Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > Israel--current Events


Posted by: SCShamrock 14-Jul-2006, 05:42 PM
QUOTE (Forbes)
President Bush refused to press Israel for a cease-fire in Mideast violence Friday, risking a wider breach with world leaders at a weekend summit already confronting crises with Iran and North Korea.

Flying here from Germany, Bush called the leaders of Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan to explore ways to end three days of furious fighting between Israel and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon. Turning aside complaints that Israel is using excessive force, Bush rejected a cease-fire plea from Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora.

"The president is not going to make military decisions for Israel," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. He said it was unlikely that either side would agree to a cease-fire now.

The eruption of Mideast violence moved prominently onto the agenda of the summit beginning Saturday.

In contrast with Bush's stand, Russian President Vladimir Putin said, "No hostage-takings are acceptable ... but neither is the use of full-scale force in response to these, even if unlawful, actions. We will demand that all sides involved in the conflict immediately stop the bloodshed."

The summit is expected to issue a Mideast declaration, and the United States tried to shape it to be critical of Hezbollah and supportive of Lebanon's fragile government.

French President Jacques Chirac accused Israel of going too far. "One could ask if today there is not a sort of will to destroy Lebanon, its equipment, its roads, its communications," said Chirac, who has tried to patch relations with the U.S. after disagreements over the Iraq war.


http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/07/14/ap2880266.html

I have a few of questions.

Over the last, er, um, bunch of years, has or has not the nation of Israel agreed to ceasefires at the request of the United States and the international community?

If you were Israeli, would you feel that continued ceasefires or the failure to act militarily increases or decreases your sovereignty? Is it capitulation?

Since it has become painfully obvious that the religious enemies of Israel have no intention of letting them live in peace, doesn't it stand to reason, especially after their pull out in Gaza, that Israel should at some point take a firm stance, rebuking their enemies?

Considering all the terrorism that has surfaced lo this last decade, doesn't Israel have every right to fight it along with every other nation that so chooses?


These questions may seem somewhat unrelated to the events currently taking place, but I feel they are very relevant to the state of things in the region.

Posted by: Swanny 14-Jul-2006, 07:01 PM
Israel has a long history of ignoring world opinion and pursuing whichever course is in the best interest of Israel. Though a tiny country, they have a well-equipped and highly competent military.

Regardless of what we think, Israel is going to do whatever the Israeli government feels is in its best interest.

Therefore, the questions you ask are rather moot. Right, wrong or indifferent - no matter what we think - Israel is going to do whatever THEY think is best.

Swanny


Posted by: haynes9 15-Jul-2006, 07:36 AM
Every time Israel makes a concession or gives up something, they get nothing in return. Every time a moderate Palestinian movement appears, it is quashed by the hardliners who live for the destruction of tiny Israel.

The carnage is terrible and makes for bad world press, but I would venture to say that most any country would, given the ability and means, respond in kind as Israel has given a similar situation.

I have a dear friend who is Syrian. He is a good man. I spoke with him yesterday on the phone (He is in the states) and he said he will not be returning home anytime soon. He would be forced to rejoin the military. He said, "I will not fight against Israel."

That kind of "uncommon commonsense" would do that region well. You just don't mess with Israel!

Posted by: Shadows 15-Jul-2006, 07:50 AM
QUOTE (haynes9 @ 15-Jul-2006, 09:36 AM)


...That kind of "uncommon commonsense" would do that region well. You just don't mess with Israel!...

If it is called "Common Sense" then why is it so uncommon!?

The world is in great peril at the moment and unless this esculation of violence is stopped between the Arabs, Isreal, and even amoungst the Arab factions, we have no hope for peace or continued existence!

Our own government continues to help in this esculation by sticking it's collective nose where it does not belong all for the almighty god "OIL" !


Posted by: ballydun 15-Jul-2006, 11:20 AM
I really don't believe that oil is the issue. The American government is not that shallow, are they?

This seems to me to becoming almost like a world war, however. No, the US didn't start it. It has been brewing in the middle east for a long time, and the US has until now kept their noses out of it and tried to let them solve it civilly. How many times have the middle eastern countries killed Americans to test us? Think back to Carter, Regan etc. We pretty much tried to keep the peace over there and have failed. Now something needs to be done to help Isreal and the others figure out what can be done. If the Jordanians et. al. are determined to destroy Isreal I think we should help Isreal stand up for themselves.

GO ISREAL

Posted by: Shadows 15-Jul-2006, 12:17 PM
This has been "brewing for centuries" and is not a modern affliction!

Yes our government is that shallow, it is currently run by "OIL FOLKS"...

I think we should leave all concerned to their own resources and solutions; we ( the USA ) have over-stepped our bounds and need to get our nose out of the mid-east for our own sake!

We need to concentrate our concerns on domestic issues... our own folks... illegal's ..etc.

Posted by: maisky 16-Jul-2006, 09:38 AM
QUOTE (Shadows @ 15-Jul-2006, 07:50 AM)
QUOTE (haynes9 @ 15-Jul-2006, 09:36 AM)


...That kind of "uncommon commonsense" would do that region well. You just don't mess with Israel!...

If it is called "Common Sense" then why is it so uncommon!?

The world is in great peril at the moment and unless this esculation of violence is stopped between the Arabs, Isreal, and even amoungst the Arab factions, we have no hope for peace or continued existence!

Our own government continues to help in this esculation by sticking it's collective nose where it does not belong all for the almighty god "OIL" !

EEEEK!! World in greater danger than I thought: I find myself agreeing with everything you said!

Posted by: Fiddler 16-Jul-2006, 09:57 AM
I cannot help but think there is more to all of this than oil. Our government could just as easily ignore the greenes and drill for our own oil right here at home.

There is something much larger at play. Please take time to review the following site and post your opinions here. I am not trying to hijack this topic..honest! I would just like to interject the rviewpoint of someone who has something to say besides Bush lied and Exon owns the government.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/07/on_limits.html#more

Posted by: SCShamrock 17-Jul-2006, 12:37 AM
Fiddler,

That's a beautiful blog. I will be visiting regularly!! Thanks.

