Whoa. I don't really know what to say about this, but I was a bit surprised I hadn't seen anything about it recently on Hatrack. I also know there are some Hatrackers whose primary source of news is, well, here.
I'm not a moderator, but I think it would be decent if this thread, assuming it lasts, does not degenerate into flaming and bitterly rude rhetoric.
Discussions about these kind of topics do have a way of turning into unintelligent shouting matches.
I personally think Israel is overreacting. All this started with the abduction of two military men. This kind of response isn't likely to improve the situation of the hostages. So, if their fate is foremost in the mind of the Israeli government, I'd suggest they try and reason with their opponents in stead of just blasting them to bits.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Rakeesh, I think people may have just felt a little burned out on Israel in regards to some of the earlier threads this week.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
THT, you're probably right. Good point.
Eduardo, if you believe this is only about the abduction of two soldiers, I think you're seriously mistaken.
If the only consideration would be what is best for the hostages, then obviously the correct course of action would be to submit to their captor's demands immediately to secure their freedom. Clearly, this cannot be done by Israel.
J4
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Israel has a right to defend itself.
But I am sad because of both the new kidnappings and Israel's opening a new front in a widening war.
One tactic Hezbollah might adopt would be to continue capturing IDF soldiers, in raids over the Israeli borders with Syria, Jordan, Egypt. . .
Would Israel go to war against all it's neighbors? It has before, against various Arab alliances. edit to add: Or the alliances have gone to war against Israel.
That is a scary prospect, for Arabs, Israelis and the rest of us. I hope the violence can be resolved before too much more happens.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Could be on the brink of WWIII with everything in the world on a short fuse. Between North Korea, Iran, and now this added in. It certainly wouldn’t take much.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
A proper world war needs at least two Great Powers, one on each side. Israel doesn't qualify.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Might be better to get a more international perspective about this.
the concensus (i.e. UN and other nations) right now seems to be that the Lebanese governement needs to get the Hezbollah military under control, and that Israel is completely overreacting in its retaliation (there is a difference between self defense and disproportionate retaliation)
the only real side to take here is that this senseless violence needs to stop, both from Hezbollah and from Israel, and that Lebanon needs to get off its ass and do something about the militant wing of Hezbollah (because I think that the political wing is important in order that everyone is represented in Lebanese parliament)
can we not all agree on that?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I wish Israel had taken to something a bit more covert than airstrikes. But I get the feeling that the Israelis are feeling very put upon right now, and a smashing show of force might be what they feel they need to send a message to other governments in the area: "Hey-- don't eff with us. We'll effing bomb you."
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
"The blockade follows wide-ranging Israeli air raids on southern Lebanon, which killed at least 35 civilians.
Among the dead were two whole families - one of 10 people and one of seven - killed in the homes near the town of Nabatiyeh, officials said."
this is never necessary, just like the Hezbollah attacks weren't either
(going for lunch so don't expect any replies for at least an hour )
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Israel has a right to defend itself, but only through reasonable means. Enganging in what is essentially open war with a neighboring country over the kidnapping of two men by terrorists is an overreaction, especially given it is not clear to what degree the government of Lebanon can control Hezbollah. The message it sends to terrorist groups is that they can start a war if they successfully abduct Israeli soldiers.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
It is sad. I am proud that Israel is standing up for its right to be... This is when the rest of the Muslim world will try to dog-pile Israel and our wisdom in neutralizing two and locating strategically in the midst of all of the Muslim Countries will pay dividends.
Peace is what you have when your enemy is destroyed, or so Islam, the Religion of Peace teaches. Once they are penniless beggars in your midst who have accepted the Koran, then they can be treated with some mercy.
The sheer numbers of Muslims involved, the density of their population is something that we in America have little grasp of, you cannot swing a cat in the populated centers of the Middle East without knocking over three people, I am for that reason amazed at the low body count from the Israeli retaliation. It speaks of a surgical precision that even we should envy. One misplaced bomb in Beirut will kill a thousand people easily.
This is the potential for atrocity, the attempt to create reasons for the West to abandon and isolate Israel that we must be aware of. The provocations against Israel are meant to create facts for the opposition, the Jihad against Israel is the goal, it is not enough that we let Israel handle its problems as they see fit, we must go there now and stand shoulder to shoulder with them, accepting responsibility with them as things escalate and sending a clear message to Islam that America is fully committed in the fight to protect Israel.
I hope that those who will cry that Israel has overreacted will be the minority, because this is just the first round and it not good to start the fight with a great deal of hysterical hand waving and jumping about. We need to prepare ourselves for the commitment it will take to end the dream and hope of Islam to bind the world under one doctrine that makes them masters and us slaves.
BC
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Isreal's decisive and measured response reenforces my long-standing respect and admiration for that country and its military. Hezbollah and Hamas share the blame for every ounce of blood shed during this conflict. They knew, or should have known, how Isreal was going to respond, but terrorists rarely care about hurting their own.
Posted by utka (Member # 9297) on :
I'm Israeli, so I think I aware to the situation a little bit more: Maybe you are not aware that: In the years of 2002-2006 over 600 Qassam rockets fell on Israeli territory, (launched by Hamas). Thats the backround. Its all began 2 weeks ago, when Hamas kidnaped an israeli soldier. (another citizen was kidnaped and got killed) The diplomacy for release the soldier didn't work, and thats why the Israeli armi started the attack on Gaza. Few days later the Hamas launched for the first time a qassam rocket on the city Ashkelon, which practically made all the situation worst. The city Sderot suffered from dozens of rockets in the last few weeks. Yesterday 2 soldiers was capture and 3 got killed in an ISRAELI territory by the Hezbollah , and they launched over 90 Katyusha rockets (wich are a lot better from the Qassam). Be added to all the terrorist attacks, the threats, this situation is unaccepted. You got to understand Israel can't sit still while all this cities an citizens get hurted by the rockets. I am really sorry about all the kills in the Arabic side, but thats the only way. Diplomacy doesn't work with extremism Muslims. I don't really believe you could understand, because Israel's policy is a lot different from USA's. sorry about the mistakes.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Ahhh...the wisdom of BeanCounter...give me a moment to just bask in the glow...okay...I'm done basking.
Now back! Back I say! Back under the bridge from whence you came!
Mig, Israel has a right to protect itself, however they also need to exercise some level of restraint. It goes without saying that the Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese need to reign in their fringe elements, as they stand to gain nothing from an all-out war. The other side of that coin, though, is that Israel also gains nothing by endorsing extreme messures and an excessive show of force.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Peace is what you have when your enemy is destroyed, or so Islam, the Religion of Peace teaches. Once they are penniless beggars in your midst who have accepted the Koran, then they can be treated with some mercy.
This is a lie.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
This is not the activity of "Fringe elements" this is the will of the Islamic people, they elected Hamas, and they are Hezbollah, this is not Timothy McVay, a wacko fringe nut, this is the Nazi's, a majority committed to power and atrocity. The myth of all the nice everyday Children of God in the Arab world going about their business hoping for peace is just not true. These people live short brutal lives full of anger, and an enormous sense of indignation that the world they are entitled to is in other hands then their own.
BC
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Hello, utka, and welcome to the forum. Since you're a newer member, you might not be aware that we follow the news pretty closely around here, and have discussed the kidnapping and rocket fire issues on earlier threads about this matter. I'm pretty sure everyone who has posted on this thread is aware of everything you mentioned. You are correct that none of us currently live in Israel, although there are a few posters who have previously, and it's certainly good to get the perspective of someone who does. I hope you stay safe, by the way.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
TheHumanTarget wrote:
quote:It goes without saying that the Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese need to reign in their fringe elements, as they stand to gain nothing from an all-out war.
Hamas is the government now. What exactly make them or Hezbollah a fringe element?
Exactly what level of restraint would you recommend if your home or city was the target of rocket attacks from across the border and the people in charge of the area from which the rockets are fired did nothing to stop them? Or if your your people were being kidnapped and taken across the border? Seriously, TheHumanTarget, what level of restraint do you think works best with these Islamofascists?
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peace is what you have when your enemy is destroyed, or so Islam, the Religion of Peace teaches. Once they are penniless beggars in your midst who have accepted the Koran, then they can be treated with some mercy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a lie.
I suggest you look up the "Treatment of Converts in conquered lands" Rules in the Koran if you wade through the thing as I did. It is simple truth and religious doctrine. You are the one who has been lied too.
BC
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The Koran does not teach what you say it teaches, Bean Counter. You're lying.
Posted by utka (Member # 9297) on :
Thanks. I said you might not be aware to this because as Israeli, I see in the TV/Internet every one of those rockets and terrorist attacks stories, an its a pretty big deal over here. Sometimes I watch USA and UK TV stations and surf in your news sites, and I noticed that if a terror attack happens here- its the headline for a day or two, and thats it, we remember each one of those attacks. If a rocket falls, it not even on the front page. I'm not saying it should be, I just think you still not aware as you think you are.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Peace is what you have when your enemy is destroyed, or so Islam, the Religion of Peace teaches. Once they are penniless beggars in your midst who have accepted the Koran, then they can be treated with some mercy.
This is a lie.
The most vocal proponents of the Religion of Peace have for years now shown nothing but respect for other religions and an unabiding lack of support for violence. Really, it hard to find any clerics from the Religion or Peace that support violence in any form or teach anything but respect for other religions. Plus, I hear that the whole community comes out to offer their good will whenever a new Chirstian church opens up anywhere in the Arab world. Hey, that's just their way.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Hamas is the government now. What exactly make them or Hezbollah a fringe element?
There are many elements to both Hamas and Hezbollah, and on many occasions in the past, one or more of each of these elements have exerted pressure on the others.
As to the level of restraint, I couldn't truly say. However, the escalation of attacks by both sides will do nothing but feed a further escalation of attacks. It's a viscious cycle, and short of a full-scale war that wipes out one side, it will never accomplish what either side wants.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Wow... let the team up begin. Wonder when North Korea will get in too?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Exactly what level of restraint would you recommend if your home or city was the target of rocket attacks from across the border and the people in charge of the area from which the rockets are fired did nothing to stop them? Or if your your people were being kidnapped and taken across the border?
Well, for one thing, I would recommend not starting a war with the other country - especially if doing so won't make the problem go away.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Oh, utka, I have no doubt that you have more details and that the issue is vastly more immediate to you than it is to most of us. Only makes sense, neh? Just wanted you to know that the things like numbers of rockets launched and kidnappings have been under discussion here in other threads. Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Really, it hard to find any clerks from the Religion or Peace that support violence in any form or teach anything but respect for other religions.
No, it's not, and it's unfortunate that the fanatics of any religion are the most vocal. For a non-Muslim example, just look at Fred Phelps or Jerry Faldwell.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:I suggest you look up the "Treatment of Converts in conquered lands" Rules in the Koran if you wade through the thing as I did. It is simple truth and religious doctrine. You are the one who has been lied too.
One does not have to accept the Koran to be treated with mercy, according to the Koran.
While as with most religious scriptures, there is not one straightforward, math-like approach to such a big issue, neither is the issue as clear-cut as you suggest, by any means.
So yeah, you're lying. Thanks for the xenophobic religious intolerance, but since I feel there's a glut of it on the market, I'm not interested in yours.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Interesting. Seems to be some calls for fighting.
quote: There are also many statements that promote an adversarial relationship. For example:
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. 9:29 O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends/protecters; they are friends/protecters of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend/protecter, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. 5:51 And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated! 2:65 And whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter. 3:85
Can’t believe we’re talking about the merits of the Koran while war is close to breaking out…..
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Wow... let the team up begin. Wonder when North Korea will get in too?
Wow, someone was actually convinced of that "Axis of Evil" crap.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Can’t believe we’re talking about the merits of the Koran while war is close to breaking out
In any case, it's not a war that we should be directly involved in.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jay, do I need to start quoting the Bible to show you that no religion is free from this kind of thing? 'Cuz I can.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Jay wrote:
quote:Can’t believe we’re talking about the merits of the Koran while war is close to breaking out…..
We're at war with Islamofascism, understanding the foundations for their beliefs is crucial to any discussion on this topic and to understanding what Isreal and the reat of the west is up against.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
But Israel is a close ally
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Jay, do I need to start quoting the Bible to show you that no religion is free from this kind of thing? 'Cuz I can.
True, many religions, including Christianity, are subject to this attack, but such an attack on Christianity would have more merit if it focused on Christianity in, let's say, the seventh century. The point is that this criticism is relevant to mainstream Islam as routinely practised and preached today.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Peace is what you have when your enemy is destroyed, or so Islam, the Religion of Peace teaches. Once they are penniless beggars in your midst who have accepted the Koran, then they can be treated with some mercy.
This is a lie.
The most vocal proponents of the Religion of Peace have for years now shown nothing but respect for other religions and an unabiding lack of support for violence. Really, it hard to find any clerics from the Religion or Peace that support violence in any form or teach anything but respect for other religions. Plus, I hear that the whole community comes out to offer their good will whenever a new Chirstian church opens up anywhere in the Arab world. Hey, that's just their way.
Heh.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Oh, utka, I have no doubt that you have more details and that the issue is vastly more immediate to you than it is to most of us. Only makes sense, neh? Just wanted you to know that the things like numbers of rockets launched and kidnappings have been under discussion here in other threads.
Actually, to be more precise, I've mentioned them, and everyone else has ignored them.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: Can’t believe we’re talking about the merits of the Koran while war is close to breaking out…..
Just out of curiosity, what makes the Arabs firing rockets into Israeli cities not war? I ask, because if war is "close to breaking out", it seems that all of these rockets don't yet count as war. Or am I misunderstanding?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Jay, do I need to start quoting the Bible to show you that no religion is free from this kind of thing? 'Cuz I can.
True, many religions, including Christianity, are subject to this attack, but such an attack on Christianity would have more merit if it focused on Christianity in, let's say, the seventh century. The point is that this criticism is relevant to mainstream Islam as routinely practised and preached today.
So they're a little behind the curve. A good spanking ought to help with that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As THT pointed out, it is unfair to judge any religion by its most extreme elements.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
And as has been underscored to you, these are not fringe nuts, this is the core of Islam.
Thanks for the quote from the Koran, I forced my way through it once and searching it for specific details makes me feel like I am immersed in filth, while I might dig into it again it is amusing how short the search for hatred really need be.
As for the Bible having ancient barbarism in it, well it is an ancient text isn't it? While the Koran is a much more recent artifact, newer then the new testament, yet more barbaric then the old. There is no comparison in quality or utility.
BC
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Jay: Can’t believe we’re talking about the merits of the Koran while war is close to breaking out…..
Just out of curiosity, what makes the Arabs firing rockets into Israeli cities not war? I ask, because if war is "close to breaking out", it seems that all of these rockets don't yet count as war. Or am I misunderstanding?
I think you really need to re-evaluate your terminology. You say "the arabs", when you really mean a specific portion of like-minded individuals among the arabic community who have extremist views not closely resembling the majority of the population's opinions. The reason why people think Israel is overreacting is not because they are retaliating against the attacks (I think alot of us would expect retaliation), it is because of who they are retaliating against. They bombed obviously civilian targets, killing families and innocent lebanese citizens (musling and xian alike). This seems to me like the exact same thing that Hezbollah are doing to them with the rockets...
I really truly believe that it is nearly impossible to take sides in this conflict. The militant extremists are wrong, the arabic governments are wrong for not doing more to stop this, and Israel is wrong for their harsh retaliation. There is simply no other rational stance to take, and anyone who tells you otherwise or thinks otherwise is seriously misled (IMO) and really needs to be educated more about this issue, since they are doing much more harm than they realize.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: And as has been underscored to you, these are not fringe nuts, this is the core of Islam.
