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

[Samiorange]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
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
[/QUOTE]
I wasn’t here a week ago so I’m not sure how you think I should go back in time to reply to those posts.

Also, I’m not an “HB apologist”. Obviously (or it should be) Hezbollah has comitted terrorist acts and is now acting beyond the interests of Lebanese citizens in general. If you’d responded to what I actually posted here instead of whatever generalized argument is driving you, we might take this further. I encourage you to reply to what I actually post - I promise I will be civil, direct, and provide cites for any facts in dispute. What else can I say?

[XT]

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

What does this prove exactly? Besides that you continue to engage (as such) in debate by the method of drive by? We’ve been over this incident already in this thread. If you have something to say about the actual incident, I invite you to go there and say it. If you think there is something relevant to THIS thread in either the incident or your cite of it then I invite you to spit it out. Don’t keep us in suspense like this Red…

-XT

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=Samiorange]
I have no shortage of counters for that stuff.
[/quote]

Sure… you just choose not to use them. Counters for things including that FAIR obviously took quotes out of context to make a point, and repeated claims which the original cites cast into doubt, including other factual bits which helped do the same.

But you don’t have to address the deliberate spin of your cite, which you totally could do. You just don’t wanna.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

I just think it is irrelevant to solving the current problem.
[/quote]

Luckily I’ve now stated, and quoted back at you, exactly what I said about that little obfuscative question. Luckily enough, as well, ignoring that if the aggressors didn’t start a war, there wouldn’t be a war is harldy ‘irrelevant’. Nor is ignoring the fact that without aggression there would be peace going to make that fact ‘irrelevant’.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

If you are truly serious about debating this, then please respond to my final question about your personal objectives.
[/quote]

You want me to repost what I said and you deliberately ignored… for a second time? Not only am I serious about debating this, but your continual game of let’s-pretend is quite frankly rather puzzling.

If -you- are truly serious about debating this, why don’t you respond to the answer that I gave once and then quoted again to you when you were pretending not to have seen it?

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

Do you want a solution both sides can live with or not?
[/quote]

Do you want to stop playing make-believe and deal with what I’ve already said?

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

Because if you are only here to cheerlead for one side I’m not interested. Fair enough?
[/QUOTE]

If you mean, can you again ignore that I’ve already answered your question, continue to ascribe false positions to me, and pretend that you’re debating with honor and integrity? Do I honestly have to answer that?

[XT]

[QUOTE=Samiorange]
I wasn’t here a week ago so I’m not sure how you think I should go back in time to reply to those posts.
[/QUOTE]

And I see now you are a guest, which means you can’t search. :smack: Appologies. Most of those threads are still running hot on the main page of GD…I invite you to take a look. Maybe if you look through them you will see why Finn in particular is a bit frustrated. Several of those threads have been linked in this thread in fact…the one dealing with the ‘meme’ about HB hiding among civilians was linked by chappachula above for instance.

-XT

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Maybe if you look through them you will see why Finn in particular is a bit frustrated.
[/QUOTE]

There’s certainly that… there’s also now the fact that I have very clearly stated my position with regard to negotiation and peace. It’s somewhat frustrating to do that, have someone imply that I want a ‘massacre’, and continue to act as if I haven’t gone above and beyond, not only stating my position but re-quoting it. (!)

And to see commentss like… "I encourage you to reply to what I actually post " are just too rich from someone busy ignoring what I actually post. Were I in a different forum I could elaborate on that type of behavior, but here I’ll just say it’s not conducive to an actual debate, at all.

[Samiorange]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Sure… you just choose not to use them. Counters for things including that FAIR obviously took quotes out of context to make a point, and repeated claims which the original cites cast into doubt, including other factual bits which helped do the same.

But you don’t have to address the deliberate spin of your cite, which you totally could do. You just don’t wanna.

Luckily I’ve now stated, and quoted back at you, exactly what I said about that little obfuscative question. Luckily enough, as well, ignoring that if the aggressors didn’t start a war, there wouldn’t be a war is harldy ‘irrelevant’. Nor is ignoring the fact that without aggression there would be peace going to make that fact ‘irrelevant’.

You want me to repost what I said and you deliberately ignored… for a second time? Not only am I serious about debating this, but your continual game of let’s-pretend is quite frankly rather puzzling.

