
I get the first three sentences, but not the next paragraph. Can you expand a bit, gonzomax?
Regards,
Shodan
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.
Like you, I am watching and waiting, but I am slightly optimistic
I don’t normally bet, but I think I would give 3:1 on relative peace
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 ]
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
Let me see if I understand what is it you are trying to say:
Israel is much more powerful military, especially regarding air force.
Hezbollah wants to keep rockets with which to threat the Israeli cities.
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).
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?
. 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.
:smack: Oh…is THAT what you were trying to say?? What is your point exactly? Hezbollah is justified in putting its rockets in civilian areas, in using civilians as cover when they attack Israel because if they attempted to fight in the open the Israeli’s would wipe them out? Except for the ‘justified’ part, did anyone dispute WHY Hezbollah uses the tactics they do? Its pretty obvious. The question though revolves around the ‘justified’ part. You SEEM to be saying (if my channeling abilities are up to snuff) that Hezbollah IS justified in using civilians for cover…and further that, somehow, Israel is NOT justified in engaging them there. Or something.
Is that about it? Could you, you know, elaborate some?
-XT
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.
Well, sure, but in that case, if it’s justified for Hezbollah to put the rockets in civilian centers out of military neccessity, then it’s also justified for Israel to bomb those rockets, in spite of the fact that it will result in civilian casualties, also out of military neccessity, right? I mean, if military neccessity trumps the safety of non-combatants for one side, it does for the other too.
So why launch the frikkin rockets in the first place?
What good does it do?
The article is long but this thread and other in the same ilk have continued for a month.
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?
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).
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 -
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
Gonzomax,
Would you mind answering the question I asked before (and did others): Even if we’ll accept the POV that Hezbollah had no military alternative other than storing the rockets in civilian neighbourhoods and houses (BTW, I disagree to that!), how does it invalidate the statement of “Israel only kills civilians because the rockets are in neighborhoods”? You claimed that this statement is ridiculous due to that POV.