Thanks for the quote from the Koran, I forced my way through it once and searching it for specific details makes me feel like I am immersed in filth, while I might dig into it again it is amusing how short the search for hatred really need be.
As for the Bible having ancient barbarism in it, well it is an ancient text isn't it? While the Koran is a much more recent artifact, newer then the new testament, yet more barbaric then the old. There is no comparison in quality or utility.
BC
If by the bible you are speaking of the old testament, then maybe you should know that both the jews and the muslim also consider this text to be sacred (Ishmael anyone?). If you are speaking of the new testament, then they are not that different in age. The new testament was writen by many authors ranging from 50 to as much as 300 AD, and the koran came about around 600 AD. 300 years is really not that much when you consider that 2000 years have passed since then, and certainly isn't enough to call the new testament ancient and the koran recent.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
And the new Testament preaches the Gospel of Jesus who teaches mercy and love to all men, while the Koran takes the worst of the old and resurrects it.
BC
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So am I to assume that your knowledge of the NT is purely theoretical?
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Yet look at what the xians did with that flowery message for the next couple thousand years: crusades, civil wars, religious persecution, anti-civil rights movements, etc.
Clearly you cannot judge an entire faith by what is writen in texts that are many hundreds (if not thousands) of years old.
I really feel like all this talk about the koran is really off topic. What we are talking about is a modern situation that in reality has very little to do with religious teaching and much more to do with political and social issues. I don't know where you people like BC and Mig learn to think like you do, but it really worries me. Even my conservative friends here in canada are able to adopt a balanced and rational perspective when it comes to controversial issues like this, maybe it is in your education system, but you really need to learn to think critically about these issues. It is never a black and white issue.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
The situation in Israel is less about religion than it is about land and territory.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
What happened...it was 2 pages, and now it's 1...
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I posted something twice by accident, so I took one away Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
"International calls for restraint are growing, with Russia, France and the EU saying Israel's response to the capture of two soldiers was disproportionate. [...] Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said Israel was responding to "an unprovoked act of aggression" by Lebanon. "
why not just attack the actual people who attacked you!? why not attack the missile infrastructure, why not attack the southern border where all the militants are? why attack the airport a second time and kill more innocent people?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Looks like from the pictures they attacked the middle of an airfield. Doubt there are people there……. Sounds like they did that so their captured troops couldn’t get transferred to Iran.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Looks like from the pictures they attacked the middle of an airfield.
Actually, they hit the fuel farm, and as anyone who's ever been to an airport or seen one on T.V. knows, no one works there... Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:why not attack the missile infrastructure, why not attack the southern border where all the militants are?
I'm under the impression -- and anyone can correct me if I'm wrong -- that the rockets being used here were smaller, mobile types -- types that are impossible to retaliate against specifically.
Good!
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Irrelevant, as UN resolutions seem to carry almost no weight.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
True. Most of the time, but I bet one against Israel would be another log on the fire for their enemies to use against them.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Do you laugh or cry? Wow... It's gotten ugly. No telling what will be next.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Hamas is getting exactly what it wants: a conflict with Isreal in order to deflect attention from the Palestinian Authority's financial ruin in the wake of their taking the reins of power.
And Iran is further exploiting the situation (Hezbollah is an Iranian instrument) because it can point to Isreal's agressive response to further justify its militarization and nuclear program. Plus any agressive response from Isreal helps ignite anger in the Muslim streets, which always makes the Islamofascists happy.
Bottom line: Hamas and Hezbollah are getting exactly what they want and expect.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
good, as long as we can agree that Hez. is not a lebanese state sponsored militia, and that israel should be focusing their retaliation on only hez, and not acuse lebanon of starting a war
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: good, as long as we can agree that Hez. is not a lebanese state sponsored militia, and that israel should be focusing their retaliation on only hez, and not acuse lebanon of starting a war
As with the Taliban and al Queda, if you let terrorists prosper in your midst, prepare yourself for the consequence.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: If by the bible you are speaking of the old testament, then maybe you should know that both the jews and the muslim also consider this text to be sacred (Ishmael anyone?).
That's not actually true. They claim that our Bible is completely corrupt. They claim that Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Ishmael; not Isaac. They have a lot of really garbled stuff. Basically, Muhammed got stories from local Jews and patched them into the Qur'an, but he kind of made a mess of it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: The situation in Israel is less about religion than it is about land and territory.
Human, I promise you, if you insist on ignoring the religious aspects of this, you'll never understand the situation. Without those, the political aspects would have died out long ago.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Do you laugh or cry? Wow... It's gotten ugly. No telling what will be next.
Damn. Bad, bad move.
Yeah it is a bad move.
The difference? I will not be surprised to see these kidnappers tried and convicted nor for Israeli police resources to be used to free their hostages.
Anyone want to make a bet about Lebanon or Hamas punishing the people who kidnapped the Israelis?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: It's a viscious cycle, and short of a full-scale war that wipes out one side, it will never accomplish what either side wants.
This is something that has reminded me of something I have thought in the past. When I first understood to some extent the amount of death and destruction that has been in the middle east, I wondered which is worse: An ongoing feud for generations or a final fight where one side wins--if a sustained peace is even possible after a complete victory.
I have no supportable opinion of who should win; I don't understand the situation enough. I do pose the question: If there was an all out war and one side eliminated the other, would there be less death and destruction in the long run?
If we compared casualties where one side truly won vs. 100 years of skirmishes, 200 years, 1000 years (not that Israel as we know it has existed that long), which war would be more traumatic and horrible"?
Diplomacy doesn't seem viable when a stated goal is the destruction of your country. Is there truly another option besides a full-scale war or generations of death, hate and terror?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Do you laugh or cry? Wow... It's gotten ugly. No telling what will be next.
Damn. Bad, bad move.
Yeah it is a bad move.
The difference? I will not be surprised to see these kidnappers tried and convicted nor for Israeli police resources to be used to free their hostages.
That's for sure. Whoever these people are, they're going to sit in jail for a long time.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Anyone want to make a bet about Lebanon or Hamas punishing the people who kidnapped the Israelis?
But who expects that?
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: The situation in Israel is less about religion than it is about land and territory.
Human, I promise you, if you insist on ignoring the religious aspects of this, you'll never understand the situation. Without those, the political aspects would have died out long ago.
Starlisa is right that this is more about religion than it is about land. Its that the land is controlled by Jews that gets their goat. Afterall, when was the last ime the Arab-street got worked-up because Turkey took land from the the Kurds? But I would also not discount the importance of the Palistinian-Isreali conflict to the tyrants of the Middle East. Its invaluable to them as a rallying point. They encourage their people to vent on this issue because it's better that the oppressed concentrate their anger on Isreal than at home.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, why would Arabs be annoyed Turkey took land from the Kurds? They're two completely different ethnic groups. If anything that argues its less about religion, because the one big thing (other than vaguely similar location) the majority of the Arabs do share with the majority of the Kurds is religion.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: good, as long as we can agree that Hez. is not a lebanese state sponsored militia, and that israel should be focusing their retaliation on only hez, and not acuse lebanon of starting a war
Actually, Hezbollah has significent influence in the Lebanese government:
quote: How else but "restraint" to explain that Hezbollah is operating with impunity, waging new attacks against the West from a position within a Lebanon in which its representatives hold 23 seats in parliament and a Hezbollah official is minister of energy and water.
http://www.nysun.com/article/35930 It doesn't make Hezbollah's actions Lebanese government policy, but neither is the government squeaky clean.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I'm betting that by one year from now, we'll have coalitions of nations fighting against each other in the middle east. Since Syria and Iran have their militaries on high alert, and Israel may attack, it looks like Israel is going to attack Syria. So essentially, Israel will be fighting against 4 nations like the Yom Kippur War, and probably will start to lose. They may not, and they may win, but when they are fighting a nation like Iran, who is a lot bigger, things will likely turn ugly. The U.S., seeing how Israel will be in a tough situation, will send help to fend off Israel's enemies, as will probably the U.K., and several other U.S. allies.
After this, it's anyone's guess. I'm saying that WWIII is just around the corner as I said not two months ago here, and well, looks like I might just be right. Of course, Israel having one of the best armies in the world, may just be able to handle this themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if they did.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't think Iran will get involved. (Edit: directly involved w/ troops, that is.)
Remember, Israel is a serious nuclear power. I think they'll be very restrained, but they won't let a huge army get from Iran to join up w/ Syria. And Iran knows this.
Not that the Sunnis would particularly like a Shiite army crossing Iraq, either.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Even with Hezbollah being so supported by Iran?
I doubt they'd send an army either. But other support is not very much out of reason.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It will be hard to get it there. We're kind of in the way.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Mig and Morbo, you guys are confusing the Hez political and social representation with the militia. Hez is the Shiite representation of Lebanon. The UN makes a very clear distinction between the Hez. militia and the Hez. political party. The former is a terrorist group, the latter a representation of a group of lebanese individuals. And infact, the political Hez. has been working with the rest of the lebanese government to disarm the militia. one of my friends is in beirut, she wrote this on my program's forum today:
"Through Lebanon's "National Dialogue", the government had been making incremental progress towards an agreement on Hezbollah's arms. (Relatedly, the government is mandated to include all parties/sects by the Ta'if accords that ended the civil war; and many decisions are essentially done by consensus, aka each party gets a veto.) At last week's ninth national dialogue session, all participants (Christians, Druze, etc., including Hezbollah) agreed that the issue of Hezbollah's arms was to be solved in small steps... it was a huge deal that they all agreed on anything about this issue (even that the issue needed solving), and analyst-types hailed it as progress.
Besides, Hezbollah's actions against Israel were probably all mandated by Iran and Syria anyway. And they certainly knew the reaction they were going to get from Israel. Hezbollah is basically putting the country hostage for their own sectarian gains.
Where does Israel think this is going to end? Do they have an exit strategy at all, never mind one where they actually leave with more than what they arrived with?"
If lebanon did not include these people in the political process, no progress could ever be made, so your argument that they are harboring terrorists is simply wrong, since in fact they are doing everything in their power (while also trying to avoid alienating a large portion of its citizens and potential civil war) to put an end to the hez. militia and regain control of the country. Unfortunately, Israel and people like you guys don't realize that these things don't happen over night. And unlike other terrorist organizations, Hez does not receive state support from lebanon.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
We can only fight on one side, I am glad nobody is suggesting that the side we fight on should be Militant Islam. Makes it Black and White to me.
BC
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Yes you are right, we can only fight on one side, but that side should be the side of peace, and so far, no one involved in this whole conflict is on that side, as much as they may claim to be.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So if you saw two people fighting, BC, you wouldn't try to pull them apart, but would slug one or the other?
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I'm waiting for a "touche"
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: Yes you are right, we can only fight on one side, but that side should be the side of peace, and so far, no one involved in this whole conflict is on that side, as much as they may claim to be.
Except for Israel, you mean.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
If I cared I would slug one or the other, that is what I do, otherwise I would bet on the big guy and sit and watch. I once took on four guys stuffing a kid with DOWNS syndrom in a garbage can, but If I thought a kid had a beating coming I would not stop it short of him needing a hospital.
BC
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
You are disturbing BC, it makes me sad to read what you just wrote, and not hopeful for the future of this world. And no starLisa, I don't mean except for Israel. By killing more than 50 innocent Lebanese citizens today they have shown that they are just as capable as the terrorists of performing attrocities against the human race.
Under no circumstance, EVER, is innocent human life to be disguarded in this way. Collateral damage is bullshit and not even close to any kind of justification. Human life is sacred, regardless of what religion you believe in, maybe one day you and everyone else involved in this conflict will realise this and this whole thing can be resolved.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
If everyone thought the way you do Angio, the world would be a much better place. Unfortunately, the world does not, and that is why wars happen.
I still say Israel does what it needs to do and is justified in doing this. Hamas and the Lebanese terrorists brought this upon themselves, and in my eyes, are the ones to blame.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Yes I agree with you, and in the case of the actual terrorists, they do not constitute "innocent civilians", and while I do not condone straight killing them, I realise that there are not many other alternatives when you are in a war-like conflict. However, they are not the only people being targetted by Israel right now, and that is my problem. I would like to see the Israeli gov cooperating with the Lebanese gov to completely disarm the Hez militia and avoid the totally unecesary loss of innonent human life, rather than bombing civilian targets in Beirut.
Can we all agree on that?
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I was on the bbc website, and they have comments from people in Lebanon. I think all of you people who think that all arabs are extremists should read this man's comments
"GABY BAYRAM, 30, CONSULTANT
Everything is very quiet here. The mood is subdued, hesitant and tense.
I live in an area which is usually very lively and noisy with traffic and people walking around. This morning, there were just a few fishermen about.
Yesterday, people were out and about getting on with their daily lives. It's quite the opposite today. The attack on the airport was a real shock. People expect the power stations to be hit tonight and Beirut will be in darkness.
I think Hezbollah's action are completely out of line. They are acting independently of the Lebanese government and have no right to incite this violence against Israel.
Initially, I thought Israel's reactions in destroying Hezbollah positions and escape routes were appropriate. But the killing of civilians and the bombing of civilian installations, including the airport, is completely unjustified and excessive.
I expect it to get worse.
Hezbollah's demands are ridiculous and I don't think they will be met. Lebanon will be reduced to rubble before these prisoners are returned. "
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
But you see, while there is ALMOST no way justify this, you must look at it from the view of Israel's miliary:
They captured our soldiers, what would be the quickest way to militarily get them back? Answer: Attack civilian targets so that they realise if they don't succumb than many innocent lives will be taken. Perhaps if they see the kind's of things being done, they will realise what they themselves are doing.
The terrorists are attacking our people and killing them. The Lebanese government has done nothing to stop them for years? What do we do? Answer: Destroy any and all places the terrorists could use to their advantage. Do anything possible to stop them so that the killing of civilians can end as soon as possible.
Attacking civilians is similar to what the U.S. did to Japan. The atomic bombs effectively ended the war and stopped possibly millions of casualties. Had the U.S. actually invaded Japan, do you know many casulaties there would have been on the side of the U.S? How many MORE civilian casulaties there would have been in Japan? The Japanese populace would have fought to the very last man, which would have effectivly made WWII last many more years with many more casulaties.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I understand the rationale behind what they are doing, but I think that by applying it, they are in essence becoming what they seek to destroy. And for the record, the Lebanese government has been trying to disarm Hezbollah, and in recent months, has been making significant progress (see one of my earlier posts), but these thigns do not and can not happen overnight.
As for the atomic bomb example, you will find if you do some research that many modern historians completely disagree with the points you raised, and condemn the dropping of the atomic bomb as one of the worst wartime decisions made in the 20th century.
Really? I always was under the impression (based on the history channel) that had the U.S. invaded Japan we wand they would have suffered extremely heavy losses. Although you are right, Israel is in essence what they are seeking to destroy. As mentioned earlier, it's only a matter of time before America starts backing Israel and this turns into another World War.
What are you're thoughts?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
When I was at a University student, one of our teachers brought in an ex-Military expert. I forgot his rank (it was high) and I forgot the class, but I will never forget what he said. It chilled me to the bone.
quote:You can only win a war when you bring it to the civilians.
Whether it is firebombing, nuking, or a devastating full scale attack, you will only win by breaking the will of the country. That only happens by breaking the civilian will.
I don't know if that was his personal opinion or some strategy that military experts "understand," but I am now able to comprehend(not necessarily endorse) why we have done some of the things we have to civilians in war.
These days America seems to be going for the surgical strikes. I applaud our direction but wonder if it will last.
