What's the story on the rockets fired into Israel?

[lieu]

If all you’re getting is LBC or Al Jazerra, then it’s understandable how the one-sided images could lead to anger against Israel’s actions. That many with only those sources are growing increasingly agitated is unfortunate but not exactly unexpected. If, however, you also understand that this was Hezbolla taking advantage of the Hamas distraction, initiating the conflict, murdering 8 IDF soldiers, kidnapping 2 others, firing 1000s of katuysha (later elevated to larger, more deadly) rockets indiscriminantly at Israeli cities and firing from within population centers for the purpose not only of hiding but also to benefit from the political shitstorm sure to result and you still blame Israel…

Red is, as with a variety of subjects, quite the lost cause.

I’ve got no dog in this fight other than a dear friend somewhere in Beirut but damn if it isn’t clear who and what’s responsible for intentionally initiating this and the resultant carnage.

You’ve got to do what’s necessary to permanently remove this threat, even if it’s more painful in the short term. Damn unpleasant business and hardly undertaken by choice.

The Jerusalem Post reports at least 210 rockets fired into Isreal today. I believe I heard there’s a million Israelis living in bunkers now. Minimal to what the Lebanese are enduring, so the rhetorical question becomes what will they do differently when they rebuild and re-elect this time.

[RedFury]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
If anyone is interested, here is the Wiki cite for it. They are basically mass fire weapons, like artillary (as others have already pointed out), and pretty inaccurate when launched only a few at a time. The idea is to mass a BUNCH of these launchers together and THEN fire volley after volley of rockets at the enemy. You could ask the Germans how effective these things were.

Used as HB is using them, its shear luck when they hit something.
[/quote]

And yet Israel’s USA-made “guided munition” and “smart bombs” manage to strike mainly civilians – and mostly women and children at that.
Hmmm…Shock and Awe anyone?

Pretty much. Good luck getting that through to Red though. He has been told this before and generally just ignores the logic, only to pop up again later in another thread saying the same exact thing.

Fight your own ignorance:

The “hiding among civilians” myth

You’ll have to watch a small advert to get through to the whole article, trust that’s not too much to bear for you.

How/when the hell did America become so totallly binary about the ME and Israel? The latter obviously can do no wrong…

[chappachula]

[QUOTE=RedFury]
The “hiding among civilians” myth

[/QUOTE]

uhh–maybe you should look 10 lines down on this page–there is a
thread running right now that pretty much debunks your cite.
[thread=381800]click here, please[/thread]

[AFAIKnow]

[QUOTE=RedFury]

Fight your own ignorance:

The “hiding among civilians” myth

You’ll have to watch a small advert to get through to the whole article, trust that’s not too much to bear for you.

How/when the hell did America become so totallly binary about the ME and Israel? The latter obviously can do no wrong…
[/QUOTE]

Do you know how incredulous you look by posting “cites” from blogs and agenda driven “info mags” that totally contradict the cites provided from orgs like NPR, CNN, BBC, and such? That is willful ignorance, I don’t have any patience with that crap. “Fight your own ignorance” in-fucking-deed. :mad:

[Fear_Itself]

[QUOTE=AFAIKnow]
The new rockets everyone is touting are not mobile. The other day Hezbollah released a video of a launch saying that it can reach much further. The reporters say they didn’t show the fact that 2 minutes later the launch site was rubble. “Useless gesture” from your comfortable position maybe.
[/QUOTE]
Upon further research, I find that most of the Hezbollah katyushas are not truck mounted, but rather fired from primitive timer controlled tripod mounts:

Israeli aircraft and unmanned drones search for the telltale flash of a missile launch, but such efforts are often stymied by Hezbollah’s practice of setting up a primitive launcher, connecting a car battery and a timer, and leaving the rocket to launch on its own.

“I suspect that’s how many of them are fired, because anyone standing near a launch site two minutes later will get all sorts of Israeli artillery on their head,” Isby said.

Because of these factors, Hezbollah’s rocket force probably cannot be destroyed from the air.

“It means not only continuous and heavier bombing, but probably putting troops on the ground,” Thompson and other military analysts say.

I was wrong about the truck mounts, but my “useless gesture” conclusion stands unchallenged. Innocent Lebanese civilians are being slaughtered for nothing.