And personally, I don't think oil has anything to do with it.

Posted by: jedibowers 17-Jul-2006, 08:57 AM
QUOTE (Fiddler @ 16-Jul-2006, 11:57 AM)
I cannot help but think there is more to all of this than oil. Our government could just as easily ignore the greenes and drill for our own oil right here at home.

There is something much larger at play. Please take time to review the following site and post your opinions here. I am not trying to hijack this topic..honest! I would just like to interject the rviewpoint of someone who has something to say besides Bush lied and Exon owns the government.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/07/on_limits.html#more

I think this is about something more than just oil. I don't think Israel even has oil, I might be wrong on that, Lord knows I have been in the past. I would like to see our country start drilling more.

Israel was attacked and had their soldiers taken. They are doing whatever they can to get them back. Sometimes that means by force. There were rumors that their soldier were going to be transported to Syria or Iran, so Israel took out the means of transportation. I think we would do the same if we were in their situation.

Posted by: Senara 17-Jul-2006, 09:27 AM
I too think this is much more than the US's need for oil. The fight between Isrealites and the Palestinians and others in that region has been going on since nearly the dawn of time itself. Much of the fight is for religious right/freedom...much more of the fight is that this battle has been waged for nearly 2000+ years with just ceasefires scattered here and there and it is all that the people of these lands know how to live.

There has never been a true peace in this region. Neither side has conceded to allow the others to join them. Neither side is willing to give up the fight. Until they kill each other off, or they strike a solid agreement that will put an end to this war between nations once and for all there will never be peace for either faction. Nothing the international community says or does will change this.


Posted by: stoirmeil 17-Jul-2006, 02:24 PM
Actually, I don't think it's about oil primarily either -- the entire middle east can't be seen as just an oil rag to be tug-of-warred between dogs. (But that's not an index of shallow motivations in this administration.) Israel is a well-armed, well-educated, and still pretty Western-oriented democracy in the middle of none of the above. The "none of the above" happens to be sitting on a whole lot of oil, yes. But it's the strategic positioning and military competence that makes Israel invaluable, and also makes it always and eternally a pain in the patoot to the none of the above. (Apart from the cultural grievances, which are many and deep, but mostly useful for the cannier and less hair-triggered leaders to whip the rank and file populations up with cynically, at need.)

Israel has not always done exactly what it would like. I remember several instances of quite impatient restraint at the request of the American government during the Reagan 80s, and again under Clinton. Hopes were higher then for some kind of meaningful arrangement by now, though, and I don't think such requests will be entertained very often again. For better or (probably) worse.

I don't know exactly what Bush's story is for his reluctance to take a firmer stance on what is clearly overkill escalation, though I can guess -- but there has been a history of American support for the state of Israel from day one. Part of it is a tremendous post-WWII aftermath of guilt that's not only American; but some of it is the peculiarly American evangelical viewpoint that this is the holy land and these are the chosen people, and abandoning them is against some kind of divine plan. (Notice the biblical quality of the phrase used by one of the posters above: Israel should "rebuke her enemies.") Israelis waffle between finding this a true nuisance and pragmatically taking advantage of it, but they do not subscribe to it, and they also don't like depending on what is essentially a lofty, romanticized vision from America's position of privilege that they can't always afford to comply with.

If that sounds like I am anti-Israel, I am certainly not. Quite the contrary. However, the days when people pretend to be dismayed by bold Israeli interventions while secretly applauding them (which was always a hypocritical view that left them in the scapegoat position) are OVER. The entire region is on the edge of blowing sky high, and this series of retaliations is extreme and largely punishing the wrong people. Worse yet, it is futile to hold the Lebanese responsible for harboring Hezbollah when they are in no military or strategic position to expel them. The majority is not Hezbollah-sympathetic, and they'd like them out of there. But Lebanon is chronically in shreds, and acutely yet again: Beirut is trashed. Uprooting Hezbollah is a matter for international, not Israeli, intervention, since it matters to all of us what terrorist clumps do over there (or we would not be in Afghanistan or Iraq). They’re certainly not Israel’s unique problem just because they are sitting on her border. Hezbollah is acting for (probably) Syria, and possibly Iran as well, to provoke a world melee. That's the nature of this new paradigm of wars that are not wars, and combattants that are supranational and virtually unaffiliated to national borders or even land masses. If we (America and her allies, as well as Israel) get snookered into responding as though the provocateurs are situated in a normal way on their own turf, we'll continue to do damage to non-guilty parties that will breed years of costly rehabilitation and resentment.

Israel should certainly do as much as she needs to protect her populations, and this is acutely necessary this week. I've stood right on the Lebanese border -- more beautiful hills you have never seen, and it would make you weep to see it under barrage like this -- and I can tell you that all you have to do is throw rocks downhill out of the Golan to cause huge damage to the upper Galilee. This has to be countered immediately and decisively. But everything is not excusable under the rubric of self-defense. If Israel uses more intensive and punitively destructive force than necessary, whether it’s in Gaza or Lebanon, it's playing into the hands of the elite spin masters and the chronically aggrieved and easily enraged hordes of the enemy.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 19-Jul-2006, 08:29 PM
If Hammas and all Muslem extreamist put down their weapons, there would be peace. If Israel put down their weapons, there'd be no Israel. Just something to think about.