Maybe Israel has been taught the same principal. I am certain Osama Bin Laden has been taught it, and we have not seen the last of 9/11 style citizen attacks. Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
That's funny, I recently saw a show on the history channel that made me re-evaluate my opinion about the bombings of H and N (which was something close to yours) because they presented alot of the evidence in that section of the wikipedia article.
I really do hope we don't have another "world war" on our hands, but I can't really see it happening anyway, because these arab countries simply do not have the resources to fight against nations like Israel and the US in the traditional sense, and alot of their governments (like Lebanon's) don't even want to fight the Israelis, and would be much happier with stability and peace. Also, the whole world probably wouldn't get involved, since it would be costly and economically wasteful of them. So I could see the current "war on terror" getting larger and involving more civilian deaths on both sides, but I don't see a world war anytime in the near future.
(unless all the arab countries band together, and elect a caliph, and.. wait a tic, this sounds familiar... )
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: I understand the rationale behind what they are doing, but I think that by applying it, they are in essence becoming what they seek to destroy. And for the record, the Lebanese government has been trying to disarm Hezbollah, and in recent months, has been making significant progress (see one of my earlier posts), but these thigns do not and can not happen overnight.
As for the atomic bomb example, you will find if you do some research that many modern historians completely disagree with the points you raised, and condemn the dropping of the atomic bomb as one of the worst wartime decisions made in the 20th century.
Many is not true, and most of those who do not agree have little or no experience in military operations.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Israel is not attacking civilian targets, Airports, Power-stations, and bridges are all legitimate military targets, what are they supposed to do leave the route open for missiles to come in? Allow planes to fly in troops or out with the prisoners? Israel has stated that they are at war, and that is how they are fighting.
How many times does a strong man have to let the scrawny loudmouth punch him before he can end the fight? Israel gave them everything, then they decided they wanted all their criminals back too, so they took hostages, now they can reap the whirlwind.
The UN is approaching a density of Hypocrisy where it might actually form an event-horizon from which truth itself can never escape. No other country so provoked would find itself with hands tied. Not the US not Russia, not China or Japan.
This notion of equal force smacks of a story I heard of a liberal judge jailing a man for shooting an assailant who assaulted him with a knife, by the ruling the man would have had to fight it out blade to blade with his attacker instead of defending himself in a quick effective way. Israel's reaction is not only effective, keeping their prisoners in the area by interdicting all traffic, they can track the active terror cells from the air and move in on probable locations of the prisoners. It is also a very good deterrent, next time someone wants to get their way by taking prisoners their fellows will shoot them to prevent the bloodbath that follows.
BC
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This notion of equal force smacks of a story I heard of a liberal judge jailing a man for shooting an assailant who assaulted him with a knife, by the ruling the man would have had to fight it out blade to blade with his attacker instead of defending himself in a quick effective way.
Do you know where this occurred? I've never heard of such a case, and it would be fairly groundbreaking with respect to self defense law.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Do you laugh or cry? Wow... It's gotten ugly. No telling what will be next.
Damn. Bad, bad move.
Yeah it is a bad move.
The difference? I will not be surprised to see these kidnappers tried and convicted nor for Israeli police resources to be used to free their hostages.
Anyone want to make a bet about Lebanon or Hamas punishing the people who kidnapped the Israelis?
Actually, I take better odds that Israel does nothing of the sort with regard to criminally punishing the kidnappers. I'll bet you $25 right now on that mark. Arabs are already second-class citizens in Israel, and all this "poor, poor Israel" talk is really built mostly on rhetoric. Ask our Israeli civilian, utka, how many Arab people she knows where she lives. Arabs make up 20% of the Israeli population, and interestingly only Christian Arabs hold any political power (which are token seats, really). Israeli Jews are given more government subsidies, couched in the excuse that Jewish military service is mandatory and Arab Israeli military service is voluntary. While "on the books" attempts to mimic equality are present, the social and ethnic gap is common and, sometimes, used for entertainment (example). Israel the government entity is not going to endorse such deplorable action, but that does not mean they have to do anything to stop it when they have soldiers being held across their borders.
What a militant faction of Hamas (like any political party, all are not equal in their extremism) and Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah did and do to Israel on a daily basis is despicable. However, what Israel is currently doing isn't defending itself, it is exacting revenge for what is understandably unfair behavior toward them by militant groups.
So, if you feel that a nation conducting acts of war over what breaks down to revenge is okay, then you are obviously going to support Israel in this fiasco. If you feel that any and all violence is wrong, you are going to decry all sides in the violence. Interestingly, I don't predict anyone really taking sides with Hamas or Hezbollah (though I can forsee a lot of accusations of such popping up from certain individuals). The reality is that the area is so mired in one set of bad behavior as retaliation for another for so many decades, that pretty much everyone shares the fault for keeping this fire burning so strong for so long. Any other assessment is heavily riddled with bias one way or the other.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: You are disturbing BC, it makes me sad to read what you just wrote, and not hopeful for the future of this world. And no starLisa, I don't mean except for Israel. By killing more than 50 innocent Lebanese citizens today they have shown that they are just as capable as the terrorists of performing attrocities against the human race.
Oh, please. Atrocities, my butt. If Israel doesn't act, the Arabs will keep killing us. Our lives come first. We're not going to die for your nutty idea of "peace".
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: Under no circumstance, EVER, is innocent human life to be disguarded in this way. Collateral damage is bullshit and not even close to any kind of justification. Human life is sacred, regardless of what religion you believe in, maybe one day you and everyone else involved in this conflict will realise this and this whole thing can be resolved.
Get off your high horse, kid. We're happy to live in peace. They just have to leave us the hell alone. They don't, they get hurt. It's that complicated and it's that simple.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I believe Lisa posted a news report in a thread here a few months back about a case where a couple of Israeli citizens were tried and imprisoned for what was an act of terrorism against the Palestinians. I'd guess that you'd lose your $25 in this case.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Actually, I take better odds that Israel does nothing of the sort with regard to criminally punishing the kidnappers. I'll bet you $25 right now on that mark.
I'll take that. If the kidnapping is real, and not just a PR stunt, the kidnappers will be tried and jailed. You have my e-mail address, and when it's time for you to pony up, I'll send you my postal address as well.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: You are disturbing BC, it makes me sad to read what you just wrote, and not hopeful for the future of this world. And no starLisa, I don't mean except for Israel. By killing more than 50 innocent Lebanese citizens today they have shown that they are just as capable as the terrorists of performing attrocities against the human race.
Oh, please. Atrocities, my butt. If Israel doesn't act, the Arabs will keep killing us. Our lives come first. We're not going to die for your nutty idea of "peace".
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: Under no circumstance, EVER, is innocent human life to be disguarded in this way. Collateral damage is bullshit and not even close to any kind of justification. Human life is sacred, regardless of what religion you believe in, maybe one day you and everyone else involved in this conflict will realise this and this whole thing can be resolved.
Get off your high horse, kid. We're happy to live in peace. They just have to leave us the hell alone. They don't, they get hurt. It's that complicated and it's that simple.
Never did I suggest that they don't act. In fact, I agree with them attacking the bridges and Hezbollah occupied sites, but they also attacked several civilian occupied areas, like a tv station. When you kill innocent people, that is an attrocity, on both sides. If you do not think so, then your moral fiber is questionable. And this whole "our lives come first" mentality is disgusting, and really indicative of the progaganda that rules your opinions and has crushed any chance that you might approach this conflict thinking critically. And what's no "nutty" about my idea of peace. Is it "nutty" for people to not kill each other? You live in a really distorted reality. I'm not hopeful you will ever realize this.
As for your second paragraph, please refrain from making claims about my age, as you have no idea how old I am, and I certainly don't consider myself a kid. If anyone among us is acting juvenile and ignorantly, it is you. Making a claim like "they have to leave us alone" is so completely useless it blows my mind. Can you seriously pretend to be able to trace this conflict back to a first cause (and more so, a first cause that isn't your side's fault)? This whole conflict is far beyond the point where we can assign blame to one side or the other. You say they fired rockets at you. They say you killed them in bombings. You say they suicide bombed you. They say you stole their land. You say it was your first. They say it was theirs first, etc. ad nauseam.
Your attitude sickens me and makes me doubt whether there will ever be a solution to this conflict as a whole. I just hope that the next generation of Israelis (and Arabs) is not as close minded and ignorant as you are. If I was religious, I would pray for you tonight, but instead I go to bed depressed that people like you will never see the light, and continue to undermine efforts to alieviate that pain and suffering in this world with your dogmatic and shameful attitudes.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
quote: Do you know where this occurred? I've never heard of such a case, and it would be fairly groundbreaking with respect to self defense law.
It was Illinois actually, the precedent lead to a woman who ran over a gun wielding assailant to be charged with second degree murder, then it's ridiculousness was realized by the State Supreme court and it was tossed.
Still God help you in Illinois if like me you have military or martial arts training and defend yourself, it is appalling.
Of course I got this in a CJ course not Law School so the particulars are not first hand. Though I do remember the woman's case from the news here.
BC
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Lisa, What's up with calling people "kid" or "child" lately?
BC, I'm just curious. Do you have examples of people in the military who do not share your political views? What do you think of them?
Angio, Some stuff it's better not to react to, if you can. Just because someone else tries to ratchet up the mud-slinging doesn't mean you have to do it back. In a way, you just end up proving their points about how reasonable it is to react in kind.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Oh, please. Atrocities, my butt. If Israel doesn't act, the Arabs will keep killing us. Our lives come first. We're not going to die for your nutty idea of "peace".
And thus there can be no peace in Israel... at least until those nutty ideas are more fully appreciated by Israelis and Palestinians. One can blame everything on the enemy as much as one wants, but in the meanwhile the war goes on - and Israel reaps whatever consequences that attitude continues to sow.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Just a quick point... Israel doesn't often react in kind-- they usually respond with something stronger than what was done to them. To be fair, that *is* how you win battles. Whatever else may be said, Israel has had to fight for its very existence since day one of the modern state and it's hard to blame them for taking a hard line attitude.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
If Hez raids over a few of the neighboring borders, and Israel retaliates against the Hez inside all its neighbors borders, that may force those governments to rein in that extremist faction rather than provoke war with a nuclear power not afraid to use military force to defend itself.
It's like a house that has an ill-tempered Doberman in its yard, that neighbor kids throw rocks at. How many kids need to get chased or bitten before their parents tell them to stop throwing rocks? (Of course, in this day and age, the neighbor parents would have the government take the dog and put it to sleep... though the UN has seemed remarkably impotent when it comes to such matters.)
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: Mig and Morbo, you guys are confusing the Hez political and social representation with the militia. Hez is the Shiite representation of Lebanon. The UN makes a very clear distinction between the Hez. militia and the Hez. political party. The former is a terrorist group, the latter a representation of a group of lebanese individuals. And infact, the political Hez. has been working with the rest of the lebanese government to disarm the militia. one of my friends is in beirut, she wrote this on my program's forum today:
"Through Lebanon's "National Dialogue", the government had been making incremental progress towards an agreement on Hezbollah's arms. (Relatedly, the government is mandated to include all parties/sects by the Ta'if accords that ended the civil war; and many decisions are essentially done by consensus, aka each party gets a veto.) At last week's ninth national dialogue session, all participants (Christians, Druze, etc., including Hezbollah) agreed that the issue of Hezbollah's arms was to be solved in small steps... it was a huge deal that they all agreed on anything about this issue (even that the issue needed solving), and analyst-types hailed it as progress.
Besides, Hezbollah's actions against Israel were probably all mandated by Iran and Syria anyway. And they certainly knew the reaction they were going to get from Israel. Hezbollah is basically putting the country hostage for their own sectarian gains.
Where does Israel think this is going to end? Do they have an exit strategy at all, never mind one where they actually leave with more than what they arrived with?"
If lebanon did not include these people in the political process, no progress could ever be made, so your argument that they are harboring terrorists is simply wrong, since in fact they are doing everything in their power (while also trying to avoid alienating a large portion of its citizens and potential civil war) to put an end to the hez. militia and regain control of the country. Unfortunately, Israel and people like you guys don't realize that these things don't happen over night. And unlike other terrorist organizations, Hez does not receive state support from lebanon.
You make some good points, but it the idea of solving the Hez problem in small steps while permiting them to lob missles at Isreal that I find unacceptable, and that Isreal apparently also finds unacceptable. As for disarming the militia through negotiations, waiting for them to disarm voluntarily is a fool's errand. I don't think its realistic to expect the Hez to voluntarily disarm or stop attacking Isreal. Nor is it realistic that Iran will allow that to happen.
The most positive thing that can come of the current situation, other than killing every last Hez militiaman, is for the Leb gov and the people of Leb to realize that Isreal's patience has bounds.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
you're right Bob, and I apologize to everyone for my harsh comments. It was late, and I was tired, and what Lisa said simply shocked me.
I do, however, maintain that there are a few people posting in this topic who really need to think hard about why they hold certain opinions so strongly. We would all be well to critically examine ours and our "adversary's" views every once in a while. I know I try to.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: We would all be well to critically examine ours and our "adversary's" views every once in a while. I know I try to.
One of the cooler points of Ender's Game is that knowing your enemy is essential to defeating him.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Just a quick point... Israel doesn't often react in kind-- they usually respond with something stronger than what was done to them. To be fair, that *is* how you win battles. Whatever else may be said, Israel has had to fight for its very existence since day one of the modern state and it's hard to blame them for taking a hard line attitude.
Actually, Israel usually doesn't react at all. It's just that the world pays no attention when we get rockets shot into our cities and we forbear to react. When we finally do react, it's like the straw that broke the camel's back, and that's what makes the headlines.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Lisa, What's up with calling people "kid" or "child" lately?
In the case of Pelegius, it's simply my being weary of his adolescentitis. In the case of Angio, all I have to go on is his behavior, which seems incredibly childish.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Oh, please. Atrocities, my butt. If Israel doesn't act, the Arabs will keep killing us. Our lives come first. We're not going to die for your nutty idea of "peace".
And thus there can be no peace in Israel... at least until those nutty ideas are more fully appreciated by Israelis and Palestinians. One can blame everything on the enemy as much as one wants, but in the meanwhile the war goes on - and Israel reaps whatever consequences that attitude continues to sow.
So you think we're supposed to sit there like good little martyrs and die for your concept of peace?
No thanks.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Mig, if this situation isn't approached through diplomatic channels, nothing but more violence and death will result. And I never maintained that while the process of disarming Hez is undertaken that they should be allowed to continue in their terrorist attacks on Israel. I think that Israel is completely justified in attacking Hez targets, and their initial strikes were just that. However, I do not think they are justified in attacking Lebanon as a whole and acusing Lebanon of starting a war against them.
I think that the most positive thing that can come out of this situation would be for the US and the UN to realize that this is an incredible opportunity to stop Hez, secure Lebanon's soverignty, and stop Syria's and Iran's influence from causing more suffering in the middle east.
Here is a great article writen that very nicely summarises some of my main thoughts about all this
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html (it's the one entitled "Israel’s Invasion, Syria’s War", by Michael Young, hope you cna read it, because it's very insightful)
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Lisa, What's up with calling people "kid" or "child" lately?
In the case of Pelegius, it's simply my being weary of his adolescentitis. In the case of Angio, all I have to go on is his behavior, which seems incredibly childish.
Why must you undermine the discussion on this forum by making things so personal? Are we not capable of having a purely intellectual debate about this topic (I know I have been at fault in this respect in the past too, but from hence forth, I will try to take my own advice)
Though I am curious as to how exactly I am acting childish...