[Valteron]

[QUOTE=AFAIKnow]
Do you know how incredulous you look by posting “cites” from blogs and agenda driven “info mags” that totally contradict the cites provided from orgs like NPR, CNN, BBC, and such? That is willful ignorance, I don’t have any patience with that crap. “Fight your own ignorance” in-fucking-deed. :mad:
[/QUOTE]

**There are no whole truths; all truths are half- truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil. **
[RIGHT]Alfred North Whitehead
English mathematician & philosopher (1861 - 1947) [/RIGHT]

I do not have a dog in this fight, although I would like to see peace in the Middle East based on mutual acceptance of Israel and her neighbours.

But what I find funny is your assumption that a report that contradicts, for example, CNN or BBC, must be in error.

You do not think that CNN or the BBC have biases and agendas? :rolleyes: Al Jazeera, CNN, Fox, BBC – every one of them deals in half truths that are presented as whole truths.

By the way, I believe you meant to say that Red Fury looks “credulous” when he posts those cites that you find “agenda-driven”, not “incredulous”. If Red Fury looks “incredulous” regarding those cites, then what you are saying is that he looks as if he disbelieves them.

[Valteron]

I do not even know who is pro- or anti-Israel in this thread, but working on the quote I put in my previous posting that there are no whole truths, only half truths, let’s play a game.

I want one person who has basically condemned Israel to say instead what they would do if they were Israel. Let the other side rain down rockets on their north? Lie down and die? Empty the northern part of their tiny state and hope the other side does not get more powerful rockets with a bigger range?

Now I want one person who has supported Israel to answer what they think Hezbollah should do rather than “using civilians as shields”. Should they paint their rockets and launch sites (or are they on trucks as I read elsewhere) abright red and put them out in [plain sight in fields and on mountaintops? When the Israelis were fighting the British in the 1940s, were their guns and arms kept in plain view of the far superior fighting power of the British?

ALL TRUTHS ARE HALF TRUTHS. THERE ARE NO WHOLE TRUTHS.

[FinnAgain]

@Fear Itself

Upon further research, I find that most of the Hezbollah katyushas are not truck mounted, but rather fired from primitive timer controlled tripod mounts:

Fear, you found nothing of the sort. The actual quote you’re basing your unfounded comment on was:

“I suspect that’s how many of them are fired, because anyone standing near a launch site two minutes later will get all sorts of Israeli artillery on their head,” Isby said.

So, first, we don’t have someone claiming to know how they’re being fired, only that he suspects it. Second, he only claims that’s how he ‘suspects’ that ‘many’ of them are being fired, not how most are.

Further, the analyst’s view of the situation seems… odd. I mean, of course Hezbollah fighters would need to have total safety with regards to firing rockets. It’s not like they’ve been linked to a long string of suicide attacks, or anything.

[QUOTE=Valteron]

Now I want one person who has supported Israel to answer what they think Hezbollah should do rather than “using civilians as shields”.
[/quote]

Not started a war?

Okay, assuming that they were determined to start a war, once they had and it was evident that they could not win, they should disarm, release their prisoners, disavow terrorism, recognize the right of Israel to exist, and come to the negotiating table.

The simple question which is often asked during discussions like this should probably be trotted out again:
If Israel laid down its arms, what would be the result?
If Israel’s enemies laid down their arms, what would be the result?

The quickest route to peace, stability, and economic prosperity for the ME is the recognition of Israel, diplomatic relations rather than terrorist campaigns, and a negotiated solution to the refugee problems (both Jewish and Arab) as well as an equitable two state solution for Israel and Palestine.

[QUOTE=Valteron]

Should they paint their rockets and launch sites (or are they on trucks as I read elsewhere) abright red and put them out in [plain sight in fields and on mountaintops?
[/quote]

If they are determined to wage war instead of negotiating? Then yes, they should do their best to follow the laws of war. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they should paint their vehicles bright red, but it does mean that they should be based away from civilian areas.

[QUOTE=Valteron]

When the Israelis were fighting the British in the 1940s, were their guns and arms kept in plain view of the far superior fighting power of the British?
[/quote]

Does a tu quoque prove anything?
Are all analogies equally valid?

[Samiorange]

[QUOTE=chappachula]
uhh–maybe you should look 10 lines down on this page–there is a
thread running right now that pretty much debunks your cite.
[thread=381800]click here, please[/thread]
[/QUOTE]
Thanks, but that thread isn’t current, and I didn’t read where the Salon article was decidedly debunked.
[Quote=FinnAgain]
Not started a war?
[/quote]
Are you invoking the “They started it” meme? You really think it’s that simple?