Posted by: Dogshirt 23-Jul-2006, 06:42 PM
Isreal is WRONG, and should be sanctioned and condemned by every civilized country in the world! They have started this with their heavy handed tactics of attacking civilians under the WEAK guise of attacking terrorists. fyou.gif


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 23-Jul-2006, 07:36 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 23-Jul-2006, 07:42 PM)
Isreal is WRONG, and should be sanctioned and condemned by every civilized country in the world! They have started this with their heavy handed tactics of attacking civilians under the WEAK guise of attacking terrorists. fyou.gif


beer_mug.gif

Lets not forget just who started this current conflict. Hesbula is the one that kidnapped the two soldiers by coming into Israel and abduting them. Every time Israel just sits back and leaves them alone, they Hesbula, Hammas and others just plot their destruction! Listen, you and me should stick to our guns because it seems to be the only way we agree but on that note, do you know or have met anyone from over there in the Middle East? Well I'm married to a Palistinian and she'll tell you, #1 Israel has every right to defend itself. She's a Christian and her family is of a minoriety of even Christian Arabs who recognize Israel. I know that you arn't a Christian so that you don't care ablut that. #2 Her family will tell you that even though Israel isn't perfect in how they've handled things, these Muslims are hell bent on the destruction of Israel and hate them passionatly. Israel has tried to move on peacefully in the past but it's these Muslim freaks who won't let that happen. How can you bargin with people, Muslims, who say without victory there can be no peace. So Israel is dealing with them the way that is needed. They know these nuts and know that they have everything to loose.
Yes I know that innocent are suffering, I have cousin in laws in Lebanon but they are safe in the country side. They said to us via web cam that no they don't like Israel but the definatly hate Hesbula for starting this whole mess. The sad thing is if they go public with this statement, Hesbula or some Muslim would kill them. That's the world they live in over there. Now why don't you and me jsut stick to gun rights because I like they way you think when it comes to guns. I say if these Muslim scum want to start their crap here, I say we should let them know that not only are we armed but are bullets are dipped in pigs blood. That I promas you would scare the @#$* out of them.


Posted by: stoirmeil 24-Jul-2006, 08:51 AM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 23-Jul-2006, 07:42 PM)
Isreal is WRONG, and should be sanctioned and condemned by every civilized country in the world! They have started this with their heavy handed tactics of attacking civilians under the WEAK guise of attacking terrorists. fyou.gif


beer_mug.gif

It's not a "weak guise." They ARE attacking terrorists. They are being very heavy handed, you're right, and outright indifferent about avoiding civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. It's almost impossible to justify announcing an evacuation and then destroying the main roads, for example. On the other hand, it's virtually impossible to surgically target terrorists who have infiltrated the whole south of the country to the point of making themselves into a semi-legitimate political party without causing damage to the uninvolved. Hezballah is using the whole area as a human shield, and they know it and the Israelis know it. Maybe we could save a little anger for them.

This isn't a border skirmish. The missiles have struck all the way to Haifa, and that ain't hay -- that took years of buildup and planning. I knew when they let go of the Golan six years ago something like this had to come, and the longer it waited the bigger the buildup of strike capacity would be.

I don't agree with the Israeli general who spoke about it over the weekend, holding the Lebanese completely accountable for harboring the terrorists. Some accountability is in order, but the country has been so shredded and disorganized for so long, there is no genuine wherewithal for Lebanon to keep its borders sealed and undesirables out -- and I believe (though others don't) that the great majority of Lebanese don't really want these people in there making them a target.

Posted by: Dogshirt 24-Jul-2006, 05:20 PM
I see this as EXACTLY like the US vs the Laktoa people! EVERYTHING Isreal has done, from the day they declared themself as a nation has been ILLEGAL and WRONG! If Isreal was GONE this would not be happening! The sooner the US washes their hands of these criminals the sooner the world will settle into peace! Isreal is an ILLEGAL entity that needs to be excised from the world picture! The sooner the western world understands this the better! Isreal has NO right to exsist! Or ANYOTHER rights either! fyou.gif


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 24-Jul-2006, 05:42 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 24-Jul-2006, 06:20 PM)
I see this as EXACTLY like the US vs the Laktoa people! EVERYTHING Isreal has done, from the day they declared themself as a nation has been ILLEGAL and WRONG! If Isreal was GONE this would not be happening! The sooner the US washes their hands of these criminals the sooner the world will settle into peace! Isreal is an ILLEGAL entity that needs to be excised from the world picture! The sooner the western world understands this the better! Isreal has NO right to exsist! Or ANYOTHER rights either! fyou.gif


beer_mug.gif

The Jews were there first thousands of years prior and it is their land. Many Jews have always lived there throughout thousands of years. Israel was there first and Israel has ALWAYS exsisted! LONG LIVE ISRAEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've got news for you, Israel is going NO WHERE! Many have tried to make the Jew and Isreal cease to exsist but have failed.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 24-Jul-2006, 05:43 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 24-Jul-2006, 06:20 PM)
I see this as EXACTLY like the US vs the Laktoa people! EVERYTHING Isreal has done, from the day they declared themself as a nation has been ILLEGAL and WRONG! If Isreal was GONE this would not be happening! The sooner the US washes their hands of these criminals the sooner the world will settle into peace! Isreal is an ILLEGAL entity that needs to be excised from the world picture! The sooner the western world understands this the better! Isreal has NO right to exsist! Or ANYOTHER rights either! fyou.gif


beer_mug.gif

Also why we're at it, do you actually agree with Iran, thinking they should Nuke them? I sure hope not I respect you too much Dog!

Posted by: Dogshirt 24-Jul-2006, 06:24 PM
NO! I wouldn't trust Iran with the radioactive unit from a microwave! But in conventional warfare Isreal should sink or swim! Personaly I think sink.
By the way, I am NOT antisemetic, just anti-Isreal.


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 24-Jul-2006, 07:40 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 24-Jul-2006, 07:24 PM)
NO! I wouldn't trust Iran with the radioactive unit from a microwave! But in conventional warfare Isreal should sink or swim! Personaly I think sink.
By the way, I am NOT antisemetic, just anti-Isreal.


beer_mug.gif

I'm glad you're not antisemetic.

Posted by: SCShamrock 24-Jul-2006, 08:24 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 24-Jul-2006, 06:20 PM)
Isreal is an ILLEGAL entity that needs to be excised from the world picture! The sooner the western world understands this the better! Isreal has NO right to exsist! Or ANYOTHER rights either!

Where does this level of hatred come from? And if Israel has no right to exist, what should their people be? More than that, are you saying you believe in the legitimacy of so-called Palestine, while giving Israel no legitimacy at all?