If -you- are truly serious about debating this, why don’t you respond to the answer that I gave once and then quoted again to you when you were pretending not to have seen it?

Do you want to stop playing make-believe and deal with what I’ve already said?

If you mean, can you again ignore that I’ve already answered your question, continue to ascribe false positions to me, and pretend that you’re debating with honor and integrity? Do I honestly have to answer that?
[/QUOTE]
Is that a “No, I won’t answer your question.”?

Wow. How do you get to “pretending honor and integrity”? What sinister goals have I avowed here? Get a grip, willya.

@xtisme

And I see now you are a guest, which means you can’t search. Appologies. Most of those threads are still running hot on the main page of GD…I invite you to take a look. Maybe if you look through them you will see why Finn in particular is a bit frustrated. Several of those threads have been linked in this thread in fact…the one dealing with the ‘meme’ about HB hiding among civilians was linked by chappachula above for instance.

-XT

I didn’t think it was good form to bring up older threads - is there an unwritten rule about that?

But I did think my points about how to constitute Hezbollah between the Lebanese citizens was something that wasn’t addressed before in those older threads (I did peruse them). Unfortunately, (so far) no one here seems interested in pursuing that debate.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=Samiorange]
Is that a “No, I won’t answer your question.”?
[/quote]

It’s an “I’ve answered your question, re-quoted my answer back at you, and you are dishonestly pretending not to have seen it.”

Who, exactly, do you think you’re fooling?

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

Wow. How do you get to “pretending honor and integrity”?
[/quote]

Ahem "I encourage you to reply to what I actually post ".
You continue to ignore that I’ve already answered you question. And not only answered it, but freaking re-quoted it to you. You keep pretending not to have seen it. And the quote you’re now distorting is that you’re pretending to -debate- with honor and integrity. I have no idea what you are like as a person, only that your argument is amazingly dishonest.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

But I did think my points about how to constitute Hezbollah between the Lebanese citizens was something that wasn’t addressed before in those older threads (I did peruse them). Unfortunately, (so far) no one here seems interested in pursuing that debate.
[/quote]

@FinnAgain

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.

Evidently you just want to pretend that answers to your questions don’t exist.

[Samiorange]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
There’s certainly that… there’s also now the fact that I have very clearly stated my position with regard to negotiation and peace. It’s somewhat frustrating to do that, have someone imply that I want a ‘massacre’, and continue to act as if I haven’t gone above and beyond, not only stating my position but re-quoting it. (!)

And to see commentss like… "I encourage you to reply to what I actually post " are just too rich from someone busy ignoring what I actually post. Were I in a different forum I could elaborate on that type of behavior, but here I’ll just say it’s not conducive to an actual debate, at all.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe you could point out your “clearly stated position with regard to negotiation and peace”? I’m new and I didn’t see it. Was it in a direct reply to me? Sorry, but when I read so much anger I tend to wade through - perhaps I missed it.

[Samiorange]

Did you mean this:

@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.

Okay - sorry I missed it, but your post seemed to be one of those point by point snark answer thingies to snips of my own posts and I passed it by.

So the question now is: Why are you so angry at me? What the hell did you think I was advocating in any of my previous posts?

My dislike of memes and talking points is a separate issue, and applies equally to any political discussion. I’m sorry if that is what threw you off. I’m not a cheerleader for either side, although I will disclose now that my politics are left-leaning and secular, which means I’m no friend of neocon-likud-right or theocratic-islam.

I’d just like to have a reasonable and practical solution prepared that spares innocent lives, on the off chance that powerful interests, the arms industry, religious crackpots, and/or ethnic demagogues don’t get their way in this conflict.

And now that I’ve revealed myself as boringly even-handed, all my ideas and opinions will henceforth be ignored.

[Bryan_Ekers]

It occurs to me that if Hezbollah really cares about Lebanese civilians, they should cease offensive operations, no? Wouldn’t that demonstrate… something? They’re accomplishing very little with inaccurate rocket attacks except further provocation.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Samiorange]
I didn’t think it was good form to bring up older threads - is there an unwritten rule about that?
[/QUOTE]

Not at all. The threads on the main pages of the various forums are still pretty much hot in any case. And after all, these ‘old’ threads are less than a month ‘old’…not exactly ancient and out of date ya know. But no…I recently had my thread on Total War resurrected in CS and it was months old. I and expect it will continue to be resurrected again from time to time as the various fans, such as myself, endless talk about it.