FAIR

Down the Memory Hole
Israeli contribution to conflict is forgotten by leading papers

In the wake of the most serious outbreak of Israeli/Arab violence in years, three leading U.S. papers—the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times—have each strongly editorialized that Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon were solely responsible for sparking violence, and that the Israeli military response was predictable and unavoidable. These editorials ignored recent events that indicate a much more complicated situation.

My underlining. So many memes, so little time. :dubious:

The “Hiding behind civilians” meme is complicated too. That other thread didn’t really address it. In an asymmetrical war, the rules change, don’t they? The IDF isn’t fighting the Lebanese militia.

So who constitutes Hezbollah? How do you differentiate between the militant fighters, the politicians, and the civilians who either work for or support them? Remember that Hezbollah is the second largest employer in Lebanon. Are all those people considered civilian shields, or legitimate targets, or what?

[Gala_Matrix_Fire]

Israel has reported 54 deaths, including 19 civilians killed by Hezbollah rocket attacks.

What caused the other 35 deaths, if not Hezbollah rocket attacks? Were they killed by friendly fire from Israelis?

If Hezbollah is only firing rockets, and these Israelis were not killed in rocket attacks, what killed them that can be laid at Hezbollah’s feet? If they died of heat stroke, they shouldn’t be in the head count.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=Samiorange]
Thanks, but that thread isn’t current, and I didn’t read where the Salon article was decidedly debunked.
[/quote]

Not only is that thread current, but if you can’t read the numerous cites debunking its claims, that isn’t exactly the thread’s fault.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

Are you invoking the “They started it” meme? You really think it’s that simple?
[/quote]

The “they started it meme”? :rolleyes:
You mean, ignoring who started a war, and that there wouldn’t be a war if they hadn’t started it, is somehow… correct?

@Samiorange

My underlining. So many memes, so little time. :dubious:

Dubious indeed.
What, exactly, in your link contradicts the fact that Hezbollah began targeting Israeli civilians at the same time as they conducted a cross-border raid to capture and kill Israeli soldiers? Or, for that matter, that Hezbollah has launched other attacks on Israel recently? Do you think that “Hezbollah was commiting acts of war, earlier than July 12” is somehow a refutation of, well, anything?

As close as I can tell, there’s a claim that Mosad killed a member of Islamic Jihad, an ‘allied’ group of Hezbollah and of course a known terrorist group. This claim, of course, from someone who says that Mosad had him do the dirty work? In response, Hezbollah attacked Israel. This changes things… how?

Also, let’s look at the actual article that FAIR took this claim from.

[

Some of the group’s Lebanese opponents suspect that the discovery of the Israeli network is a Hezbollah fabrication.

Referring to the murder last year of the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Walid Jumblatt, leader of Lebanon’s Druze and an outspoken critic of Hezbollah, told The Times: “We are expected to believe that this big spy ring was uncovered two weeks after the killing of the Majzoub brothers, yet Rafik Hariri died in February 2005 and we still don’t know who killed him.”

The United Nations Security Council is poised to grant a year-long extension to a UN commission investigating Mr Hariri’s murder, and to expand its inquiry into 14 other recent killings and bombings, which many Lebanese blame on neighbouring Syria.

](Latest news & breaking headlines | The Times and The Sunday Times)

Nevermind the fact that there’s a ‘spy ring’, which claims that their contact is Mosad. Because, of course, in the world of espionage, spies carry identifying documents, and whoever (if anybody) arranged this hit must have been Mosad, and not a rival Lebanese (or other) faction claiming to be from Mosad. And, of course, it’s not like Lebanon has been known to use torture on their prisoners. We all know how highly reliable those confessions can be.

Moreoever, your cite then repeats the claim that Israel had been ‘planning’ this operation for a year. The more times I see sites repeat that bit of obfuscation, the more annoying it becomes. Do you honestly think that, for instance, various countries don’t have contingency plans drawn up, at all times? The fact that Israel had a plan in case of going to war doesn’t somehow negate the fact that Hezbollah was still the group that started the war. If Israel knew a war was coming, and planned for it, how does that erase the fact that Hezbollah started the war?

Israel is now somehow in the wrong for knowing that sooner or later Hezbollah was going to launch attacks?

@Samiorange

The “Hiding behind civilians” meme is complicated too.

Meme, fact. Hey, six of one, half dozen of another, eh?

@Samiorange

That other thread didn’t really address it.

No, it did, you just ignored it.

@Samiorange

In an asymmetrical war, the rules change, don’t they?

So… in an asymetrical war, hiding behind civilians isn’t hiding behind civilians? That one of them thar ‘memes’?