Posted by: Dogshirt 24-Jul-2006, 08:47 PM
This level of feeling (hatred if you wish) comes of 45 years (I wasn't old enough for more than that, but read about the first years) of watching Isreal do exactly what the US did to my people, but without the transparent legitimacy of the TREATIES that the white man had no intention of keeping.
As for where they should go? I really don't care, it is a big world, but they have NO right to move into ANYONE else's land and claim it as their own! PERIOD!
Palestine, Transjordan, call it what you will, those people were there first! And that supercedes ANY claim to legitimacy that Isreal may TRY to justify!


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: haynes9 24-Jul-2006, 10:20 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 24-Jul-2006, 08:47 PM)
This level of feeling (hatred if you wish) comes of 45 years (I wasn't old enough for more than that, but read about the first years) of watching Isreal do exactly what the US did to my people, but without the transparent legitimacy of the TREATIES that the white man had no intention of keeping.
As for where they should go? I really don't care, it is a big world, but they have NO right to move into ANYONE else's land and claim it as their own! PERIOD!
Palestine, Transjordan, call it what you will, those people were there first! And that supercedes ANY claim to legitimacy that Isreal may TRY to justify!


beer_mug.gif

Hey Dog, I consider you and I friends. You probably know that I am polar opposite of you on this issue. I don't want to be disagreeable, I just disagree.

I am not going to go into a Biblical argument here. I don't think you would accept it, so there is no need to go into it except to say that I believe God gave much of the land that is in dispute today to the Jews.

Why is it that the other Arab countries have not provided land for their Palestinian brethren? Was it not the intention for Jordan to be the homeland of the Palestinians? Why is it that as soon as Israel had left Gaza, the Palestinians started killing each other again?

Dog, I agree with you that there was a lot of cruelty committed upon the Native American people by Anglos. You know that is an issue I do not shy away from since I live on the Navajo Nation. But I think you do yourself and our people (I know I ma not Indian, but proudly live among Native peoples on purpose) a disservice to equate what is happening in the Middle East with what happened in America. I am of the opinion that by and large, the Native peoples of this land have responded to their treatment with dignity and courage. There were exceptions, of course, but all peoples have those "bad apples" that can be pointed to. Hamas and Hezzbolah are a far cry from those great statesman that Native America produced. It is a different story, my friend!

And where is the outcry in the Arab world over the gross mistreatment of the Kurds? The Palestinians and Arabs use those poor people for target practice in most of their countries.

Just my two cents. Take care, Dog, and have a great day.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 25-Jul-2006, 07:11 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 24-Jul-2006, 09:47 PM)
This level of feeling (hatred if you wish) comes of 45 years (I wasn't old enough for more than that, but read about the first years) of watching Isreal do exactly what the US did to my people, but without the transparent legitimacy of the TREATIES that the white man had no intention of keeping.
As for where they should go? I really don't care, it is a big world, but they have NO right to move into ANYONE else's land and claim it as their own! PERIOD!
Palestine, Transjordan, call it what you will, those people were there first! And that supercedes ANY claim to legitimacy that Isreal may TRY to justify!


beer_mug.gif

Lets just remember one thing. The Jews and Israel were ther first before the Greek conquest, the Roman conquest and after being scattered throughout Europe, there were a few through the Ottoman rule that were there. So Israel has ALWAYS been there. Now this isn't a Bible lesson this is a history lesson. Also long before Israel became a country again, many Arab tribal chieftans sold off to Jews from around the globe land thast they thought was worthless desert and swamp but the Jews engineered the land to make it fertal. Then the Arabs turned around and tried to say that they the Jews stole it! Now that wasn't all of Israel but some of it. This comes from my wifes relitives who are Christian Palistinians and who's ancesters whittnessed it all.

Posted by: Dogshirt 25-Jul-2006, 07:33 PM
That's not quite true. According to your bible, God lead them to the area and they drove out the inhabitants. Just like today.



Posted by: Nova Scotian 25-Jul-2006, 08:27 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 25-Jul-2006, 08:33 PM)
That's not quite true. According to your bible, God lead them to the area and they drove out the inhabitants. Just like today.

Well the people who they took it from are long gone. But as for tody, the Palistinians were NOT there before the Jews so Israel is there to stay. Since we're on who's land is who's, just who was here before the American Indians and who did they take it from? Plus since YOU brought up the Bible, Israel proper as stated in the Bible is most of the Middle East, not just that little strip land they have today. Also, Palistine never was even a country. Palistine was named by the Romans. It was the region. So like I said before, Israel was before Palistine.

Lets think about it. Since you also have Scottish in you. Maby Scottland should wage war on England since they stole the land from the Scots. RIGHT? I said it once and I'll say it again, Israel is there to stay. I know you don't believe and don't care but God is on the side of Israel. If he wasn't Israel would never have survived the invasions they've had in the past years and the Jews would have long been exterminated. Israels very existance today was forseen in the Bible.

Posted by: Dogshirt 25-Jul-2006, 08:46 PM
All else aside, there is no evidence that any humans evolved on this continent. There is also no physical evidence before 28,000years ago. These early cultures of hunter-gatherers are collectively known as Amerinds. There are 5-8 (depending on who does the grouping) Linguistic families, that are then broken down into the Nations that we know today.
My people DID take over land that was abandoned by the Shoshone after they received that most marvelous of gifts from the whiteman, smallpox. They were so decimated, that they pulled back to the west of the Rockies and only ventured back to hunt buffalo.
As far as can be determined, other than shifting boundaries after pressure from the whiteman, there was no major warfare between the Nations.