The only unwritten rule I know of is don’t resurrect some ancient thread just for the sake of a bump…if you have something new or relevant to say though, feel free. Of course, as a guest you can’t search so its probably not so much a problem for you…unless you are planning on digging through pages of ancient threads manually.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]
But I did think my points about how to constitute Hezbollah between the Lebanese citizens was something that wasn’t addressed before in those older threads (I did peruse them). Unfortunately, (so far) no one here seems interested in pursuing that debate.
[/QUOTE]

Finn engaged you on this and answered your question and debate points (such as they were). However, I’ll take a shot:

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?

Who constitutes Hezbollah ?

The Hezbollah (Arabic: حزب الله‎ ḥizbu-llāh[1], meaning Party of Allah) is a Lebanese Islamist Shi’a organization and political party[2][3], with a military arm and a civilian arm [4]. It was officially founded on the 16th of February, 1985 when Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin declared the group’s manifesto. The publication of the manifesto was timed to coincide with the anniversary of Ragheb Harb’s death. [5]. One of Hezbollah’s principal declared aims is to fight the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon[6] that lasted until 2000[7]. Hezbollah is currently led by its Secretary General, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

“How do you differentiate between the militant fighters, the politicians, and the civilians who either work for or support them?” Well, the obvious answer is…the ones shooting at you are probably in the militant faction. The ones running and hiding are probably something else. I suppose the answer you are looking for is…they pretty much blend into the population since they COME (mostly) from the same stock. So, as Finn said, if they have a gun…

This is, of course, why civilian and non-combatant casualties are so high. They are a militant force without distinguishing uniforms or badges (though some do seem to wear combat gear…I guess that would be another give away) who are fighting from within the same civilian population they basically came from.

“Remember that Hezbollah is the second largest employer in Lebanon.” Not to be snarky, but so what? The Nazi’s in Germany were the primary employer in Germany. They sent archiological expeditions around the world. They hosted the Olympics. They got Germany out of a depression, restored faith in the government and pride in being German. And they were evil bastards of the first order.

“Are all those people considered civilian shields, or legitimate targets, or what?” Its a mixed bag. Some are civilian shields, some of those who are ‘non-combatants’ but who are supporting HB through logistics and such are legitimate targets…the majority IMHO would fall into the ‘civilan shields’ or just caught in the middle category.

I’m unsure where you are going with this, but that seems to be what you wanted to be engaged on.

-XT

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=Samiorange]
Maybe you could point out your “clearly stated position with regard to negotiation and peace”?
[/quote]

I wrote it once. I quoted it to you a second time. Look through my posts to you to find the only instances where I quoted myself. You’ve spotted one of two direct quotes I re-quoted to you. The one you’re looking for deals with how the aggressor in this conflict can act in order to end the conflict immediately.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

I’m new and I didn’t see it.
[/quote]

Your reading of text is not related to the time you’ve spent on this board.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

Sorry, but when I read so much anger I tend to wade through - perhaps I missed it.
[/QUOTE]

Anger? Pointing out a ridiculous position, and one that’s been hashed out time and time again, including in a thread you were linked to that you didn’t read well is hardly an ‘angry’ action. Did I mock your position, and its supporting evidence? You betcha. For obvious reasons in both cases.

But even now all I’ve done is risen to the level of mild frustration. If I was angry, I’d have taken this to the Pit. Eviscerating your argument here in GD has been just fine. Well, that and attempting to get you to actually respond to what I’ve posted in black and white.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

Okay - sorry I missed it, but your post seemed to be one of those point by point snark answer thingies to snips of my own posts and I passed it by.
[/quote]

I have no idea what you mean, but ripping apart your argument on factual and logical grounds is hardly beyond the pale. If a point by point refutation of your argument with ‘snark answer thingies’ is too rough for you…

I will also note that even before I responded to you, you had ignored the elaboration that immediately followed the quote you were responding to.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

So the question now is: Why are you so angry at me?
[/quote]

So the question is, have you stopped beating your wife?

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

My dislike of memes and talking points is a separate issue, and applies equally to any political discussion.
[/quote]

No, it’s actually a central point. You have handwaved away such things as who the aggressor is and the verified fact of the use of human shields as mere ‘memes’.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

I’d just like to have a reasonable and practical solution prepared that spares innocent lives
[/quote]

You mean like the aggressor in this conflict laying down their arms, renouncing terrorism, and coming to the negotiating table?