@Samiorange

The IDF isn’t fighting the Lebanese militia.

No, they’re fighting an officially state sponsored, recognized, and designated ‘resistance organization’ in Lebanon’s war with Israel.

@Samiorange

So who constitutes Hezbollah? How do you differentiate between the militant fighters, the politicians, and the civilians who either work for or support them?

An easy metric might just be whether or not they’re carrying weapons.

@Samiorange

Are all those people considered civilian shields, or legitimate targets, or what?

Do you want to have your cake, and eat it too? If they’re not part of Hezbollah’s ‘military wing’, and Hezbollah is placing its military forces right by them, then they’re civilian shields. If they are part of Hezbollah’s ‘military wing’, then they’re legitimate targets.

[Duke_of_Rat]

[QUOTE=bluethree]
What caused the other 35 deaths, if not Hezbollah rocket attacks? Were they killed by friendly fire from Israelis?

If Hezbollah is only firing rockets, and these Israelis were not killed in rocket attacks, what killed them that can be laid at Hezbollah’s feet? If they died of heat stroke, they shouldn’t be in the head count.
[/QUOTE]

The other 35 people killed by the rockets may have been non-civilian.

[FinnAgain]

As long as I’m at it, another cite that FAIR relied upon for their claims that Israel has been planning this. Odd, though, that they left out all the relevant information the article provided. Pay particular attention to FAIR’s truncated quote.

FAIR’s quote:

“Of all of Israel’s wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared,” Gerald Steinberg, a political science professor at Israel’s Bar-Ilan University, told the San Francisco Chronicle (7/21/05). “By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we’re seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it’s been simulated and rehearsed across the board.” The Chronicle reported that a “senior Israeli army officer” has been giving PowerPoint presentations for more than a year to “U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks” outlining the coming war with Lebanon, explaining that a combination of air and ground forces would target Hezbollah and “transportation and communication arteries.”

Full quotes, with context. (context, who’d a thunk it!)

[

“Of all of Israel’s wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared,” said Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University. “In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal, when it became clear the international community was not going to prevent Hezbollah from stockpiling missiles and attacking Israel. By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we’re seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it’s been simulated and rehearsed across the board.”

More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail. Under the ground rules of the briefings, the officer could not be identified.

[…]
Israel didn’t need sophisticated intelligence to discover the huge buildup of Iranian weapons supplies to Hezbollah by way of Syria, because Hezbollah’s patrons boasted about it openly in the pages of the Arabic press. As recently as June 16, less than four weeks before the Hezbollah border raid that sparked the current crisis, the Syrian defense minister publicly announced the extension of existing agreements allowing the passage of trucks shipping Iranian weapons into Lebanon.

](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/MIDEAST.TMP)

So Israel was planning on what to do with the ongoing stockpiling of rockets by Hezbollah. Damn those Israelis, damn them!

[Evil_Captor]

I’m not really a friend of Israel. I think Israel is a friend of the US in the same sense that Saudi Arabia is a friend of the US – that is, if lying to us or backstabbing us advances their interests sufficiently to make it worth the risk, they’ll do it in a heartbeat.

That said, our “friend” Israel definitely has the moral high ground in this instance. I figure that the folks in Iran figured it would be sufficiently to their interest to stir things up in Palestine and Lebanon, and to hell with public opinion in Europe and elsewhere.

Hey, it worked for Dubya.

For a while.

[Fear_Itself]

[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
That said, our “friend” Israel definitely has the moral high ground in this instance.
[/QUOTE]
Saying Israel holds the moral high ground in a fight against Hezbollah isn’t setting the bar terribly high. A pox on both their houses.

[Samiorange]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Not only is that thread current, but if you can’t read the numerous cites debunking its claims, that isn’t exactly the thread’s fault.

The “they started it meme”? :rolleyes:
You mean, ignoring who started a war, and that there wouldn’t be a war if they hadn’t started it, is somehow… correct?

Dubious indeed.
What, exactly, in your link contradicts the fact that Hezbollah began targeting Israeli civilians at the same time as they conducted a cross-border raid to capture and kill Israeli soldiers? Or, for that matter, that Hezbollah has launched other attacks on Israel recently? Do you think that “Hezbollah was commiting acts of war, earlier than July 12” is somehow a refutation of, well, anything?