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: SCShamrock 26-Jul-2006, 01:24 AM
I'm sorry, but I simply cannot understand all the oneupmanship behind this. It seems quite trifling to me. It is beyond comprehension what kind of apocalyptic events would unfold if all the lands that were ever conquered were to suddenly be restored to the "rightful" inhabitants. How far back are you willing to go? This is silly. Israel is a sovereign state, and nothing short of a complete overthrow of their government or a catastrophic earth event is going to change that. And honestly, why is it that you always hear about native Americans as nothing more than innocent victims, as if they were (are?) some sort of sacred, flawless beings without spot or blemish? I know people who live in the past, but most of the time it's their own past. This boggles the mind.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 26-Jul-2006, 04:12 AM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 26-Jul-2006, 02:24 AM)
I'm sorry, but I simply cannot understand all the oneupmanship behind this. It seems quite trifling to me. It is beyond comprehension what kind of apocalyptic events would unfold if all the lands that were ever conquered were to suddenly be restored to the "rightful" inhabitants. How far back are you willing to go? This is silly. Israel is a sovereign state, and nothing short of a complete overthrow of their government or a catastrophic earth event is going to change that. And honestly, why is it that you always hear about native Americans as nothing more than innocent victims, as if they were (are?) some sort of sacred, flawless beings without spot or blemish? I know people who live in the past, but most of the time it's their own past. This boggles the mind.

Thank you! This is my point exactally! If Dog think Israel has no right to exsist, which it does, then fine. He's a grown man and he's not going to change his mind. This is a topic that is especially hot among Middle Easterners. As I've mentioned my wifes family is Palistinian and Israel is a tongue in cheek conversation but they arn't Muslims and when it comes down to it they all agree Israel has a right to exsist. Now ask a Muslim, most are hell bent on Israels destruction! Lets look at Lebanon for a minute. Sure it's sad to seen innocient suffer, but if a majority are against Hesbula then why didn't they drive them out? If most Palistinian Muslims are against terrorism then why did they elect Hammas?

Posted by: Dogshirt 26-Jul-2006, 07:06 PM
No, I'll not change my mind. I WILL however agree to didagree and move on.


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 27-Jul-2006, 04:07 AM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 26-Jul-2006, 08:06 PM)
No, I'll not change my mind. I WILL however agree to didagree and move on.


beer_mug.gif

No problem. I'll do the same. thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Emmet 27-Jul-2006, 03:40 PM
The Israeli Defense Force is the fifth most powerful war machine in the world. Despite comprising only .001 per cent of the world’s population, Israel receives one third of all American foreign aid. They receive the most American military aid of any country on earth, and are the largest buyer of American made weapons. Those are American made M109 155mm self-propelled howitzers firing M110A1 WP white phosphorous incendiary shells and M483A1 DPICM cluster munitions into Lebanese villages, and those are American made F-16 fighter-bombers dropping American made GBU-28 5,000 lb laser-guided bombs upon residential suburbs of Beirut. Israel’s indiscriminate attack on Lebanon unequivocally constitutes a crime against humanity pursuant to the UN Charter, Articles 33, 48, and 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and Article 7 of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Statutes of 1998, differing from Lidice and Guernica only in scope. They are perpetrating this atrocity with American made weapons paid for with American taxpayers dollars under the diplomatic cover of the American Secretary of State and American Ambassador to the UN and with the inane cheerleading of the American President and American Congress. If indeed these are the elected leaders of a free democracy simply expressing the will of the people, by extension that makes every American citizen fully complicit as a war criminal.

Words simply cannot express the depth of my grief for the people of Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine, or the depth of my shame and revulsion for the United States.

Posted by: haynes9 27-Jul-2006, 03:46 PM
Emmet, I share your grief for the innocent civilians. How about the actions of Hamas and Hezzbolah? Any comments on these fine humanitarian organizations? Is Israel entirely to blame for the woes in the Middle East.

Not trying to be contentious. I just appreciate an open look at both sides involved in this conflict.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 27-Jul-2006, 05:53 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 27-Jul-2006, 04:40 PM)
elThe Israeli Defense Force is the fifth most powerful war machine in the world. Despite comprising only .001 per cent of the world’s population, Israel receives one third of all American foreign aid. They receive the most American military aid of any country on earth, and are the largest buyer of American made weapons. Those are American made M109 155mm self-propelled howitzers firing M110A1 WP white phosphorous incendiary shells and M483A1 DPICM cluster munitions into Lebanese villages, and those are American made F-16 fighter-bombers dropping American made GBU-28 5,000 lb laser-guided bombs upon residential suburbs of Beirut. Israel’s indiscriminate attack on Lebanon unequivocally constitutes a crime against humanity pursuant to the UN Charter, Articles 33, 48, and 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and Article 7 of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Statutes of 1998, differing from Lidice and Guernica only in scope. They are perpetrating this atrocity with American made weapons paid for with American taxpayers dollars under the diplomatic cover of the American Secretary of State and American Ambassador to the UN and with the inane cheerleading of the American President and American Congress. If indeed these are the elected leaders of a free democracy simply expressing the will of the people, by extension that makes every American citizen fully complicit as a war criminal.

Words simply cannot express the depth of my grief for the people of Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine, or the depth of my shame and revulsion for the United States.

Well I agree that the innocient have to suffer but like I said before, if a majority of the Palistinians are againt terrorism and want peace, then why did they elect Hammas? Also if Lebenon wants peace and hate terrorism then why don't the rise up against Hesbula? It's because most Muslims HATE Israel and feel that there can be no peace without victory. If you don't believe me well how many people do you know from the Middle East who have lived through it personally? LONG LIVE ISRAEL. I Praise God we the USA can do our part to help Israel. On that note just WHO started this recient crisis? Israel? NO Hesbula and the psycopath Muslims who crossed into Israel and abducted the Israeli soldiers. THEY STARTED IT. Israel has always come out the winner and they will this time as well. Just watch. God Bless America for helping Israel in the past and I look forward to seeing us help them in the future.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 27-Jul-2006, 05:56 PM
thumbs_up.gif Also, the biggest mistake the USA could ever make is to stop supporting Israel. That would truly be the death to the USA for real! sad.gif

Posted by: Dogshirt 27-Jul-2006, 06:15 PM
Why is it onle terrorism when it goes against your belife? Isreal is the biggest terrorist in the world. As you yourself said "Burn down the house to kill a rat."
And just what benifit do we reap from backing Isreal besides a target on ALL our backs? I'm pretty sure Isreal is about to cut their own throat this time.