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: And this whole "our lives come first" mentality is disgusting, and really indicative of the progaganda that rules your opinions and has crushed any chance that you might approach this conflict thinking critically.
No. It stems from the fact that we have no interest in killing them, while they raise their children to dream of killing us. You think that's propaganda, but that's because your mind is utterly closed. Even Egypt, supposedly at peace with Israel, runs vicious propaganda on their state controlled television, training children in this murderous path (link). I guess it's propaganda on our side to point such things out.
We have no moral obligation to die. We let them shell us for months without doing a single thing. That kind of forbearance is insane. All it did was get them to up the violence until we couldn't forbear any more.
And therein lies the key to what's going on here. Non-violence towards the Arabs has never, ever, ever gotten them to reciprocate. Concessions to the Arabs have never, ever, ever gotten them to reciprocate. Every concession, every olive branch, has been met with heightened terror and violence.
You have nothing to say here but, "Can't we all just be friends?!" And we've tried that. They aren't interested. And you are blind to think that they are.
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: As for your second paragraph, please refrain from making claims about my age, as you have no idea how old I am, and I certainly don't consider myself a kid.
Then stop acting like one.
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: If anyone among us is acting juvenile and ignorantly, it is you. Making a claim like "they have to leave us alone" is so completely useless it blows my mind. Can you seriously pretend to be able to trace this conflict back to a first cause (and more so, a first cause that isn't your side's fault)?
Of course I do. And this isn't a matter of "first cause" alone. Are you so utterly blind to their intent that you can pretend that it doesn't exist? They are implacably committed to wiping Israel off the map. We are implacably committed to remaining there. Those are not mirrors of the same thing.
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: This whole conflict is far beyond the point where we can assign blame to one side or the other.
No. You're unwilling to open your eyes and see that there is one party which is merely trying to live and that there is another party which wants to destroy the other. You can't go there in your mind, because it might mean that you'd have to act on it.
Your attempt to morally equate the two sides is vile and cowardly. It's shameful, but I doubt you'll ever realize how ashamed you should be.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
There's no point in replying to your post. You are so set in your misguided opinions that no amount of rational discussion will ever change your mind. If you truly want to believe that all muslim children are raised to hate israel, and that all they want to do is destroy you, then that is simply your perogative. I just hope that your opinions do not represent the majority of Israeli's (and in my experience, they do not, as I have many friends from the region, and from arabic nations who simply want to live in harmony with each other and have no desire to continue this conflict).
On that note, I'm going to "peace out", unless some rational and intelligent discussion emerges in this thread.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
I was preparing to answer Angiomorhism, then I read what Starlisa had to say, and, frankly, what's the point? It can't be said any better than how she laid it out. Well, done Starlisa.
I appreciate that Angiomorphism and others want peace and dread all the death and suffering (so do I), but I don't see a realistic alternative when dealing with Hez and Islamofascism.
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
Firstly, I know this reaction is a bit overdue to say the least. But then I don't have a steady internet uplink and therefor have to make do with any chance I get to post my replies. Secondly, I'm not completely naive. Obviously I don't think the recent hostilities are solely about the fate of the hostages. But I think it's telling that nearly all of the newsreports I see on the subject mention that I agree with the statement that Israel has a tendency to overreact. Sorry, I forgot who wrote that. But let's just say that the Israeli people have been handed a pretty expensive (and much debated) gift over 60 years ago. Ever since they have been trying to take more by show of force, whilst still complaining about the horrible treatment Jews had to endure throughout the ages since the diaspora. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
Thirdly, some thoughts on the subject of Peace. Having never read the Koran or the Bible, I must make do with the pitiful works of mortal men in stead of relying on the words of a deity. However, it seems to me that one can only have peace if one is willing to extend it to all other people on this planet. Failing that, the only other way is to destroy all ones enemies (which amounts to the same thing in the end though calls for far more bloodshed). And having once chosen that second route, it should hardly come as a surprise that your antagonists will defend themselves with any means necessary. Basic survival-instinct, ya know...
Finally, I would like to state that calling Israel's current actions self-defense (as President Bush did during his visit to Germany) is either a blatant lie or at the very least a gross understatement. This is a good example to show why euphemisms should be avoided. I fully agree with George Carlin on that point.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
They are! A good Muslim wants to Destroy all Jews, either in battle or by conversion, it is part of their doctrine. Those that do not convert after hearing the 'Word' are just being intractable and deserve death or slavery.
As for Diplomacy, haven't you learned that diplomacy is just a tactic to the Arabs? It is calling 'time out' in the middle of the fight so they can rest and recoup, re-arm and reposition, they do not deal in good faith. Arabs Lie! They Lie for sport, they Lie for the joy of fooling foreigners, they lie for political gain, they LIE! Every Delay for diplomacy threatens the lives of the captured soldiers.
It is time for Israel to use the outer cordon they have created to secure house to house inner cordon searches for their men, stop waiting for Egypt to get a deal with childish terrorist who want to be paid because they want something for all the trouble they went to. Do not give them any face, do not leave them any pride in the deed, make their shame so mortal that nobody lets his neighbor breach the peace for the generation it will take to purge them of this false belief in the invincibility of Islam.
They must be broken now since they have given us the golden opportunity, before they become as dangerous as North Korea, and as desperate.
BC
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eduardo St. Elmo: Ever since they have been trying to take more by show of force, whilst still complaining about the horrible treatment Jews had to endure throughout the ages since the diaspora. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
This is a load of shit. They have given back tons of conquered land. If they were interested only in expanding their borders they'd own half of the middle east right now.
BC, why do you speak in absolutes? You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but to lump all Muslims into one group is absurdly flawed. Do some feel, act and think the way you depict? Yes. But nowhere near all. This is true for the same reason we can't make blanket statements about all Jews, all Iranians, all North Koreans, or all Americans.
Correction, we CAN and DO make blanket statements about all these groups. But it's very rare that they're true of all the members of each group.
(edit: forgot commas)
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Javert,
Just try to avoid the trolls, they make it a habit to get your goat...
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Our most honest informants in Iraq lied half the time, the only kind and generous people we met were a family of Christians, the most important people we dealt with stole fuel meant for the whole town to sell on the black market, took medicine and medical supplies and sold them on the black market, took jobs as security or police and used them to committ robbery or sell weapons, the most innocent child would find a baby and wave it around swearing it was sick and demanding money, Arabs lie as a cultural trait, often and without shame. They have to grow into power to also cheat and steal.
BC
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Sources?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
BC-
I've mostly been trying to ignore you, as the blatant stupidity you generally express gives me a headache. However, after reading your last post, I feel that someone needs to address your continuing ignorant, racist remarks.
Terrorists are not representative of their respective cultures any more than you are representitive of the honorable members of our armed forces. Both the terrrorists, and yourself, are embarrassments to your respective countries, communities, families, and religions.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I'm half lebanese (though it was only my great grandparents who were actually born in Lebanon, not that my arabic side of the family hasn't preserved the cultural traditions that came from Lebanon - and for the record, they are xian lebanese), does that mean I lie half the time?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Apparently I'm a liar, too. It's in my blood or something. I wonder if my pathological culturally-inherited lying is correlated with which language I'm speaking? Do I lie more when I speak Arabic or French than when I speak English? A fascinating question!
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I think everyone lies more when they speak french Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
And I'm German and Catholic...I don't even want to get started as to what that makes me. Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Trust away... You know best I am sure. I can only generalize from my experience, not just with terrorist but with the everyday people you meet, while I was there.
"I wonder if my pathological culturally-inherited lying is correlated with which language I'm speaking? Do I lie more when I speak Arabic or French"
No, Arabs lie in English as proficiently as they do in Arabic.
BC
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eduardo St. Elmo: But let's just say that the Israeli people have been handed a pretty expensive (and much debated) gift over 60 years ago. Ever since they have been trying to take more by show of force, whilst still complaining about the horrible treatment Jews had to endure throughout the ages since the diaspora. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
That's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. We've been trying to take more by show of force? We accepted a tiny sliver of our land, chopped into three non-contiguous pieces, back in 1948. The result? The Arabs tried to annihilate us. So we wound up with one contiguous piece.
Time after time, they've attacked us. We took the Sinai in 1956, and then gave it back. We took it again in 1967, and gave it back. What kind of insane notions are going on inside of your head?
And it wasn't a "gift". That's our home, and it has been since before the first Arab came marching out of the Arabian peninsula.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Arabs aren't liars. Some are, but then again, some of any group are liars, including Jews, Americans, etc.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Trust away... You know best I am sure.
Finally, a sensible comment from you.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: Arabs lie in English as proficiently as they do in Arabic.
Make sure you never believe a word of any of my posts, then. I don't imagine you do, but just a friendly heads-up. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hey BC, you ever going to answer my question from this morning? It's relevant -- trust me.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: And I'm German and Catholic...I don't even want to get started as to what that makes me.
Pope?
Really, BC, you are doing yourself, and what's much worse, conservatives and, as others have said, your brothers in arms a tremendous disservice in this thread.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:So you think we're supposed to sit there like good little martyrs and die for your concept of peace?
Israelis are dying regardless, are they not? If people are going to die, I'd rather they die in the pursuit of peace rather than in the pursuit of continuing a neverending war.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Israelis are dying regardless, are they not? If people are going to die, I'd rather they die in the pursuit of peace rather than in the pursuit of continuing a neverending war.
WHAT?!? What do you mean by "die in the pursuit of peace" exactly? Accept attacks from others without any kind of retaliation?! In that case, there would be no Israel at all right now.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: We took the Sinai in 1956, and then gave it back. We took it again in 1967, and gave it back.
So when they going to quit giving it back? Why is it the looser who decides the concessions.
quote:Originally posted by Corwin:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Israelis are dying regardless, are they not? If people are going to die, I'd rather they die in the pursuit of peace rather than in the pursuit of continuing a neverending war.
WHAT?!? What do you mean by "die in the pursuit of peace" exactly? Accept attacks from others without any kind of retaliation?! In that case, there would be no Israel at all right now.
Well said. For some reason it’s ok to attack Israel but when they defend themselves they’re the bad guys. I’m surprised they’ve put up with it for as long as they have.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: I’m surprised they’ve put up with it for as long as they have.
Israel cannot stand alone against the entire region, and they are counseled by foreign powers that have no interest in being involved in WWIII.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
More the latter than the former.
The IDF totally owns everyone in the area like someone playing Counterstrike with hacks. The last nation to mount a remotely serious challenge to them was Egypt in '73.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote: I’m surprised they’ve put up with it for as long as they have.
Israel cannot stand alone against the entire region, and they are counseled by foreign powers that have no interest in being involved in WWIII.
Didn’t they do just that in the Six Day War in 67?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No. Short-term is not long-term.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: Arabs lie in English as proficiently as they do in Arabic.
Make sure you never believe a word of any of my posts, then. I don't imagine you do, but just a friendly heads-up.
BC doesn't speak for me in this.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Didn’t they do just that in the Six Day War in 67?
A lot of things have changed in the last 39 years. I don't doubt that Israel can hold their own, I just don't know how long they can keep it up.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: We took the Sinai in 1956, and then gave it back. We took it again in 1967, and gave it back.
So when they going to quit giving it back? Why is it the looser who decides the concessions.
Because we have people in power in Israel who simply aren't willing to win. Look at what's happening now. Do you have any doubts that we'll be pulling back out of Gaza -- again! -- despite the insanity that doing it last year caused?
quote:Originally posted by Jay: Well said. For some reason it’s ok to attack Israel but when they defend themselves they’re the bad guys. I’m surprised they’ve put up with it for as long as they have.
There was an Israeli show that was on Broadway about 35 years ago, or so, called "To Live Another Summer, To Pass Another Winter". One of the songs on it was called "We're Sorry We Won It". The chorus went:
quote:We're sorry we won it We must have overdone it We know quite well that a Jew has his place A Jew who is a winner is a -- disgrace
Oh, please world Excuse us We're asking you for forgiveness We're awfully sorry We're sorry we won the war.
It was between 1967 and 1973, as I recall. The last verse went something like:
quote:Well, now it's done And we promise you quite truly A promise we know you will not misuse When faced with peril From prince or sheikh or cooley We promise we'll do everything to lose
And once again the world can shed its tears And cry and pray we make it out somehow You've been just wonderful to us through all these years We wouldn't want to spoil your pleasure now.
It's amazing how little changes.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I have little doubt that Israel could put quite a spanking on that entire region - whether or not that is the right thing to do, and whether or not their leadership has the will to execute such an offensive... well, that's a different story.
Whether they could hold all that territory long term? I doubt it - but they could put on a hell of a show, to the point that the region would think twice, three times, and at least a fourth time before poking them with a sharp stick again.
Not that I'm advocating that course, but they have the resources to make quite a statement.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I hope it doesn't come to that. That would be the worth case scenario for middle east stability (and therefore, economic stability in the west)
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: I hope it doesn't come to that. That would be the worth case scenario for middle east stability (and therefore, economic stability in the west)
Some small part of me just wants it to be over with, one way or another. I don't want a repeat of this on the news in 10 years.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Ok, so BC is completely out of lines with statements like "Arabs lie." and such. I would argue though, that there is likely something flawed about some combination of arab/muslim culture as it currently exists.
I'm not arguing that all are terrorists or even that most are terrorist sympathizers, but it seems that there are disproportionately more terrorists and powerful extremist groups spawned from this culture than just about any other. This is part of why this conflict is such a difficult situation. The culture on one side of the conflict needs to be drastically altered in order to get along with the rest of the world.
starLisa, if you want to argue that lands legally bought and lands obtained after defensive wars are legitimate claims then I am fine with that. However, if you want to argue that other lands that don't fall under that category but are still due the jews by virtue of 1000+ year old rights you're going to run into a lot of opposition from anyone else.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Strangely enough, there are disproportionately more of these people living in a region torn by european colonialism, US-USSR tensions, and with power structures propped up by petroleum control.
Its not the culture (at least in the general sense) causing these things, its the recent history. There are people with similar culture living in several regions of the world that get along well as most other people in the world do.
Posted by Pitry (Member # 9507) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Jay:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: We took the Sinai in 1956, and then gave it back. We took it again in 1967, and gave it back.
So when they going to quit giving it back? Why is it the looser who decides the concessions.
Because we have people in power in Israel who simply aren't willing to win. Look at what's happening now. Do you have any doubts that we'll be pulling back out of Gaza -- again! -- despite the insanity that doing it last year caused?
quote:Originally posted by Jay: Well said. For some reason it’s ok to attack Israel but when they defend themselves they’re the bad guys. I’m surprised they’ve put up with it for as long as they have.
There was an Israeli show that was on Broadway about 35 years ago, or so, called "To Live Another Summer, To Pass Another Winter". One of the songs on it was called "We're Sorry We Won It". The chorus went:
quote:We're sorry we won it We must have overdone it We know quite well that a Jew has his place A Jew who is a winner is a -- disgrace
Oh, please world Excuse us We're asking you for forgiveness We're awfully sorry We're sorry we won the war.
It was between 1967 and 1973, as I recall. The last verse went something like:
quote:Well, now it's done And we promise you quite truly A promise we know you will not misuse When faced with peril From prince or sheikh or cooley We promise we'll do everything to lose
And once again the world can shed its tears And cry and pray we make it out somehow You've been just wonderful to us through all these years We wouldn't want to spoil your pleasure now.
It's amazing how little changes.
Oh, and I was telling myself I won't reply to this because the part of Hatrack I dwell in is VBS.