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

And now that I’ve revealed myself as boringly even-handed, all my ideas and opinions will henceforth be ignored.
[/quote]

I’ve responded to all of your claims, often going point by point with ‘snarky answer thingies’ that directly responded to and refuted your points.

[Samiorange]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Who constitutes Hezbollah ?

“How do you differentiate between the militant fighters, the politicians, and the civilians who either work for or support them?” Well, the obvious answer is…the ones shooting at you are probably in the militant faction. The ones running and hiding are probably something else. I suppose the answer you are looking for is…they pretty much blend into the population since they COME (mostly) from the same stock. So, as Finn said, if they have a gun…

This is, of course, why civilian and non-combatant casualties are so high. They are a militant force without distinguishing uniforms or badges (though some do seem to wear combat gear…I guess that would be another give away) who are fighting from within the same civilian population they basically came from.

“Remember that Hezbollah is the second largest employer in Lebanon.” Not to be snarky, but so what? The Nazi’s in Germany were the primary employer in Germany. They sent archiological expeditions around the world. They hosted the Olympics. They got Germany out of a depression, restored faith in the government and pride in being German. And they were evil bastards of the first order.

“Are all those people considered civilian shields, or legitimate targets, or what?” Its a mixed bag. Some are civilian shields, some of those who are ‘non-combatants’ but who are supporting HB through logistics and such are legitimate targets…the majority IMHO would fall into the ‘civilan shields’ or just caught in the middle category.

I’m unsure where you are going with this, but that seems to be what you wanted to be engaged on.

-XT
[/QUOTE]
But that is my point, XT. People who are caught in the middle. Do you feel comfortable designating them as legit targets? IMO, that is one of the advantages for the guerilla fighters in an asymmetrical war - the more powerful side can’t really justify those “caught in the middle” casualties. Sure, they will try to, as we’ve seen all over the internet with the memes and talking points - but the recruitment levels for the guerillas also go up, and that is a win for the weaker side. That is all they need to keep going. They don’t have to win, they just have to keep the more powerful side from winning.

Meanwhile, innocents die on both sides, and people on both sides who don’t want or need this shit get screwed on various levels.

To me, that means that it is up to the more powerful side to make the effort to get to the negotiating table. Otherwise, the stalemate continues and more and more people die. Does being “right” justify this? Especially when that “righteousness” is so old and complicated?

[Samiorange]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
I wrote it once. I quoted it to you a second time. Look through my posts to you to find the only instances where I quoted myself. You’ve spotted one of two direct quotes I re-quoted to you. The one you’re looking for deals with how the aggressor in this conflict can act in order to end the conflict immediately.

Your reading of text is not related to the time you’ve spent on this board.

Anger? Pointing out a ridiculous position, and one that’s been hashed out time and time again, including in a thread you were linked to that you didn’t read well is hardly an ‘angry’ action. Did I mock your position, and its supporting evidence? You betcha. For obvious reasons in both cases.

But even now all I’ve done is risen to the level of mild frustration. If I was angry, I’d have taken this to the Pit. Eviscerating your argument here in GD has been just fine. Well, that and attempting to get you to actually respond to what I’ve posted in black and white.

I have no idea what you mean, but ripping apart your argument on factual and logical grounds is hardly beyond the pale. If a point by point refutation of your argument with ‘snark answer thingies’ is too rough for you…

I will also note that even before I responded to you, you had ignored the elaboration that immediately followed the quote you were responding to.

So the question is, have you stopped beating your wife?

No, it’s actually a central point. You have handwaved away such things as who the aggressor is and the verified fact of the use of human shields as mere ‘memes’.

You mean like the aggressor in this conflict laying down their arms, renouncing terrorism, and coming to the negotiating table?

I’ve responded to all of your claims, often going point by point with ‘snarky answer thingies’ that directly responded to and refuted your points.
[/QUOTE]
Okay. I’m done with you then. You’re still obsessed with the “Who started it” meme and the point by point snark. I’m not. Good luck to you and yours.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=Samiorange]
Okay. I’m done with you then.
[/quote]

You never started.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

You’re still obsessed with the “Who started it” meme
[/quote]

:rolleyes:
Yes, I am still obsessed by the fact that if one side laid down their arms there would be peace, and if the other did there would still be rocket attacks raining down. Crazy obsession of mine, I know.