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 27-Jul-2006, 06:44 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 17-Jul-2006, 03:24 PM)

I don't know exactly what Bush's story is for his reluctance to take a firmer stance on what is clearly overkill escalation, though I can guess -- but there has been a history of American support for the state of Israel from day one.  Part of it is a tremendous post-WWII aftermath of guilt that's not only American; but some of it is the peculiarly American evangelical viewpoint that this is the holy land and these are the chosen people, and abandoning them is against some kind of divine plan.  (Notice the biblical quality of the phrase used by one of the posters above:  Israel should "rebuke her enemies.")  Israelis waffle between finding this a true nuisance and pragmatically taking advantage of it, but they do not subscribe to it, and they also don't like depending on what is essentially a lofty, romanticized vision from America's position of privilege that they can't always afford to comply with. 


I said this before and I will say it again. I don't think anyone who holds this biblically ordained standpoint is in a position to see this brutal Israeli overkill in a realistic light. Sorry guys -- I know this is sensitive. But this is not the conquest of Canaan here. Or even 1967.

Emmet -- good to see you man, it's been yonks -- I haven't been so tied in knots over anything for years as I am now over this, with fractured loyalty and human rights outrage. You are right, and I may bleed to death to say it, but you are right.

Posted by: Emmet 27-Jul-2006, 06:53 PM
"Emmet, I share your grief for the innocent civilians. How about the actions of Hamas and Hezzbolah? Is Israel entirely to blame for the woes in the Middle East."

Israel routinely violates the territorial sovereignty of other nations with photoreconnaissance flights (and sometimes bombings; for example, on the night of July 22, 2002, an Israeli F-16 dropped a one ton bomb onto an apartment complex in Gaza City, killing Hamas military wing leader Salah Shehadeh and 16 others, of whom 15 were civilians, including 9 children, and wounding over one hundred others), and routinely mounts incursions into Lebanon, Gaza, and elsewhere, kidnapping and assassinating anyone they perceive as a threat (there are 9,000 Lebanese and Palestinians, including women & children, incarcerated in Israel without even a semblance of due process). Hamas (a democratically elected government, by the way...or is democracy only OK if they elect people you approve of?) captures one Israeli POW (if they weren't POW's then, they most certainly are now) and Israel bombs and invades Gaza; Hezbollah captures two more, and Israel bombs Lebanon, to quote an Israeli general, "back 20 years" (does anyone really believe that this was a spur-of-the-moment "rescue operation" that could have possibly been launched without months (or more likely years) of advance logistical planning?), destroying to date 85% of roadways, 90% of bridges, schools, airports, hospitals, many, many apartment blocks, fuel storage facilities, power plants, port facilities, water treatment facilities, UN observation posts (which had been there since 1979; you can't argue that the Israelis didn't know it was there), at least 3 ambulances (one has an Israeli shell hole dead center in the red cross on the roof), a relief convoy, and an International Red Cross clinic, and killing at least 600 Lebanese, mostly civilians, one third of them children (that estimate is undoubtedly low, not counting bodies buried beneath the rubble). Hezbollah retaliates to the Israeli onslaught (after the bombing started!) by launching hundreds of WWII-era Katyusha rockets into Israel, killing 15 civilians; inexcusable, to be sure, but hardly comparable, unless of course an Arab or Muslim life is not of comperable value to an Israeli or Jewish one.
Now Israel is bellicosely insisting on Lebanon's full compliance with UN Resolution 1559, when Israel has steadfastly ignored UN Resolutions 233, 234, 237, 242 (especially 242!), 248, 250, 251, 252, 259, 267, 271, 298, 338, 339, 381, 425, 446, 452, 465, 468, 469, 471, 476, 478, 484, 508, 509, 513, 515, 516, 517, 518, 520, 521, 573, 592, 605, 607, 608, 611, 636, 641, 672, 673, 681, 694, 726, 799, 904, 1073, & 1322? What about UN Resolution 1674; responsibility of signatories to protect civilian populations against genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity?

Evidently, what's good for the goose simply doesn't apply to the gander.

Yeah; it is Israel's fault. The root of the problem isn't 1559, it's 242. There's been ample lost opportunities for peace, but Sharon and his ilk have repeatedly demonstrated that they don't want peace. Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 killed 18,000 Lebanese civilians, resulted in the massacres of hundreds of unarmed and defenseless Palestinian civilians at Sabra and Shatila (the PLO had already evacuated Beruit), years of bloody civil war, and Hezbollah. What do you think will sprout from the blood and ashes of Lebanon this time?

Posted by: Nova Scotian 27-Jul-2006, 07:38 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 27-Jul-2006, 07:15 PM)
Why is it onle terrorism when it goes against your belife? Isreal is the biggest terrorist in the world. As you yourself said "Burn down the house to kill a rat."
And just what benifit do we reap from backing Isreal besides a target on ALL our backs? I'm pretty sure Isreal is about to cut their own throat this time.


beer_mug.gif

Well think what you want but if you want to REALL see the death of the USA, it will be the day the US stops supporting Israel. Israel is going NOWWHERE! biggrin.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 27-Jul-2006, 07:55 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 27-Jul-2006, 07:53 PM)
"Emmet, I share your grief for the innocent civilians. How about the actions of Hamas and Hezzbolah? Is Israel entirely to blame for the woes in the Middle East."