"The people in power in Israel aren't willing to win"? I s'pose that's only true by your definition of "winning". Does "winning" equate ruling over millions of people with minimal - if any - rights? Does "winning" mean ruling over "the whole of the Holy Land?" From Perth to the Hidekel (yes, I know it has a name in English. Can't remember it.) Does winning mean killing more innocent people? I think the point you're missing, StarLisa, that the people opposing you have been trying to tell, is that defending is one thing. Having 65 dead Lebanese and - as cruel and unhearted as it sounds - only 4 dead Israeli citizens - isn't defence, nor it is justice. It's revenge. Not just revenge but the kind of "mine's bigger, ner!" neighbourhood-bully revenge. Just like killing whole families - and they are getting killed - in Gaza - isn't defence. The one thing Israeli governments haven't been able to figure out over the years is that there's no such thing as "hitting them so they'd fear retaliation and stop". It never works. So more potential suicide bombers grow up hating all Jews, because they saw their families being killed. So more Israelis act like you because they refuse to admit the other side are human, too. So the killing goes on and on and on, and no one cares to stop it. Olmert doesn't want peace. If there's peace he'd have to evacuate mitnahlim from the West Bank. It's much easier bombarding Palestinians/ Lebanese and get everyone's support. Hamas don't want peace. They know that talking to Israel means they'll have to settle for the 67 borders, and they'd be the ones blamed. Hizballah obviously don't want peace. Hating is so much easier.
As for the old anti-semitism arguement. People are allowed to critisise Israel. It's a country. It has policies. People are allowed not to agree with these policies. Some of these people are actually Israeli. As long as the critisism is justified - as logn as it's because of how Israel behaves, and not because of racism - it's OKAY. And it's quite possible to crititse military actions without being racists, sorry. People might actually start taking Israel's point seriously if everyone would have stopped crying out "racists! Racists!" everytime someone dares suggest Israel's foreign policies are less than perfect.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pitry: Olmert doesn't want peace. If there's peace he'd have to evacuate mitnahlim from the West Bank.
Yeah, cause that worked so well in Gaza. The results were astounding. The terror just stopped once the Arabs saw that we were willing to render 9000 of our own people homeless for the sake of peace.
All those warmongers who thought they'd launch missiles from the abandoned areas have been proven wrong, so we should definitely try the whole thing again. But this time, ramp it up to hundreds of thousands of Jews instead. Hell, if deporting 9000 was fun, think how cool a few hundred thousand of them will be!
And hey, while we're at it, since Arabs outnumber Jews in the Galilee, we should pull out of there as well. And then there's just a small piece in the north between Arab Galilee and Lebanon, so why be dumb? Let's pull out of there, too.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pitry: Having 65 dead Lebanese and - as cruel and unhearted as it sounds - only 4 dead Israeli citizens - isn't defence, nor it is justice. It's revenge. Not just revenge but the kind of "mine's bigger, ner!" neighbourhood-bully revenge.
No. The cold and cruel fact is that this is precisely how you win wars. He kills 4 of yours, you kill 60 of his.
Whether the war is justified, whether Israel should have the land, whether there is a good guy or a bad guy, this is what happens when people try to win wars. People, usually the ones not making the choices, die in droves.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Pitry: Olmert doesn't want peace. If there's peace he'd have to evacuate mitnahlim from the West Bank.
Yeah, cause that worked so well in Gaza. The results were astounding. The terror just stopped once the Arabs saw that we were willing to render 9000 of our own people homeless for the sake of peace.
All those warmongers who thought they'd launch missiles from the abandoned areas have been proven wrong, so we should definitely try the whole thing again. But this time, ramp it up to hundreds of thousands of Jews instead. Hell, if deporting 9000 was fun, think how cool a few hundred thousand of them will be!
And hey, while we're at it, since Arabs outnumber Jews in the Galilee, we should pull out of there as well. And then there's just a small piece in the north between Arab Galilee and Lebanon, so why be dumb? Let's pull out of there, too.
I don't think his/her point was that Israel would evacuate the West Bank to secure peace, but rather, if peace were to break out beforehand, they'd have no reason to be in the West Bank, and the illegal settlements there would have to be evacuated in the name of the continuing peace.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
At some point, one of the following has to happen for there to be a just solution:
1.) The West Bank and Gaza are returned to Jordan and Egypt.
2.) The West Bank and Gaza become independent states.
3.) The people living in the West Bank and Gaza obtain political rights in Israel.
Each of these poses serious, serious risks to Israel, and a solution that leaves Israel vulnerable to external attack and daily rocket attacks wouldn't be just, either.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
StarLisa: You've got a deal. That is one bet I would love to lose.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: At some point, one of the following has to happen for there to be a just solution:
1.) The West Bank and Gaza are returned to Jordan and Egypt.
2.) The West Bank and Gaza become independent states.
3.) The people living in the West Bank and Gaza obtain political rights in Israel.
Each of these poses serious, serious risks to Israel, and a solution that leaves Israel vulnerable to external attack and daily rocket attacks wouldn't be just, either.
I agree strongly. However, I would suggest that the best solution would be closer to #3, as it would still maintain a semi-buffer-zone, which was the original intent of taking the lands to begin with. I do believe that was partially the intent of Sharon pulling settlers out of Gaza previously.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by Pitry: Having 65 dead Lebanese and - as cruel and unhearted as it sounds - only 4 dead Israeli citizens - isn't defence, nor it is justice. It's revenge. Not just revenge but the kind of "mine's bigger, ner!" neighbourhood-bully revenge.
No. The cold and cruel fact is that this is precisely how you win wars. He kills 4 of yours, you kill 60 of his.
Whether the war is justified, whether Israel should have the land, whether there is a good guy or a bad guy, this is what happens when people try to win wars. People, usually the ones not making the choices, die in droves.
What I've been trying to say for the past 4 pages, which obviously hasn't gotten into people's heads is that, yes, in principle that is how you win wars. However! The 60 lebanese civilians killed are not even affiliated with the group of people who attacked Israel. Israel is attacking Lebanon, when it is Hezbollah that attacked Israel. And saying that it's lebanon's fault for not disarming Hezbollah (what the UN Israeli guy said today) is ridiculous, and not anywhere near a cogent justification of their actions, since the Lebanese government has been actively trying to disarm Hezbollah, and is cooperating with all the political parties in Lebanon (including Hezbollah's political side) to take back the south.
To make an analogy: let's say that a bunch of quebec seperatists went and bombed the US for some reason, then the US turned around and killed 60 people from British Columbia, and justified it by saying, hey canada, you have a seperatist party represented in your government, and you didn't stop these people from being armed, so it's your own fault. Would you accept that?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hum. Four versus 65 works out to about one for sixteen. Just how badly are the Israelis outnumbered, counting all the Arab countries?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: At some point, one of the following has to happen for there to be a just solution:
1.) The West Bank and Gaza are returned to Jordan and Egypt.
You can't return to someone something that wasn't theirs to begin with. Egypt never claimed ownership of Gaza, and while Jordan did claim ownership of Judea and Samaria, only Britain and Pakistan ever recognized that claim.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 2.) The West Bank and Gaza become independent states.
There's been talk about creating an independent state of Judea in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. If Israel isn't willing to annex them, that doesn't mean that Jewish ownership is lessened in any degree whatsoever.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 3.) The people living in the West Bank and Gaza obtain political rights in Israel.
Definitely #3. Except that you probably have a misapprehension about who those people are going to be.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Anything that involves forced resettlement won't be just.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
One of my best friends, a Sunni Muslim, looks disgusted every time the topic of Palestine comes up. "You have to understand," he always says. "These are among the most ignorant people on the planet. They're raised in squalor and told from day one that it's Israel's fault. What do you expect will happen?"
And, well... it's impossible to disagree with him. These are ignorant, poor, and angry religious fundamentalists -- nobody (particularly other Arab countries) wants them, nobody likes them, and they grow more desperate and furious as time goes on. The only thing they really share with other Arab countries is that they hate Israel -- easily blamed for problems of their own, sort of like how religious fundamentalists here are told to focus on homosexual marriage or flag-burning instead of real issues.
Israel's attack isn't unjustifiable, but I think it'll end up hurting them in the long run. They're just confirming their status as a villain, and permitting governments to continue pointing at them and telling fundamentalists that their poverty, their misery, their safety are all products of Israeli occupation. It's not like Israel wouldn't be a scapegoat if they didn't attack, but I don't think this helped matters.
Still, I have no idea what to do. I doubt the fundamentalists there will be any less hate-filled or venomous than fundamentalists here, and without a better economy and education, their children will grow up holding the same beliefs as their fathers. If I were in Israel's place, I'd "adopt" an Arab country (with a more PC term for it) and fund education, police, and grant full-fledged democracy and autonomy after fifty years. It can't possibly cost less than multiple military strikes, and I'd think a PR campaign would do more to mend fences than defensive (if entirely reasonable) military tactics.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Uh, I was talking to the air rather than anyone in particular with that last post. It's half-bastardized from a letter I'm writing.
\carry on \\will accept peace awards if planned around my manicures
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:“Some people say, 'We saw you beheading, kidnappings and killing. In the end we even started kidnapping women who are our honor,'” al-Mashhadani said. “These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew.”
“I can tell you about these Jewish, Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq and come with the agent and cheap project.”
“No one deserves to rule Iraq other than Islamists,” he said.
-Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, Iraqi speaker of parliament
Drones? Wha the heck. Think these are just motorized planes that you can buy as a toy?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Israel is at the top of military research and technology, I think they know what a UAV is.
And really, a crude toy plane, so long as it can reach it's target with a payload, is pretty much all you need for it to be classified as a UAV or cruise missile. Predators and Global Hawks are a few generations ahead, but that doesn't mean we didn't start with the same thing.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hezbollah has weapons supplied by Iran. Iran for years was purchasing US weaponry until the Shah was deposed. After that, they had access to French, Russian, Chinese, and 3rd-party brokered sales of weapons from just about anywhere.
Assuming that those countries do about the same as we do and bar sales of their best, most current stuff except to close allies, it's likely that Iran has 10-year old stuff.
They probably keep the best stuff for themselves and supply Hez with the older stuff that they bought earlier or get at cut rates due to it being so outmoded.
So, thinking maybe Falklands war era stuff.
Plenty deadly.
Not incredibly accurate by today's standards.
But good enough to blow holes in warships (for example), or deliver high payloads into areas over the horizon.
Frankly, this is not junk to be ignored. It can kill lots of people, isn't really likely to be used with an eye toward military targets, and given Iran's deep pockets, Hez probably has a crap-load of it.
Israel has better stuff, to be sure, but they also have more at stake if they use it, and more at stake if they don't. Certainly Hezbollah has almost nothing at stake. Israel could destroy Lebanon for all they care.
By the way, the price of oil ratcheted up a huge amount this week. Among the countries that profited by this: Iran.
Iran has paid off its national debt, btw. That's how well they are doing these days.
I personally would like to see the US go into immediate oil rationing and to bar purchase of oil from any country that doesn't immediately denounce Hezbollah.
I would like to see sanctions against Iran for their support of Hezbollah.
And I'd like to see us come down firmly on the side of descalation of the current conflict at the same time.
The thing that really sucks about this is that the common people on ALL sides are the ones who are going to suffer most. The Lebanese people aren't going to fare well. The Palestinians aren't going to fare well. The Israeli citizenry in the reachable areas (like Haifa) aren't going to fare well.
Iran is sitting off at a distance pulling strings like a puppet master.
This is a very dangerous thing because eventually the idea of stopping them is going to become the #1 priority -- even greater than Iraq.
I fear that conflict not because of Iran's greater weaponry -- they still aren't THAT powerful that we couldn't pretty much roll over them if we HAD to. But I fear the aftermath of the amount of destruction we would have to wreak in that country to dislodge the malignant regime there.
More important than that is the response of the rest of the Arab world to the US taking on Iran when they haven't committed any government troops to the conflict.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:WHAT?!? What do you mean by "die in the pursuit of peace" exactly? Accept attacks from others without any kind of retaliation?! In that case, there would be no Israel at all right now.
I would say their retalliations right now are bringing Israel much closer to destruction than any of their negotiations towards peace ever did. If Israel ceases to exist at the end of this all, it will not be because of their attempts to compromise towards peace, but rather because of their willingness to choose war instead.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Iran has also amassed 40 billion dollars in foreign reserves too off of the high price of oil. If not for the high price of oil, their economy would be in shambles. It's corrupt, and so heavily dependent on the high price of oil, and oil exports, that if everyone in the world stopped buying from them, or if the price of oil dropped dramatically, it'd put a stranglehold on their economy, and would go further to impoverish 60 million people. Which puts us in a fairly strong position to demand concessions from them.
With the Dow losing 300 pts in three days, and things looking like an economic slowdown, and the general position of the US economy, I think switching to oil rationing right now is almost out of the question. I think, for the long term health of the nation, it'd be smart. But Bush would never take that drastic a move.
The best way to cool tension from the Muslim world after such a dramatic move against Iran would be to put heavy pressure on Israel to pull back all its forces from foreign territory, including Gaza. Saudi Arabia, at least their government, will go along with it, and Egypt and Jordan as well. That's the grand majority of the rest of the Muslim world, and most of the nations in question have a large US military presence in them, or are in some other way connected to us and will listen to us.
But it's all a moot point, too much would have to happen. Bush would never order an oil rationing with the way the US is right now, and even if he did, he'd never apply any serious pressure to Israel, he'd only throw some verbal suggestions at them, and they'd kindly ignore him. But even if they did, there's still the matter of Hezbollah being out there, armed and dangerous. To put Israel at ease, someone would have to disarm them, or in some way neutralize them. Lebanon doesn't have the power to do so, or the will apparently. That means an international force, probably with mostly US troops, on the ground in southern Lebanon.
We'd never even take the first step, let alone the last. But I'd love to see it happen. I don't think we'd have to invade Iran to neutralize them. An economic attack might be enough to give the moderate elements there the power they need to dislodge the conservative elements. There are powerful elements for change there, but they've been shouted down by the current regime when they solidified their power base in recent years.
But if it's not done soon, then the situation will be too out of control for it to be considered reasonable, and Iran will become too strong to be considered an easy enough target to tangle with.
Posted by Pitry (Member # 9507) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by Pitry: Having 65 dead Lebanese and - as cruel and unhearted as it sounds - only 4 dead Israeli citizens - isn't defence, nor it is justice. It's revenge. Not just revenge but the kind of "mine's bigger, ner!" neighbourhood-bully revenge.
No. The cold and cruel fact is that this is precisely how you win wars. He kills 4 of yours, you kill 60 of his.
Whether the war is justified, whether Israel should have the land, whether there is a good guy or a bad guy, this is what happens when people try to win wars. People, usually the ones not making the choices, die in droves.
So, the way to end wars is to kill more of the other side's unarmed innocent civilians? Y'know, your saying that actually makes me feel better. It's the whole world that's gone bonkers, not just my little corner of it.
Yes, I know that's not what you said. I know I'm putting words in your mouth. But the thing is, you're saying that the end justifies the means. I say it doesn't. Because one day you lost your end, and only the means are left - I see that every day in the people around me. I hope this won't be taken as a personal attack, because this is not the intention, but StarLisa is a living proof of that in this forum, and most of the people around me (Jerusalem) are like that, too. And when that's the case, you wake up one day, and discover that you survived, but everything you fought for, or believed you fought for, has long gone in the ashes of war, along with everything that made life worth living. And you're left, alive, but there's no reason to be. The 'let's kill them before they kill us' attitude makes the human race a race of monsters, not people, and takes all the humanity away of humans.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: But the thing is, you're saying that the end justifies the means.