If you don’t like those pesky facts, just repeat the word ‘meme’ over and over and freaking over again. That and complain that someone ripping apart your argument is just being too rough for you.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

and the point by point snark.
[/quote]

Just a thought, but you might want to grow a thicker skin.

As it stands, you presented a highly biased cite of dubious quality which I ripped apart. You were totally unable to respond to any of my refutations, and instead pretended that your inability was because of ‘snark’.

Even now you pretend that stating that if the aggressors laid down their arms there would be peace is some kind of “obsession” and a “meme.”

You actually seem totally unable to address the facts of the situation, and instead continually evade and obfuscate… while not complaining that you’re unable to refute any points because of ‘snark’.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

To me, that means that it is up to the more powerful side to make the effort to get to the negotiating table.
[/QUOTE]

Again pesky little ’ ol’ facts are getting in the way of your… hmmm… what’s a good word or phrase to describe 'em… talking points? Bits of propaganda? Could it be… memes?

[Samiorange]

Is Fair.org a highly biased cite here? What cites are acceptable? Is there a listing for them?

Finn, it’s all about your attitude - not necessarily your views. It seems you can’t see that. Think about it: I’m a total stranger to you - why the hell would I want to converse with you when you continue to be nasty? Count how many times I said “I’m sorry” to you, or gave you the benefit of the doubt. How did you reply to that?

That is why I said that your attitude won’t get to the negotiating table. This isn’t how a person who truly wants peace responds.

[Samiorange]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Again pesky little ’ ol’ facts are getting in the way of your… hmmm… what’s a good word or phrase to describe 'em… talking points? Bits of propaganda? Could it be… memes?
[/QUOTE]
You cross the snark line to disingenuous with those cites. Anyone with an open mind who can be bothered to read them will see that. Those who simply want to high five you and continue to cheerlead can’t be reached yet - so I won’t bother. But I think you know better - based on your unreasoning anger here - and you will have to find your own way to live with it. Good luck with that.

[FinnAgain]

Glad you’re done responding to me.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

You cross the snark line to disingenuous with those cites.
[/quote]

Yet again you provide zero rebuttal to factual counters of your bullshit. Yet again you “won’t bother”. Yet again you have no possible counter, so you pretend and evade and run away.

One link gives a history of Israeli negotiation with Lebanon, the other a current deal that Israel has on the table. You don’t even attempt to explain how those aren’t relevant, just babble some ad hominem bullshit.

And despite whatever drives you, time and again, to pretend you haven’t seen text in order to make cast these dishonest baiting statements about , I would request that you stop lying and claiming I am ‘angry’, or that I’m against peace, or any other such ridiculous statements you’re inventing. Such pathetic ad hominems only serve to lower the quality of your argument even further.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]
Is Fair.org a highly biased cite here?
[/quote]

I already gave a few reasons why it was biased, including but not limited to taking quotes out of context in order to spin them a certain way.

I see you pretend not to have seen that.
I am shocked. Shocked.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

Finn, it’s all about your attitude - not necessarily your views.
[/quote]

Yes, I know, you don’t have a thick enough skin for your positions to be disagreed with.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

It seems you can’t see that.
[/quote]

No, I’m just used to people who are Dopers. You can’t even handle having your ideas disagreed with. The only ‘attitude’ I’ve had is that your argument is absurd.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

Think about it: I’m a total stranger to you - why the hell would I want to converse with you when you continue to be nasty?
[/quote]

What, like showing that your arguments are bogus? Oh no, so very nasty! Ayieeeeeee!

You’re the one who has implied that I want a massacre and that I was ‘all about’ using ‘righteousness’ to ‘justify mass deaths’. You can’t even take what you dish out, let alone the simple act of being able to handle having your arguments dealt with forcefully. This isn’t a tea party, thank the Gods.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

Count how many times I said “I’m sorry” to you, or gave you the benefit of the doubt.
[/quote]

Are you joking? Giving me the benefit of the doubt like asking if I was for massacres? Gee thank you ever so much.