Israel routinely violates the territorial sovereignty of other nations with photoreconnaissance flights (and sometimes bombings; for example, on the night of July 22, 2002, an Israeli F-16 dropped a one ton bomb onto an apartment complex in Gaza City, killing Hamas military wing leader Salah Shehadeh and 16 others, of whom 15 were civilians, including 9 children, and wounding over one hundred others), and routinely mounts incursions into Lebanon, Gaza, and elsewhere, kidnapping and assassinating anyone they perceive as a threat (there are 9,000 Lebanese and Palestinians, including women & children, incarcerated in Israel without even a semblance of due process). Hamas (a democratically elected government, by the way...or is democracy only OK if they elect people you approve of?) captures one Israeli POW (if they weren't POW's then, they most certainly are now) and Israel bombs and invades Gaza; Hezbollah captures two more, and Israel bombs Lebanon, to quote an Israeli general, "back 20 years" (does anyone really believe that this was a spur-of-the-moment "rescue operation" that could have possibly been launched without months (or more likely years) of advance logistical planning?), destroying to date 85% of roadways, 90% of bridges, schools, airports, hospitals, many, many apartment blocks, fuel storage facilities, power plants, port facilities, water treatment facilities, UN observation posts (which had been there since 1979; you can't argue that the Israelis didn't know it was there), at least 3 ambulances (one has an Israeli shell hole dead center in the red cross on the roof), a relief convoy, and an International Red Cross clinic, and killing at least 600 Lebanese, mostly civilians, one third of them children (that estimate is undoubtedly low, not counting bodies buried beneath the rubble). Hezbollah retaliates to the Israeli onslaught (after the bombing started!) by launching hundreds of WWII-era Katyusha rockets into Israel, killing 15 civilians; inexcusable, to be sure, but hardly comparable, unless of course an Arab or Muslim life is not of comperable value to an Israeli or Jewish one.
Now Israel is bellicosely insisting on Lebanon's full compliance with UN Resolution 1559, when Israel has steadfastly ignored UN Resolutions 233, 234, 237, 242 (especially 242!), 248, 250, 251, 252, 259, 267, 271, 298, 338, 339, 381, 425, 446, 452, 465, 468, 469, 471, 476, 478, 484, 508, 509, 513, 515, 516, 517, 518, 520, 521, 573, 592, 605, 607, 608, 611, 636, 641, 672, 673, 681, 694, 726, 799, 904, 1073, & 1322? What about UN Resolution 1674; responsibility of signatories to protect civilian populations against genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity?

Evidently, what's good for the goose simply doesn't apply to the gander.

Yeah; it is Israel's fault. The root of the problem isn't 1559, it's 242. There's been ample lost opportunities for peace, but Sharon and his ilk have repeatedly demonstrated that they don't want peace. Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 killed 18,000 Lebanese civilians, resulted in the massacres of hundreds of unarmed and defenseless Palestinian civilians at Sabra and Shatila (the PLO had already evacuated Beruit), years of bloody civil war, and Hezbollah. What do you think will sprout from the blood and ashes of Lebanon this time?

The bottom line is Hesbula started the Lebenon incident this time. Like I said before, Hammas was democraticaly elected because they are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. This only shows that these Arab Muslims don't want peace. What you don't get is these people don't think like we do here. It's a totally different mindset these Muslims have. I KNOW! Trust me. If hesbula and hammas put down their weapons, there'd be peace but if Israel drops its weapons there'd be NO Israel. What Israel does is in it's own defense and the people they go after purposly put innicient people around to creat collateral damage. Golda Mier once said to the Palistinians, "I'll forgive you for killing my children but I'll never forgive you for making me kill yours". When was the last time you heard a march in Israel calling death to Muslims? However how many times from Muslims have you hear death to Israel. Do you know anyone personally who has lived over there since Israels birth? Do you?

I'll end with this, I'd die before I EVER denounce Isreal. They're Gods people and if I sound like a radical fine but you all will see! Yes you all will biggrin.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 27-Jul-2006, 08:06 PM
By the way Emmet, as a former Firefighter I hope you havn't forgotten the 343 fallen commrads who were murdered by Muslim extremist on 9/11 who's blood now cries out!

Posted by: Nova Scotian 27-Jul-2006, 08:10 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 27-Jul-2006, 07:15 PM)
Why is it onle terrorism when it goes against your belife? Isreal is the biggest terrorist in the world. As you yourself said "Burn down the house to kill a rat."
And just what benifit do we reap from backing Isreal besides a target on ALL our backs? I'm pretty sure Isreal is about to cut their own throat this time.


beer_mug.gif

So what your're saying we need to give into these psycos in the Middle East and they'll just leave us alone? If you think that all I'll tell you is that I'm glad your're not the majority. Muslims for the most part can't be trusted. Even if the US did stop supporting Israel, they'd still hate the US with a passion.

Posted by: Emmet 27-Jul-2006, 08:37 PM
"If hesbula and hammas put down their weapons, there'd be peace but if Israel drops its weapons there'd be NO Israel."

Hezbollah has an estimated 600 full-time fighters and another 3,000-4,500 veterans available for mobilization, and perhaps 15,000-30,000 reservists in volunteer militias.
13,000 WWII era 22mm and 107mm Katyusha rockets, of which they've fired (or Israel has destroyed) over half, which has killed seven people, making it perhaps one of the most useless and ineffective weapons systems since we first started throwing rocks at each other. They are rumored to have Iranian-made Fajr-3 and the Fajr-5 rockets. A 220mm rocket with a 90kg warhead hit Haifa killing eight people. They are also rumored to have Zelzal-2 ballistic missiles believed capable of carrying a 600kg warhead to a maximum range of 200km. If they did, they were apparently content to allow them to be destroyed on the ground, because they haven't fired any off.
Lebanon's army has 75,000 troops, 350 medium and light tanks; mostly WWII era T-54 & 55's, and 30 UH-1 Hueys, with no fixed wing aircraft. The Lebanese Army has remained noncombatants and hasn't killed anyone up to this point, although that hasn't stopped the Israelis from bombing their barracks, airfields, and other facilities, killing many of them in the process.

Israel has 175,000 troops and 450,000 reserves.
3,800 tanks, including M-1 and M60 tanks made in the USA.
15,000 heavy artillery pieces, including M108 105mm and M109 155mm self-propelled howitzers made in the USA.
2,000 combat aircraft, mostly F-16 and F-15 variants, plus 25 nuclear capable F-15Es (remember, Israel has the bomb); about 80 older F-4 Phantoms made in the USA (Under the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, American military aid supposedly can only be used for defensive, not offensive, operations). While Israel claims that Iranian hands are all over the bombs and training of Hezbollah and its arms, undeniably U.S. hands are all over Israeli bombs and munitions and war machines; a fact not likely to be forgotten by any Arab or Muslim.