No, he's not. Read:
quote:Whether the war is justified, whether Israel should have the land, whether there is a good guy or a bad guy, this is what happens when people try to win wars.
He's stating something about war, not whether it's justified. He even pointed this out explicitly in a vain attempt to prevent misinterpretation such as yours.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Arabs lie as a cultural trait, often and without shame. They have to grow into power to also cheat and steal.
BC
"Arabs lie as a cultural trait"
I want to sark it, but I'm left with no words!
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
quote: I personally would like to see the US go into immediate oil rationing and to bar purchase of oil from any country that doesn't immediately denounce Hezbollah.
I would like to see sanctions against Iran for their support of Hezbollah.
Honestly, no offense intended - but we're never going to ever see rationing happen voluntarily, it would make the US economy implode. And you can't institute a policy of not buying oil and sanctions against a nation you already don't buy oil from and have sanctions against. I understand the sentiment involved but no American politician would commit electoral suicide like that - they're far too craven.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
There are ways to sanction nations that are decoupled from the act of purchasing their major commodity.
And Iran is not the only supporter of Hezbollah.
I agree that this Administration is unlikely to ration oil, but we may end up in that situation anyway (at least de facto) if we go down the path of military responses to threats in the Middle East.
I personally would rather we tried this pressure first, rather than get further embroiled militarily.
Glad you found my post so amusing though.
Posted by Pitry (Member # 9507) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote: But the thing is, you're saying that the end justifies the means.
No, he's not. Read:
quote:Whether the war is justified, whether Israel should have the land, whether there is a good guy or a bad guy, this is what happens when people try to win wars.
He's stating something about war, not whether it's justified. He even pointed this out explicitly in a vain attempt to prevent misinterpretation such as yours.
No. By saying that this is what is needed in order to win a war, he's saying - at least, to the best of my understanding and interpretation - that there's no other way to win a war. So, if you're in a war - regardless the reason, whether it's right or wrong, or anything else - you want to win. And if you believe innocent civilians being killed is a necessary part - even if you do believe it's an evil part - of war, that's what's going to happen. And the end - winning the war - comes to justify the means.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
I agree that there are many different types of sanctions (though in the specific case of Iran I'm not sure there are many more that we could throw at them) and I also concede there are other nations that support Hezbollah (but I doubt any of them would say as such in your hypothetical situation - save Iran who would probably have the stones to give the finger to Uncle Sam).
My overarching point is that any competent administration is unlikely to risk price level upset, whether de facto or intentional. To use some hyperbole, they'd sooner give Iran the nukes to blow all of Palestine into the Mediterranean than deal with an American public enraged with the consequences of oil suddenly being >$120/bl. We already had to deal with one smaller supply shock with Iraq. The results of taking another 6-7% of world supply off the market coupled with de facto Iranian military control of the Strait of Hormuz could be enough to seriously derail an already shaky global economy.
And again, I wasn't trying to be snarky with a chuckle. It's just the idea of anyone in power in the US writing up foreign policy based on principle. They've been more Morgenthau than Wilson since the 1940s.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well...there was Carter...
Oh...yeah.
What was I thinking!!!
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
I'll give him some props - he can grow my peanuts anytime. Not so sure about foreign policy though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pitry:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote: But the thing is, you're saying that the end justifies the means.
No, he's not. Read:
quote:Whether the war is justified, whether Israel should have the land, whether there is a good guy or a bad guy, this is what happens when people try to win wars.
He's stating something about war, not whether it's justified. He even pointed this out explicitly in a vain attempt to prevent misinterpretation such as yours.
No. By saying that this is what is needed in order to win a war, he's saying - at least, to the best of my understanding and interpretation - that there's no other way to win a war.
Correct so far.
quote:Originally posted by Pitry: So, if you're in a war - regardless the reason, whether it's right or wrong, or anything else - you want to win. And if you believe innocent civilians being killed is a necessary part - even if you do believe it's an evil part - of war, that's what's going to happen. And the end - winning the war - comes to justify the means.
You're confusing a statement of consequences - "to achieve X you must do Y" - with a statement of moral judgment - "achieving X is worth the costs of Y." The statements aren't equivalent.
Your original post said Israel was seeking "bully" revenge, not justice. Jim-Me correctly pointed out that Israel is seeking neither. They are seeking to win a war.
Only had Jim-Me said it was justified would your "ends-means" analysis be correct. And he didn't. Moreover, he specifically said he wasn't making any such judgment.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Good points. For example, Jim-Me's analysis is much the same as the one I use to conclude that all war is morally wrong on some level and should be avoided with as much effort as we can possibly bring to bear.
Posted by Pitry (Member # 9507) on :
Okay, now I see where the problem is. Neither you nor me nor Jim-Me's original post, but our culture.
We both agree Jim-Me said that there's no way of winning a war without hurting innocent people. Moreover, that the degree to which civilians are getting hurt in the current Middle Eastern conflict is within the acceptable margins of that definition. That's what I disagree with. You could think me naive - and who knows, maybe you're right - but I think the human race has evolved beyond that. That it is possible to fight a war - and obviously, I agree with Bob's conclusion that all wars are bad and we're much ebtter not fighting them - but that isn't the point. Even if a war is fought, my own personal belief is that it can be done without that many civilians getting hurt in the process.
Now - again, in my own personal, humble opinion - saying that it isn't possible is a way of jusitfying the means. Sometimes you have no choice but go to war. Current Israeli situation outside the discussion, because I don't believe this is one of these situations, sometimes, hypothetically, that could happen. And while I know no one takes the Geneva convention seriously, that was an idea made exactly to stress that point - even if you are at war, there should be a line drawn somewhere. So saying that line doesn't exist - which JM didn't say - or that it exists much farther away is, in my opinion, a justification of the means. It could be that I'm looking at the expression in a much broader way - obviously a very different one because this is my third post on the subject and I still don't know if my belief would get across - but that is what I believe in. And saying that "X is a necessary outcome of Y" is a moral judgement, because I disagree with that very statement.
ETA: and to explain the culture comment at the beginning of my post, I still feel I've not clarified myself enough so maybe that'll do it - the belief that a war can't be fought without many civilians getting hurt is a cultural thing. It's not a fact, in my opinion. But because our culture accepts that as a fact, rather than a judgement, this arugement occured. IMHO, again.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:nd saying that "X is a necessary outcome of Y" is a moral judgement, because I disagree with that very statement
???
Just because you disagree with a statement makes it a moral judgemnt?
btw, I didn't say all war is bad. Specifically, I said all war is morally wrong on some level. I believe that because, in part, one cannot enter into a war without first accepting the notion that innocent people are going to die as a result of your actions.
Ultimately, people justify war on many bases, but ONE of those bases is that fewer innocent people will die this way than if the war isn't faught. A closely-related, but less morally acceptable (to me) justification is that fewer of YOUR OWN innocent people will die this way.
These may seem like fine distinctions, but I think they are actually very important. And saying "all war is bad" is not really a tenable position in any discussion of the issue. It's a nice sound bite, but ultimately unconvincing when people are being killed by enemy forces, no?
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Just gonna throw in a comment. This thread has skirted the line pretty closely, and gone over it a couple times. However, those times always seem to be when I'm away from the computer (or my house), and things have calmed down and even been semi-productive when I return. But I don't think that means it's ok. I hate locking the threads, because the topic is extremely important. But I also don't want to edit 15 posts because one person crosses the line.
Especially on this topic, but on others as well, there are some steps that seem to be brought up: A) Here is when it began. B) Here are the pertinent facts. C) Here is what those facts mean. D) Here are the intentions of people involved. E) Here are the possible/plausible solutions. F) Here are the positives and negatives of each. G) Here is the best course of action.
In every single one of those steps there is disagreement, which is why (in my opinion) these threads rarely go anywhere. I just wonder sometimes if it might be more productive to approach those steps separately, instead of the mishmash that usually occurs. Just don't know exactly how to do that.
Ok, that was mostly me as Papa Moose rather than me as Papa Janitor, but I didn't log out and back in. Please forgive.
Anyway, back to the PJ portion. I don't want to lock the thread, but if (a) personal attacks or (b) racist/cultural attacks occur again, I will lock the thread and will not reopen it. This is frustrating to me, and I'm sure it's frustrating to most of you, especially those who are careful not to employ such attacks. I don't care which direction they occur, because as moderator I'm not taking sides on the issue (or trying not to, anyway).
--PJ
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Anything that involves forced resettlement won't be just.
Tell the Arabs that. They kicked most of us out of their countries once Israel came into existence. That was the first stage of a transfer of populations. We simply need to carry out the other half.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:“Some people say, 'We saw you beheading, kidnappings and killing. In the end we even started kidnapping women who are our honor,'” al-Mashhadani said. “These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew.”
“I can tell you about these Jewish, Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq and come with the agent and cheap project.”
“No one deserves to rule Iraq other than Islamists,” he said.
-Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, Iraqi speaker of parliament
It's Lisa. And yeah, the jetlag sucks. <grin>
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Anything that involves forced resettlement won't be just.
Tell the Arabs that. They kicked most of us out of their countries once Israel came into existence. That was the first stage of a transfer of populations. We simply need to carry out the other half.
Don't you think you're devaluing your own argument when you begin to identify with or at least compare yourself (in what you seem to think is a positive way) to the thing which you speak with such invective and anger about?
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
In order not to close this thread down, I decided not to respond to every commment, and mainly be not reading the whole thread. I'll just state my POV:
Israel isn't attacking Lebanon for the sole reason of returning the two soldiers - in fact, the news hasn't really mentioned them in the past two days, so I guess people don't really find that as the focus of the attack. The whole story with the soldiers taken captive is just the straw the broke the camel's back, and most of the focus has now turned to the killed civilians; did the IDF know? Almost certainly.
When the IDF attacked Gaza about a week ago, nothing came out of it. It was a lot of noise, but the soldier didn't return; when the Hezbollah decided to 'show' solidarity, it was an insult and another blow to the army. But the Hezbollah is a very hypocritical, even cynical organisation - it allegedly tries to show the Palestinians that it aides (aids? Can't remember the difference in the verbs) them by attacking the IDF and hurting Israel, but it wasn't very helpful towards the Palestinians in refugee camps in Lebanon.
I seriously don't know what to do - this whole thing is weird. I've spoken to some Palestinian Arabs whom I know, and I just find most people to be sick of this whole situation. But one thing is certain - terrorism must be abolished on both sides of the spectrum (some behaviour on the IDF's part, and the various terrorist groups like the Hammas and Hezbollah), in order for peace.
Israel has the right to defend itself from the sort of things Hezbollah has been doing in the past six years, when Lebanon did nothing on its part (in spite of a UN decree) to stop the terrorist group. Civilians get killed in the process, but please note the IDF is warning Lebanese citizens to stay sheltered, and it tries to eliminate the Hezbollah's HQ. True, you can't do everything perfectly, but it's an attempt to eliminate cases like that when a couple of terrorists burst into a school in the north and start killing children.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
aide is a noun
aid is a noun and a verb.
Your experience in talking to Palestinians sounds similar to my own. I've come to picture the Palestinian populace as a mostly peace-loving people who are lorded over by a few incredibly violent people with all the weapons.
I'm not sure how realistic a picture that is, but when I was there, I didn't meet a single person who even hated Israel. I know there were some out there (because there were some rock-throwing incidents that weekend). There was a lot of bitterness over border closings and home demolitions, but even with the settlers in their midst, there wasn't a lot of anger towards Israel.
But there's also (dare I say it?) a fairly typical "macho" streak that says no slight (real or imagined) will go without retaliation.
Interestingly, this was true of the Israeli Jews I met too (by that I mean the ones born and raised there or at least in the Middle East).
It reminded me a lot of South America in that respect. That a man's honor was on the line all day every day, and anything that happened to him was viewed as either enhancing or impugning his honor and was dealt with in those terms.
Destroying a man's house was like emasculating him and was a slight that could not go unanswered, for example.
<edit: I deleted some stuff that might be over the line in terms of over-generalizations. I realize I have limited exposure to the semitic cultures as expressed in this particular region. I could be wrong, but that's what I came away feeling.>
I think it's at least worth remembering that "an eye for an eye" was initially a call for moderation. We in the West (and especially the Christian tradition) view that as an out-moded call for instant retaliation in kind. But originally it was thought to be a way to stop things from escalating -- you don't kill a man for putting out your eye, you just take his eye, and thent it's over.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Anything that involves forced resettlement won't be just.
Tell the Arabs that. They kicked most of us out of their countries once Israel came into existence. That was the first stage of a transfer of populations. We simply need to carry out the other half.
If you think I don't recognize that Israel and the Jewish people have been the victims of injustice at the hands of Arab nations and the Palestinians, you quite simply haven't been paying attention.
It doesn't make what I said any less true. The forced resettlement of 4 million people will be an incredible injustice.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I'll tell you the truth - as an Israeli Jew, it's virtually impossible for me to reach the more extremist, Jew/Israel hating, racist Palestinians, because they avoid contact with the likes of me. But I've seen some of the worse parts of bigotry on the Jewish/Israeli side, and it's pretty gruesome.
I don't know how this thing will end-up, let's just hope that for the better.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Anything that involves forced resettlement won't be just.
Tell the Arabs that. They kicked most of us out of their countries once Israel came into existence. That was the first stage of a transfer of populations. We simply need to carry out the other half.
Don't you think you're devaluing your own argument when you begin to identify with or at least compare yourself (in what you seem to think is a positive way) to the thing which you speak with such invective and anger about?
I'm doing no such thing. Transfer of populations in order to avoid friction is not a terrible thing. It would have been nicer had it been mutually agreed upon ahead of time, but since it wasn't... well, it wasn't.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Anything that involves forced resettlement won't be just.
Tell the Arabs that. They kicked most of us out of their countries once Israel came into existence. That was the first stage of a transfer of populations. We simply need to carry out the other half.
If you think I don't recognize that Israel and the Jewish people have been the victims of injustice at the hands of Arab nations and the Palestinians, you quite simply haven't been paying attention.
It doesn't make what I said any less true. The forced resettlement of 4 million people will be an incredible injustice.
Amputating a limb is an incredible injustice. But sometimes it's necessary in order to save the patient.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Amputating a limb is an incredible injustice. But sometimes it's necessary in order to save the patient.
First, amputation isn't injustice - it's a sad necessity. Second, if it were an injustice, it would be an injustice to the patient, not the leg. Here, you're committing an injustice to one party to benefit another.
Your analogy is so specious as to beggar belief. If you really do advocate the forced relocation of these four million people, then you are an advocate of evil.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Amputating a limb is an incredible injustice. But sometimes it's necessary in order to save the patient.
First, amputation isn't injustice - it's a sad necessity.
Then sending the Arabs elsewhere is a sad necessity.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Second, if it were an injustice, it would be an injustice to the patient, not the leg. Here, you're committing an injustice to one party to benefit another.
I disagree that it's an injustice to them. I think they'll be better off as well.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Your analogy is so specious as to beggar belief. If you really do advocate the forced relocation of these four million people, then you are an advocate of evil.
No, I am not. It is the just and proper thing to do. It should have been done 39 years ago. But better late than never.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
If it is "necessary" to start sending people away from their homes against their will, why not just send the Israelis elsewhere? That would achieve the same thing without provoking the ire of the neighboring nations.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Then sending the Arabs elsewhere is a sad necessity.
No, it's evil. And if you think this is a good thing, then you are either evil yourself or a pawn of evil.
quote:I disagree that it's an injustice to them. I think they'll be better off as well.
How wonderful for them that you're here to tell them what's best for them.