As close as I can tell, there’s a claim that Mosad killed a member of Islamic Jihad, an ‘allied’ group of Hezbollah and of course a known terrorist group. This claim, of course, from someone who says that Mosad had him do the dirty work? In response, Hezbollah attacked Israel. This changes things… how?

Also, let’s look at the actual article that FAIR took this claim from.

[

Nevermind the fact that there’s a ‘spy ring’, which claims that their contact is Mosad. Because, of course, in the world of espionage, spies carry identifying documents, and whoever (if anybody) arranged this hit must have been Mosad, and not a rival Lebanese (or other) faction claiming to be from Mosad. And, of course, it’s not like [url=http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE180072003?open&of=ENG-LBN]Lebanon has been known to use torture](Latest news & breaking headlines | The Times and The Sunday Times) on their prisoners. We all know how highly reliable those confessions can be.

Moreoever, your cite then repeats the claim that Israel had been ‘planning’ this operation for a year. The more times I see sites repeat that bit of obfuscation, the more annoying it becomes. Do you honestly think that, for instance, various countries don’t have contingency plans drawn up, at all times? The fact that Israel had a plan in case of going to war doesn’t somehow negate the fact that Hezbollah was still the group that started the war. If Israel knew a war was coming, and planned for it, how does that erase the fact that Hezbollah started the war?

Meme, fact. Hey, six of one, half dozen of another, eh?

No, it did, you just ignored it.

So… in an asymetrical war, hiding behind civilians isn’t hiding behind civilians? That one of them thar ‘memes’?

No, they’re fighting an officially state sponsored, recognized, and designated ‘resistance organization’ in Lebanon’s war with Israel.

An easy metric might just be whether or not they’re carrying weapons.

Do you want to have your cake, and eat it too? If they’re not part of Hezbollah’s ‘military wing’, and Hezbollah is placing its military forces right by them, then they’re civilian shields. If they are part of Hezbollah’s ‘military wing’, then they’re legitimate targets.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry, but pure snark doesn’t constitute an argument worth replying to in detail. Please try again.

Israel is now somehow in the wrong for knowing that sooner or later Hezbollah was going to launch attacks?

This I will respond to:

No, of course not. We are arguing at cross purposes here. My point was that the “They started it” meme is irrelevant. Unless your only goal is to be righteous as a way of justifying mass deaths. Is that what you’re all about here?

Who started it? Are you saying it all began with the Israeli kidnappings? Come on.

Indulge me while I quote an obscure historical anecdote:

The Schleswig-Holstein wars had plagued Europe for decades. When a peace was finally signed, Prince Albert of England is reported to have said: “Only three persons ever understood what these wars were all about. The king of Prussia - but he is dead; the king of Sweden - but he is in a madhouse; and myself - but I have forgotten.”

The people who truly “started it” are dead. The reasons are either long forgotten, or have evolved, based on the ongoing conflicts. In any case, how does that help us solve the problem now? That is why I resorted to the “dubious” smiley in such a serious topic. I hate propaganda on any side of an argument. The moral high ground was lost long ago; real solutions require going beyond that frame of mind, however comforting it might be to us bystanders.

For me, the goal is to get to the negotiating table, and you can’t get there with your attitude. And if you’ve given up on negotiating, then just what are you advocating here? Massacre? That might buy some time for those who wish to prolong this conflict for selfish interests, but I don’t make arguments to those people. They already know what they are doing, and have eased themselves into the proper frame of mind to rationalize the carnage.

So in the interest of saving time and bandwidth - what is your personal objective here?

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=Samiorange]
I’m sorry, but pure snark doesn’t constitute an argument worth replying to in detail. Please try again.
[/quote]

Your refusal to respond to arguments you have no counter for is noted.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

No, of course not. We are arguing at cross purposes here. My point was that the “They started it” meme is irrelevant.
[/quote]

You were responding to a question about what Hezbollah could have done differently. I stated that they could have not started a war. The fact that they started a war is hardly ‘irrelevant’ to them starting a war.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

Unless your only goal is to be righteous as a way of justifying mass deaths. Is that what you’re all about here?
[/quote]

I’m sorry, what was that you said above about snark? :rolleyes:

But please, continue to ignore the actual question which was posed, and the actual context of my answer that you responded to.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

Who started it? Are you saying it all began with the Israeli kidnappings? Come on.
[/quote]

Do I really need to be in this thread, if you’re going to ignore what I actually said and create strawmen like this? Or can you quote, anywhere, where I said that this all started with the kidnappings?

Didn’t think so.