And as for your backhanded apologies? Saying things like “I’m sorry, but when there’s so much anger…” “I’m sorry, but pure snark doesn’t constitute an argument worth replying to in detail. Please try again.”, isn’t an apology. I don’t know why you think that matters, in any case. I have taken issue with your flimsy argmuents and the truly horrible way you’ve gone about conducting them from your very first post to me. The real apology that showed you were ‘sorry’ would’ve been to change your behavior.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

How did you reply to that?
[/quote]

Which ‘apology’, exactly, are we discussing?

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

That is why I said that your attitude won’t get to the negotiating table.
[/quote]

So an attitude that dishonest and counterfactual arguments should be exposed as such by people on a message board dedicated to debate won’t get Hezbollah to the negotiating table. And I’m sure if I point out that your rhetoric is absurd, you’ll just claim that I’m full of rage. Yeah…

Alrighty.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]

This isn’t how a person who truly wants peace responds.
[/QUOTE]

Wow. So not only are you, again, claiming that I don’t want peace even though I’ve explicitly stated and elaborated that position in detail, but you’re pretending that someone who’ll call bullshit on you must not want peace?

Mother of mercy…

[XT]

[QUOTE=Samiorange]
But that is my point, XT. People who are caught in the middle. Do you feel comfortable designating them as legit targets? IMO, that is one of the advantages for the guerilla fighters in an asymmetrical war - the more powerful side can’t really justify those “caught in the middle” casualties. Sure, they will try to, as we’ve seen all over the internet with the memes and talking points - but the recruitment levels for the guerillas also go up, and that is a win for the weaker side. That is all they need to keep going. They don’t have to win, they just have to keep the more powerful side from winning.
[/QUOTE]

The problem here is that your core assumption is wrong. You claim the innocent people are being directly targetted…legitimate or no. From where do you get this incredible assumption? The IDF isn’t directly targetting civilians…the civilians killed are those who are in close proximity to HB paramilitary forces during combat between them and the IDF. HB having deliberately chosen to engage the IDF in those places. So…who REALLY is the one putting those folks at risk, and ultimately responsible for their deaths?

Your further assumption is that the more powerful side is going to allow itself to be deliberately crippled by its lack of motivation in going after guerrilla forces who are deliberately shielding themselves using the local population. Or that ‘the more powerful side’ cannot justify itself for some reason. Perhaps in some circles and at some times this is or was true. There certainly seem plenty of folks on this board (though a lot less than I would have thought 2 weeks ago) who feel that reguardless of the provocation, when a more powerful force goes to defend itself from attack and kills innocent civilians who were being used by the less powerful force as a deliberate shield, that the more powerful force is wrong, evil, or should immediately cave in. I don’t believe that Israel, at this time and in this place would tend to agree with that assessment. I don’t agree either.

[QUOTE=Samiorange]
Meanwhile, innocents die on both sides, and people on both sides who don’t want or need this shit get screwed on various levels.
[/QUOTE]

Yes? Whats your point? Whats your solution? Israel wants the return of its soldiers and is now unwilling to return to the status quo. HB (unreasonably IMHO) wants Israel out of territory that Lebanon is spuriously claiming. Even if you think HB’s assertion valid and Lebanon’s claim legitimate it makes no difference…neither side is going to back down from their core positions. Thus the fighting goes on. Sometimes life is just like that. Do you have a reasonable suggestion how things could be different at this point?

[QUOTE=Samiorange]
To me, that means that it is up to the more powerful side to make the effort to get to the negotiating table. Otherwise, the stalemate continues and more and more people die. Does being “right” justify this? Especially when that “righteousness” is so old and complicated?
[/QUOTE]

Then you are basically conceeding victory to any insurgent or terror group out there with an agenda and the will to wack a few civilians. Why should it be up to ‘the more powerful side’ to negotiate? Why do you presume that it has to be a stalemate and no resolution possible other than for the ‘more powerful side’ to basically cave in?

Getting out of this generic bullshit, why do you think Israel needs to negotiate a ceasefire with HB on terms not benificial to them (they have ALREADY stated the terms acceptable to them that will effect a ceasefire…namely the return of their soldiers and having Hezbollah’s paramilitary removed perminently from Southern Lebanon…and incidentally the border with Israel)?

This has nothing really to do with being ‘right’. You seem to lack a basic understanding of whats actually going on here…and why. I say that not to be snarky, but because this isn’t about right or wrong…either from HB’s or Israel’s perspective. In HB’s case its about power…in Israel’s its about security. I encourage you to read through some of those older threads to get a better idea of whats actually going on over there…and why.

-XT