Considering the offense you took when someone suggested the Jews should be grateful for what the Romans did in A.D. 70, I'm kind of surprised you'd even say that, much less mean it.
quote:No, I am not. It is the just and proper thing to do. It should have been done 39 years ago. But better late than never.
Proper? Why? Why is it proper to kick people out of a land they've lived in for generations?
You sicken me.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Lisa,
Before this goes too far, could you please clarify what steps you think would be OUT OF BOUNDS for Israel to take in accomplishing the goal of removing Palestinians from the region?
Would you be in favor of removing them by force?
Would deadly force be okay?
What type of compensation would you be in favor of?
If there is to be no "right of return" should there be a plan for Israel to provide monetary aid to the new host countries in order to adjust to the massive influx of people?
If the UN decides that Israel shouldn't do it, do you think Israel should go ahead anyway?
If you have to fight a war with Jordan or other nations to make this happen, would you be in favor of it?
Would you think Israel should do it even under the threat of all-out warfare in the region? Given that open war would cost a lot of Israeli lives too?
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I would just like to add, many people are writing their posts under the false assumption that the Lebanese government has not done anything to try and disarm the Hezbollah militants in the south. I have a friend in Beirut right now (she's at the American University of Beirut, probably the safest area there for the mean time), she is there with one of my proffesors from McMaster University in Ontario. His name is Atif Kubursi, and he is a very big wig economist for the UN. He is currently second in command for the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, and has been heavilly involved with the Lebanese government for the past few months. Here is something she wrote on my program's forum a few days ago:
"Through Lebanon's "National Dialogue", the government had been making incremental progress towards an agreement on Hezbollah's arms. (Relatedly, the government is mandated to include all parties/sects by the Ta'if accords that ended the civil war; and many decisions are essentially done by consensus, aka each party gets a veto.) At last week's ninth national dialogue session, all participants (Christians, Druze, etc., including Hezbollah) agreed that the issue of Hezbollah's arms was to be solved in small steps... it was a huge deal that they all agreed on anything about this issue (even that the issue needed solving), and analyst-types hailed it as progress.
Besides, Hezbollah's actions against Israel were probably all mandated by Iran and Syria anyway. And they certainly knew the reaction they were going to get from Israel. Hezbollah is basically putting the country hostage for their own sectarian gains.
Where does Israel think this is going to end? Do they have an exit strategy at all, never mind one where they actually leave with more than what they arrived with?"
So as you can see, they are trying to disarm Hezbollah, but when you have an extremely diverse representation in your government and you want to adhere to the principles of democracy, major changes in the socio-polotical structure of your country can take a while. Lebanon wants nothing more than for the Hezbollah militants to disarm, so it can assert soveriegnty over it's land (did anyone see the Lebanese head of state's speach yesteday, he said this), but it will take time and cooperation between many people, including the political side of Hezbollah (which for the record, isn't considered a terrorist organization by the UN, but rather as a legitimate representation of the Lebanese shiite, and they have no control over the militant side, much like the seperatist party in quebec had no control over the FLQ when they were commiting terrorist acts years ago in canada). If Israel really wants Hezbollah disarmed and Lebanon to be a stable state, they need to work in unison, not in occupation, with Lebanon.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I know the thread has moved on, but this:
quote:Israel's attack isn't unjustifiable, but I think it'll end up hurting them in the long run. They're just confirming their status as a villain, and permitting governments to continue pointing at them and telling fundamentalists that their poverty, their misery, their safety are all products of Israeli occupation. It's not like Israel wouldn't be a scapegoat if they didn't attack, but I don't think this helped matters.
is exactly what I'm worried about. Israel went into southern Lebanon after Hezbollah attacked them, and yet I have to wonder if the scale of the IDF's response is part of the reason that they are being percieved as the "aggressor."
--j_k
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If Lebanon can't control Hezbollah, that doesn't weaken Israel's case for attacking Hezbollah themselves.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm wondering if the IDF actually feels like they've accomplished anything yet. So far they've blown up a ton of buildings, killed foreign nationals from at least one friendly nation, killed more than a hundred civilians, including a bus full of innocent people at one point, and...what has it gotten them, other than a heavily damaged warship, and a couple dozen dead Israelis, not to mention yet MORE kidnapped soldiers?
Do they feel that Hezbollah has been hindered in any way just because their office buildings have been taken out? It might set back their political wing, but somehow I doubt they store all their katyushas and drones in the economic ministry.
And I wonder how long this will go on before someone else in the region decides to step in and do something to stop Israel. It won't be a G8 power at this rate, unless Bush actually sends in troops to HELP Israel. But Saudi Arabia and Egypt are right there. I don't think Jordan or Syria would even bother, they know they can't take on Israel, but the first two I mentioned could do a hell of a lot of damage, and short of Bush ordering troops into Saudi Arabia (other than the ones already there), I really don't see how we could stop them before they could wreak havoc.
But that's getting way ahead of myself, I'm more concerned with the first question I asked, does the IDF feel that they've accomplished anything real so far. Do Israelis feel safer now? And as a whole, has it been worth the price?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Saudi Arabia's government indicated that it held Hezbollah and Hamas responsible for the upsurge in violence in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, the state-run Saudi Press Agency said. ``A difference should be drawn between legitimate resistance and rash adventures carried out by elements inside the state and those behind them without consultation with the legitimate authority,'' according to a statement cited by the Saudi agency. ``These elements alone bear the full responsibility of their irresponsible acts.''
I have no idea how much of this is simply to not annoy us, but Saudi has been the victim of terror attacks in a way it hadn't been at the start of the intifada.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow, this is a bit of a surprise. But a most welcome one. Not that Saudi Arabia was really going to be a major player in this anyway, unless things REALLY escalated, but it's nice to hear some reasonable dialogue coming out of one of the area's more powerful military powers.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: On the verge of one of the most successful tourist seasons Lebanon has ever had, this conflict broke out to further burden a population already suffering from poverty and stagnation. It's a shame for a country that could -- and still can -- be a beacon for true democracy in the region to suffer such a setback. As a Lebanese citizen, I lived through all my life among war, death and destruction -- it grieves me now to see my children living in the same conditions I swore I would never let them see. Iyad Abdelnour, Beirut, Lebanon
I am 16, and I am in Lebanon with my two younger brothers. My parents are frantic with worry, but there is no way out. All major roads in the country have been destroyed. We are stuck, and our embassy is not even answering the phone anymore. We have no idea what is going on. All we want now is to go home. Jenna, Chemstar, Lebanon
I'm an American citizen vacationing with my father in Lebanon. We were set to leave the 14th of July, but since the bombings are stuck in Lebanon. We find ourselves like the Lebanese people: hostages, terrorized by Israeli bombs, with nobody to defend us. We are frantically awaiting relief from the U.S. Embassy. Kellee, Los Angeles, California
I'm Lebanese and I live in the U.S., but I came to Kuwait to visit my parents, and we were all planning on going back home to Lebanon to spend a wonderful summer, as we do every year. But the attacks happened. They destroyed the airports and destroyed every means of transportation for people in the southern villages and towns to leave.
I'm from a small village in the south called Ain-ebel. We do not support Hezbollah, but 15 Israeli missiles hit and destroyed my beautiful village. We are devastated. My relatives are there: my aunt, my cousins and my uncle -- not to mention those Lebanese who were supposed to spend two weeks in Ain-ebel for the summer and leave. Now these people are stuck, in constant fear, under attack. Hezbollah missiles were planted in our village, and they're firing from Ain-ebel's territory without the consent of the people who live there.
The roads that lead to Beirut are destroyed, the bridges that lead to Beirut are destroyed, and everyone is stuck there with no food, no electricity and no water. The people from that village are trying to help our families there by spreading the word that we, those people and towns that do not support Hezbollah or their actions, are innocent. People are hiding in the church, which was renovated not too long ago. It is a big church, but can it take Israeli missiles?
My relatives are scared of dying, are scared of ending up homeless again; we don't not want history to repeat itself. We have had enough. I call on the Lebanese all over the world and the U.N.: Please help my village survive this dreadful act of Hezbollah. I feel betrayed, that nobody is mentioning those people back in my village. Those who have no voice to be heard, I refuse to let them die in vain. Hezbollah is getting out of control to the point of declaring war against Israel, without the consent of the Lebanese government. They are destroying what Lebanon had been trying to rebuild for the past 10 years just for the lives of three prisoners, is it worth it?
I'm not there right now, but I can be their voice. Lebanon will live on. They are fighting each other on Lebanese soil, and this is immoral. Dana K., Tempe, Arizona
quote: I came to live in Israel 15 years ago from the United States. At the time I genuinely believed that there was a great opportunity for peace. But now, as I sit here in my home, not far from Haifa, I realize how things have gone terribly wrong and how much things have changed. I used to be a "leftie." Now I am no longer sure how I would define myself. The only thing that comes to mind is "tired and scared." I ask myself, how did this happen? Where did we go wrong? Why are there rockets and missiles attacking all of us? But one thing is for sure, hatred and anger are seeping into my heart. The sympathy and understanding are flowing out. With each Katyusha that lands here, the flow speeds up. Cheryl, Zichron, Israel
Everyone where I live and study is in a heightened state of worry and danger. We're praying that the crisis ends soon, that the loss of life ends. We just finished a fast, praying for the safety and safe return of the captured soldiers. We've stopped listening to music, stopped shaving and entered a period of mourning. Danny, Jerusalem
I am one of 6 students from Teaneck, New Jersey, who came to Israel for a three-week program from the UJA Federation of Bergen County to work in Nahariya in a day camp for Israelis, teaching them English. We were in Nahariya when the missiles started, and we heard the noises, and even witnessed a field that had been hit by a missile. We spent a total of about eight hours in a bomb shelter, four at night (Wednesday), and four again in the morning (Thursday), and were only then taken out when the roads were "safe enough" for a cab to take us. Where we are now is somewhat of a safer place, but we're still in the relative north. We constantly still hear the missiles hitting, and we see and hear the military planes and helicopters flying above. Initially we were going to be moved in Nazareth, but due to the escalating circumstances, our program has now been cancelled. Personally, I will still be staying in Israel until August 7 as previously planned, but I believe the rest of the kids on the program are being sent home. We're all hoping that the situation improves fast and that Israel and its people will no longer be in danger. Gavi Lewy-Neuman, Shcania, Israel
It sounds a lot worse on both sides than the news is reporting.
Southern Lebanon sounds like it has been utterly devastated, while northern Israel lives in a different kind of steady fear.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Shortly after Haifa was hit, the head of Israel's northern command, Maj. Gen. Udi Adam, warned civilians in southern Lebanon to head north because "in two or three hours we are going to attack south Lebanon heavily."
Gee, thanks for the warning. Now how the hell are they supposed to comply with all the roads and airports destroyed, and the ports blockaded?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Lyrhawn? The US doesn't have any troops in Saudia Arabia anymore. From a State Dept. info page on Saudia Arabia:
quote: In August 2003, following the U.S.-led war in Iraq in March and April 2003, the United States withdrew its troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.
quote: Do Israelis feel safer now? And as a whole, has it been worth the price?
I don't feel safer in the short term, but I think people up north will be greatful when this is over, assuming it will end the IDF way. I, for one, don't like the fact that Israelis are killed by terrorist groups, in spite of what some people here might think of me.
Though, as a Jerusalemite, it's probably different to me than to people from other places in the country.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If it is "necessary" to start sending people away from their homes against their will, why not just send the Israelis elsewhere? That would achieve the same thing without provoking the ire of the neighboring nations.
You didn't seem anything but happy over the expulsion and deportation of 9000 Jews last year. Why all the sadness over that happening to a population of Arabs? Arabs who either engage in terrorism, support terrorism, or simply accept the benefits (to them) of terrorism? The hypocrisy reeks, Tres.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Then sending the Arabs elsewhere is a sad necessity.
No, it's evil. And if you think this is a good thing, then you are either evil yourself or a pawn of evil.
Oh, wahhh... Dag called me a name. Waaahhh!
It's our home. Not theirs. They have no right to be there. They are squatters, at best. And we've been overly tolerant of them.
There might have been some justification for that overgenerous tolerance if they were peaceful. But they aren't. They kill us and celebrate in the streets over the atrocities. Screw them.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I disagree that it's an injustice to them. I think they'll be better off as well.
How wonderful for them that you're here to tell them what's best for them.
Just noting it. It's not as though I care a whole lot.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Considering the offense you took when someone suggested the Jews should be grateful for what the Romans did in A.D. 70, I'm kind of surprised you'd even say that, much less mean it.
Gosh, you're so right, Dag. I mean, those damned Jew terrorists, blowing up the Romans left and right. Sneaking into Roman markets and slaughtering peaceful Romans wholesale. Poor Romans, who only wanted to live in peace. No wonder they had no choice other than to murder millions of us and deport us all over the world.
Barf.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:No, I am not. It is the just and proper thing to do. It should have been done 39 years ago. But better late than never.
Proper? Why? Why is it proper to kick people out of a land they've lived in for generations?
You sicken me.
Cry me a river, Dag. It's mutual.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Lisa,
Before this goes too far, could you please clarify what steps you think would be OUT OF BOUNDS for Israel to take in accomplishing the goal of removing Palestinians from the region?
Why, surely, Bob.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Would you be in favor of removing them by force?
Would deadly force be okay?
If necessary. But certainly not as a first step. Oh, those who are clearly belligerant, yes. I'd frog-march them to the border and push them over. But the rest? I'd start by finding them places elsewhere. An awful lot of them would be happy as clams to get Green Cards and move to the US, you know. And elsewhere. And there are plenty of Jewish philanthropists who'd be happy to donate for the cause.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: What type of compensation would you be in favor of?
Let them collect from the Arab countries who expelled hundreds of thousands of Jews in 1948 and confiscated their property.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: If there is to be no "right of return" should there be a plan for Israel to provide monetary aid to the new host countries in order to adjust to the massive influx of people?
Why? Let them put it against the reparations they owe us for the century of war they've committed against us. We'll call it even.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: If the UN decides that Israel shouldn't do it, do you think Israel should go ahead anyway?
The UN? This was a joke, right? The rest of the questions seemed serious, so this one sort of sticks out like a sore thumb.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: If you have to fight a war with Jordan or other nations to make this happen, would you be in favor of it?
You assume they'd be willing to fight a war over the Palestinians. I'm not so sure. But I suspect they'd know better than to try.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Would you think Israel should do it even under the threat of all-out warfare in the region? Given that open war would cost a lot of Israeli lives too?
As opposed to leaving them there? I think it'd be worth it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If it is "necessary" to start sending people away from their homes against their will, why not just send the Israelis elsewhere? That would achieve the same thing without provoking the ire of the neighboring nations.
You didn't seem anything but happy over the expulsion and deportation of 9000 Jews last year. Why all the sadness over that happening to a population of Arabs? Arabs who either engage in terrorism, support terrorism, or simply accept the benefits (to them) of terrorism? The hypocrisy reeks, Tres.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Oh, wahhh... Dag called me a name. Waaahhh!
It's so comforting that you can act like this is a playground argument when you're discussing the use of deadly force* to relocate of millions of people against their will.
quote:Gosh, you're so right, Dag. I mean, those damned Jew terrorists, blowing up the Romans left and right. Sneaking into Roman markets and slaughtering peaceful Romans wholesale. Poor Romans, who only wanted to live in peace. No wonder they had no choice other than to murder millions of us and deport us all over the world.
If there were 4 million Palestinian terrorists there would be a lot more dead Israelis.
*Willingness to use deadly force:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Would you be in favor of removing them by force?
Would deadly force be okay?