Feel free to ignore that too if you find it too ‘snarky’.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

Indulge me while I quote an obscure historical anecdote:
[/quote]

Oh boy, an analogy. Those are always better than talking about the actual situation.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

The people who truly “started it” are dead.
[/quote]

This one of those ‘memes’, again? The people who actually started it, as in, actually commited military attacks, were quite well before Israel retaliated. But please put it in quotes a few more times, that’ll change the fact of first strikes on one group’s part.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

The reasons are either long forgotten, or have evolved, based on the ongoing conflicts.
[/quote]

So it doesn’t matter that Hezbollah launched unprovoked attacks against Israel, because other stuff happened, earlier. And it’s forgotten or evolved. Kay.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

In any case, how does that help us solve the problem now?
[/quote]

Intersting as that’s the first time you’ve asked that question. Even though I answered it in my very next sentence after the one you responded to. Odd, that.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

That is why I resorted to the “dubious” smiley in such a serious topic.
[/quote]

Either that or you simply ignored the actual question I was responding to in order to make a tangential rhetorical point.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]
.
For me, the goal is to get to the negotiating table, and you can’t get there with your attitude.
[/quote]

And what attitude would that be, exactly?

@FinnAgain

The quickest route to peace, stability, and economic prosperity for the ME is the recognition of Israel, diplomatic relations rather than terrorist campaigns, and a negotiated solution to the refugee problems (both Jewish and Arab) as well as an equitable two state solution for Israel and Palestine.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]
.
And if you’ve given up on negotiating, then just what are you advocating here?
[/quote]

If you’ve given up on honestly representing what I’ve said in black and white, and instead just making stuff up, what are you doing here?

@FinnAgain

Okay, assuming that they were determined to start a war, once they had and it was evident that they could not win, they should disarm, release their prisoners, disavow terrorism, recognize the right of Israel to exist, and come to the negotiating table.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]
.
So in the interest of saving time and bandwidth - what is your personal objective here?
[/QUOTE]

Gee, ya think it was in the post you responded to while you were ignoring context, elaboration, and the exact statement that you’re now asking for. And in the process implying that I somehow want a massacre.

Good thing though that you won’t respond to all those factual counters as they’re ‘snarky’.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Samiorange]
I’m sorry, but pure snark doesn’t constitute an argument worth replying to in detail. Please try again.
[/QUOTE]

First of all, this stuff has all been gone over ad nausium in myriad threads on GD for at least a week now. The HB appologists say the same things over and over again…basically what YOU are saying. There are plenty of non-snarky replies…feel free to respond to one of those. Or, disreguard the supposed snark and respond to the actual (good) points he made. Or, you know, just wave your hands and decline to engage because you don’t want to dirty yourself with the snark.

Secondly, the use of ‘meme’ (repeatedly) by YOU was, IMHO, the waving of the flag to let the snarky-ness begin. So…you don’t want snark? Then don’t be so fucking snarky yourself. Its not a ‘meme’…its backed up by, you know, facts…from multiple sources. Mostly REPUTABLE sources. What do YOU gots?

I’ll tell you…uncorroborated anecodotes from sources like Solon, while possible interesting don’t cut it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary from more reputable mainstream sources. Sure, they could all be wrong and the good agenda-less folks at Solon the sole voice of reason and accuracy…but its going to take a bit more to convince folks of your case. As for your FAIR cite, I’m sorry…I’m sure its very convincing to you. But it seems to me to be a string of conjecture spun together so that it APPEARS to say…well, that the situation is really more confused than us dumb American’s and our news media really realize. Oh, and really, if you look at it sideways with one eye closed while hopping on one foot, it sure COULD be all Israel’s fault after all…Or something.

Again, I suppose its possible that they have things right (though Finn has already shown a rather convinent out of context quote they used…maybe they just didn’t read that part or think it was important or something) while the majority of sources are plain wrong…but one essentially speculation and conjecture article that is obviously spun in a certain way is not exactly a silver bullet…

YMMV

-XT

[RedFury]

The children went to sleep believing they were safe. And then Israel targeted them as terrorists

Does The Telegraph belong in the “blogs and agenda driven “info mags””? Or do you just refuse to believe your lying eyes?

[Samiorange]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Your refusal to respond to arguments you have no counter for is noted.
[/quote]
I have no shortage of counters for that stuff. I just think it is irrelevant to solving the current problem. If you are truly serious about debating this, then please respond to my final question about your personal objectives. Do you want a solution both sides can live with or not? Because if you are only here to cheerlead for one side I’m not interested. Fair enough?