If necessary. But certainly not as a first step.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Dag, just to know, what would you approve Israel do in their defense?
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Man, starLisa, I just linked into this discussion and just really wow. You seemed really angry through all that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, just to know, what would you approve Israel do in their defense?
I've mentioned some of it here. For example, I think they are mostly in the right of it in their current campaign.
I'm certainly not going to make a list here of everything I think is a moral use of force.
Just to know, do you approve of the forced relocation of 4 million Palestinians, including the use of deadly force if they refuse to leave when faced with threats?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Oh, wahhh... Dag called me a name. Waaahhh!
It's so comforting that you can act like this is a playground argument when you're discussing the use of deadly force* to relocate of millions of people against their will.
And "evil" and "pawn of evil" was grownup talk?
Anyway, you needn't worry. The current regime in Israel is far too timid to do any such thing. It'll be a while yet before we have sane people running things.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And "evil" and "pawn of evil" was grownup talk?
Yes, actually. Your plan is evil. Naming it as such is the duty of a grownup member of civilization.
As an advocate of that plan, you are serving evil, either wittingly or unwittingly.
When I said, "sicken" I meant it quite literally. The thought that you and others like you might convince Israel to commit this act makes me feel physically ill.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by cmc: Man, starLisa, I just linked into this discussion and just really wow. You seemed really angry through all that.
Yeah, you know, the whole "pawn of evil" thing does tend to irk me.
Lebanon has been permitting Hezbollah to run free without restraint on their border with Israel. Israel has been tolerant. But hell, if Lebanon isn't going to clamp down on them, the responsibility devolves to us. We're doing our best not to attack civilians. Airports had to go, because that's their means of flying our captured soldiers to Iran (as they threatened to do) as well as their means of rearming and increasing their manpower. Airports are a fair target.
Israel will pull out once Hezbollah is neutralized. If Lebanon had been willing to take responsibility for doing this themselves, they wouldn't have been invaded. They made a bad choice, and they're paying the price.
In terms of the Palestinians, we let them shell us with impunity from the moment we pulled out of Gaza. I am furious with the idiots running Israel, who continue to plan similar withdrawals from Judea and Samaria, even after everything we said would happen following the withdrawal from Gaza, and which they denied would happen, has happened. Every last thing.
We said, "Pull out of Gaza, and you'll teach them that terror works. They'll view it as a victory, and the most vicious terrorists among them will win elections."
We said, "Pull out of Gaza, and they'll use it as a staging ground to fire missiles into the rest of Israel." And people, including people on this forum, basically called me a warmonger for making such pessimistic predictions, and said that if they were to do that, Israel could always roll right back in and undo the withdrawal. We said, "If we were to do that, people would go apes**t, and claim that it's unjustified aggression."
Am I angry? You bet your arse I'm angry. I'm furious. Israel has displayed weakness and practically begged for the Arabs to attack us. I blame Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert for the hell Israel is going through now. This was an unnecessary war that could have been avoided by refusing to grant them any concessions whatsoever.
I'm absolutely livid at the "useful idiots of the West", 21st century version, who think that concessions and offers of conciliation will ever result in reciprocation from the Arab side. How insane does a person have to be to keep trying that when it uniformly results in increased violence?
Angry. You don't begin to know how angry I am.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:And "evil" and "pawn of evil" was grownup talk?
Yes, actually. Your plan is evil. Naming it as such is the duty of a grownup member of civilization.
As an advocate of that plan, you are serving evil, either wittingly or unwittingly.
When I said, "sicken" I meant it quite literally. The thought that you and others like you might convince Israel to commit this act makes me feel physically ill.
Take a Dramamine and get over it. We don't have to tolerate the existence of a feral population in our midst. It's enough, and more than enough, and beyond what could ever sanely be considered enough. They must go.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Goddamn it, why?!
This war is unpleasant. Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
7 Canadian citizens were killed today. I'm all for getting rid of Hezbollah, but it really doesn't seem like Israel is doing a very good job, and if they are really "doing [their] best not to attack civilians" as starlisa put it, then they must have low standards. This loss of life is totally unacceptable, and is doing more to further this conflict than it ever will to end it.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
They are carpet bombing Berut, the capital, and the death count is less than 200. How many fewer casualties could there be, get real
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Take a Dramamine and get over it. We don't have to tolerate the existence of a feral population in our midst. It's enough, and more than enough, and beyond what could ever sanely be considered enough. They must go.
That's just what the Arab leaders said about you in '48, '67, and '73, you know.
Except the feral part. They have other words that dehumanize.
And yes, I know the rhetoric about driving the Jews into the sea is worse than what you're advocating. I'm sure you realize that there are a lot of evils in the world that aren't as bad as genocide.
I take no comfort in the fact that you'd let them live if they agree to abandon their homes.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: Goddamn it, why?!
This war is unpleasant.
That's why.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Take a Dramamine and get over it. We don't have to tolerate the existence of a feral population in our midst. It's enough, and more than enough, and beyond what could ever sanely be considered enough. They must go.
That's just what the Arab leaders said about you in '48, '67, and '73, you know.
And that's why, too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Someone who's genetically related to these people said something evil about you, so you can take their homes.
This is moral to you?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Not sure what your answer means; please explain?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Like I said earlier, it all boils down to who did something evil first. In Lisa's worldview, the first person to commit an atrocity on a civilian population becomes evil, and thus anything -- in her own words -- is justified in expunging that evil.
She's mentioned several times that she wishes to drive the Palestinians out of the lands she considers Israeli, at gunpoint if necessary. She does not consider this evil because her definition of "innocent" is written to exclude Arabs.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:And "evil" and "pawn of evil" was grownup talk?
Yes, actually. Your plan is evil. Naming it as such is the duty of a grownup member of civilization.
As an advocate of that plan, you are serving evil, either wittingly or unwittingly.
When I said, "sicken" I meant it quite literally. The thought that you and others like you might convince Israel to commit this act makes me feel physically ill.
Take a Dramamine and get over it. We don't have to tolerate the existence of a feral population in our midst. It's enough, and more than enough, and beyond what could ever sanely be considered enough. They must go.
Yet again you refer to them as less than human, unless "feral" isn't meant to be taken seriously.
They aren't squatters. Some of them have been there for generations, when many of the families there now were in Russia, America, and Europe. Your people slaughtered there way through that land a few thousand years ago, then got kicked off in turn, it's the history of the region. Saying "but it's still mine!" doesn't really mean all that much, until you can make it happen. Well now you can certainly make it happen, but that doesn't make you right, and it doesn't mean you'll get away with it unscathed.
I think Israel certainly has the right to do what it's doing now. Maybe they could have gone about it in a different way, but they have a right to defend themselves if no one else can, or will take care of the problem. I think a lot of the damage they are causing is unnecessary, and is probably just revenge destsruction, but the overall proclaimed mission is justified.
I only wonder if they are going about it the best way. Blowing up buses, decimating villages, leveling apartment buildings, that isn't going to destroy or disarm Hezbollah. It's only going to kill innocents and cause massive destruction, which will lead to poverty and a collapse of the local economy. It might be that Lebanon had the ability to stop Hezbollah and chose not to, I don't know all the facts on that, but turning southern Lebanon into a wasteland isn't going to solve their problem. Hezbollah will move somewhere else, be it Syria or Jordan, or Iran, or whoever. Maybe it'll all turn out for the best for Israel, and for the region in general. Only time will tell.
Destroying the airfield wasn't necessary. The captured soldier is probably already out of Israel and Lebanon, or is already to northern Lebanon by now. Israel could control Lebanese airspace, or could ask someone else to interdict it, and control the evacuation of foreign nationals from Lebanon. More soldiers are being captured, and moved.
Morbo - Yeah I forgot that the US evacuated its personnel from KKMC in Saudi Arabia. I realized it after I made the post, but didn't feel like editing it for such (what I considered) a minor mistake.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
StarLisa,
Here's an idea, swap acre-for-acre as follows.
Jews throughout the world pledge their property and in exchange for property in the areas that Israel wants to control but which is now claimed by Palestinians. As soon as enough pledges are obtained from both sides so that a reasonably contiguous chunk of land bordering the then-current outline of Israel is made, the swap is made and the Palestinians move onto the property currently owned by the donor Jews, they are given green cards and allowed to work toward citizenship. (cooperation of nations taking in Palestinians would have to be secured in advance, of course, and there'd be background checks to run...
And the donor Jews move to the land that is now part of Israel.
Part of the deal is no right of return to Israel for the Palestinians, but they get clear title to property of real value in their new country -- minimum standards would apply.
And it has to be a swap, person-for-person so that the land in the area in Israel is actually occupied by the people who swapped for it. No wealthy people putting up property in a slum somewhere and then not leaving the host country.
Everyone on BOTH sides has to move. No right of return.
one for one. Land for land.
Everyone gets to keep exactly what they can fit into two suitcases. Period.
PLEASE NOTE: I do not advocate this idea, but I'm trying to frame something that would be inherently equal treatment, completely voluntary, and where the rest of the world wouldn't have to worry about who poked whose eye out first.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
starLisa - I might begin to understand your frustration. Thanks for explaining your feelings.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Bob -
Would that include all the Palestinians currently living in refugee camps? Just wondering.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I find it amusing that someone so ardently against the notion of 'society' is so ardently for collective cultural responsibility.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Lyrhawn, Good question. Maybe those people could exchange for studio apartments in Manhattan or something.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Like I said earlier, it all boils down to who did something evil first. In Lisa's worldview, the first person to commit an atrocity on a civilian population becomes evil, and thus anything -- in her own words -- is justified in expunging that evil.
It's not just a matter of first. It's continual. It's unending, and it comes from a "moral" stance that justifies deliberately murdering women and children and other innocents in order to force us off of our land. It's obscene that people like this should not be treated as war criminals en masse.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Sure...go round up all the ones who did it or ordered it done. The world will thank you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's obscene that people like this should not be treated as war criminals en masse.
"Criminal" isn't a label that gets applied en masse. It's a label that gets applied after individual determinations.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yet again you refer to them as less than human, unless "feral" isn't meant to be taken seriously.
Bite me, Lyrhawn. Hard. I'll be damned if I'm going to play this game with you. You know damned well what I meant, and I refuse to be super-careful not to use invective that you can interpret this way. Play your propaganda games if you like.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: They aren't squatters. Some of them have been there for generations, when many of the families there now were in Russia, America, and Europe.
They are squatters. Every last one of them. They invaded my land while we were unable to prevent the invasion. I don't care if some of their families have been there for 13 centuries. Be American, Lyrhawn. Think that 230 years is a long time for a country to be around. We don't look at it that way. We have a bit more historical perspective than that.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I only wonder if they are going about it the best way.
Thanks for your concern.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: StarLisa,
Here's an idea, swap acre-for-acre as follows.
Jews throughout the world pledge their property and in exchange for property in the areas that Israel wants to control but which is now claimed by Palestinians.
Bob, factor in Jewish owned land that was expropriated by Arab governments who expelled their Jews in 1948, and not only are we covered on Judea, Samaria and Gaza, but I think we get a good solid chunk of Jordan there, to boot.
Sounds okay to me.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Everyone gets to keep exactly what they can fit into two suitcases. Period.
Heh. Aren't you funny. That's more than those of us expelled in 1948 were allowed, actually.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:It's obscene that people like this should not be treated as war criminals en masse.
"Criminal" isn't a label that gets applied en masse. It's a label that gets applied after individual determinations.
Thanks for the word from law school, Dag. We have no obligation to deal with a nation which has made war against us as nation against nation in any way other than that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I refuse to be super-careful not to use invective that you can interpret this way.
Perhaps if you stopped using invective...
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Where do you live?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Thanks for the word from law school, Dag. We have no obligation to deal with a nation which has made war against us as nation against nation in any way other than that.
You choose a word to deliberately evoke Nuremburg, the inaptness of your choice will be pointed out.
The whole problem is that you want to punish individuals for group crimes.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: StarLisa,
Here's an idea, swap acre-for-acre as follows.
Jews throughout the world pledge their property and in exchange for property in the areas that Israel wants to control but which is now claimed by Palestinians.
Bob, factor in Jewish owned land that was expropriated by Arab governments who expelled their Jews in 1948, and not only are we covered on Judea, Samaria and Gaza, but I think we get a good solid chunk of Jordan there, to boot.
Sounds okay to me.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Everyone gets to keep exactly what they can fit into two suitcases. Period.
Heh. Aren't you funny. That's more than those of us expelled in 1948 were allowed, actually.
Sorry Lisa, no dice. You missed the part about where the rest of the world gets to ignore the claims of who poked whose eye out first.
Just move one person for one person. Swap one piece of land for another piece of land.
It's also known as putting your money where your mouth is. If you are going to propose the (forced or otherwise) migration of millions of people in order to achieve some fantastical goal, then it'll be worth it to you and a lot of people like you.
Like I said -- it's even-steven from the point the program is started. NO gritching about history. Just get the job done and over, and everyone shuts up afterwards.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yet again you refer to them as less than human, unless "feral" isn't meant to be taken seriously.
Bite me, Lyrhawn. Hard. I'll be damned if I'm going to play this game with you. You know damned well what I meant, and I refuse to be super-careful not to use invective that you can interpret this way. Play your propaganda games if you like.
Lisa -
If I'm misrepresenting your personal views, it's only because you're misrepresenting them yourself. You call Palestinians, and perhaps Arabs, though I can't specifically recall you blanketing the entire race en masse, "feral" and "animal." You do it willfully, repeatedly. When you keep repeating something like that, how is anyone who reads you supposed to come up with any other conclusion than that you actually believe the things you are saying? Is it really so far fetched to believe that I might take you at your word, despite the attempts you keep making afterwards to make it look like I'm twisting your words?
I'm sick to death of you saying crap then trying to turn it around on everyone else when they actually call you on it. You want people, or me especially to stop hasseling you about your choice of invective? Then take Dag's advice and stop using it entirely.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: They aren't squatters. Some of them have been there for generations, when many of the families there now were in Russia, America, and Europe.
They are squatters. Every last one of them. They invaded my land while we were unable to prevent the invasion. I don't care if some of their families have been there for 13 centuries. Be American, Lyrhawn. Think that 230 years is a long time for a country to be around. We don't look at it that way. We have a bit more historical perspective than that.
Blah blah blah. I don't really see how my being American born has anything to with this, but if it makes you feel better to attack me with that, then go right ahead. Whatever helps your self esteem and peace of mind. So your point of view, is that since your ancestors, if you can even trace your lineage originally back to the first Israelites, butchered and conquered their way across what is currently Israel, and managed to kill enough people to get to name the land yourself, then squat there for a couple hundred years before you got tossed off, that you have more of a right to the land than the people who've actually been living there for the last few hundred years?
Since you brought it up, how long was the actual Kingdom of Israel in existance for? 300 years before it broke up? Well only 70 years to go, and I guess we'll have the same sort of longevity you require to be able to proclaim America as ours now and forever, regardless of anything else that ever will happen in the future.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I only wonder if they are going about it the best way.
Thanks for your concern.
You aren't welcome. You obviously don't believe that any concern of mine over the well being of Israel is genuine, so why bother to comment on it?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
The problem with Lisa's solution is that, if carried out, Israel would be wiped off the map pretty shortly thereafter.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Since you're a newer member, you might not be aware that we follow the news pretty closely around here, and have discussed the kidnapping and rocket fire issues on earlier threads about this matter. I'm pretty sure everyone who has posted on this thread is aware of everything you mentioned. You are correct that none of us currently live in Israel, although there are a few posters who have previously, and it's certainly good to get the perspective of someone who does. I hope you stay safe, by the way.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)