Given these numbers, how many seriously think that anybody in the region represents a strategic threat to Israel; particularly Hezbollah with their antique Katyusha peashooters? Between Israel and Lebanon, who represents an existential threat to the other?

" They're Gods people and if I sound like a radical fine..."

Not radical at all; just your average, banal, garden-variety religious bigot and racist.

"By the way Emmet, as a former Firefighter I hope you havn't forgotten the 343 fallen commrads who were murdered by Muslim extremist on 9/11 who's blood now cries out!"

That's a non sequitur. 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Queda (not Hesbollah, Hammas, Lebanon, et al.), 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian (our allies), none were Lebanese. According to fatwa's issued by Osama bin Laden himself, the attacks were motivated by (among other things) America's unstinting support for Israel in the occupation of the occupied territories and oppression of the Palestinian people, and the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which are actually legitimate grievances. Their blood no more "cries out" for the destruction of Lebanon, Palestine, or Iraq than it does for the destruction of Kansas.

Posted by: Dogshirt 27-Jul-2006, 08:58 PM
Some people just seem to understand that "God" has absolutely nothing to do with the murder being perpatrated by Isreal!



Posted by: Nova Scotian 27-Jul-2006, 09:06 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 27-Jul-2006, 09:37 PM)





Not radical at all; just your average, banal, garden-variety religious bigot and racist.

"By the way Emmet, as a former Firefighter I hope you havn't forgotten the 343 fallen commrads who were murdered by Muslim extremist on 9/11 who's blood now cries out!"

That's a non sequitur. 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Queda (not Hesbollah, Hammas, Lebanon, et al.), 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian (our allies), none were Lebanese. According to fatwa's issued by Osama bin Laden himself, the attacks were motivated by (among other things) America's unstinting support for Israel in the occupation of the occupied territories and oppression of the Palestinian people, and the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which are actually legitimate grievances. Their blood no more "cries out" for the destruction of Lebanon, Palestine, or Iraq than it does for the destruction of Kansas.

You just better watch who you're calling a racist and a biggot! My family is Middle Eastern! Thank You! My best friend is a Muslim Kurd from Iran. So until YOU KNOW ME enogh to call what you will GET IT RIGHT.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 27-Jul-2006, 09:12 PM
You know Dog or Emmet both don't wan't to answer the question if they know anyone who was born in the Middle East since Israels birth.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 27-Jul-2006, 09:13 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 27-Jul-2006, 09:58 PM)
Some people just seem to understand that "God" has absolutely nothing to do with the murder being perpatrated by Isreal!

So you think that they'll leave us alone if we stop supporting Israel?

Posted by: Dogshirt 27-Jul-2006, 09:15 PM
We didn't have this problem BEFORE Isreal. What makes you think they WON'T?


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: haynes9 28-Jul-2006, 12:47 AM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 27-Jul-2006, 08:37 PM)

" They're Gods people and if I sound like a radical fine..."

Not radical at all; just your average, banal, garden-variety religious bigot and racist.

Hey Emmet.

What's the deal with the name calling? I realize this quote was not mine, but I happen to take a literal view of the Scriptures myself. I don't mind at all entering into a reasonable and even heated discussion, but the name calling is pretty junior high.

Dogshirt and I probably disagree on virtually every political issue, but I don't recall us ever getting into accusations of bigotry and racism.

I happen to live on the Navajo Nation and I do so on purpose. Feel free to check with the folks I work with and find out if I ma racist. I don't think you're a jerk for disagreeing with me. That's fine. You have a right to your viewpoint. Can we do so in a manner that is respectful?

Posted by: Nova Scotian 28-Jul-2006, 05:09 AM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 27-Jul-2006, 10:15 PM)
We didn't have this problem BEFORE Isreal. What makes you think they WON'T?


beer_mug.gif

Hummmmm. Well lets see. What happened a few mounths ago when those cartoons of Mohammad were published in Denmark? Denmark doesn't send troops to the wars against them. However because of a few cartoons a few nations broke off diplomatic relations with Denmark. On top of that in Seria, Lebanon and other places, they burned the Danish, Swedish and Norwegin embassies. So yes you are right. It's only Israel. Lets not talk about what the Turks did to Armenia. The Turks said it's the Muslim duty to wage war on the non Muslim nations. At that time the whole reagon was Ottoman controlled and after WW1 they lost big. There is a whole lot more but I asked it once and I'll ask it again. Do you know anyone who lived over there? Obviously you know nothing about the Middle East mindset.

Posted by: Dogshirt 28-Jul-2006, 05:22 AM
Actually I do, including Palestinians and Lebanese.


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 28-Jul-2006, 05:32 AM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 28-Jul-2006, 06:22 AM)
Actually I do, including Palestinians and Lebanese.


beer_mug.gif

Well so do I they're my family who consist of Palistinian, Jordanian, Lebanese, and Syrain. They will all tell you the same thing I've been telling you. Leaving them alone and stopping the support of Israel will never stop those psycos Muslim extreamist who are hell bent on world domionation of Islam. One of my best friends who is a Muslim Kurd from Iran agrees. cool.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 28-Jul-2006, 05:36 AM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 28-Jul-2006, 06:22 AM)
Actually I do, including Palestinians and Lebanese.


beer_mug.gif

Plus while we are at it Dog, how about those cartoons in Denmark? We all saw how those folks reacted. I've seen worse pictures drawn of Jesus and I don't see the same thing happening anywhere and if anything does happen it is usually so small its not noticed.

Posted by: Emmet 28-Jul-2006, 05:53 AM
QUOTE
" They're Gods people and if I sound like a radical fine..."

Not radical at all; just your average, banal, garden-variety religious bigot and racist.


QUOTE
What's the deal with the name calling?...the name calling is pretty junior high.


"long before Israel became a country again, many Arab tribal chieftans sold off to Jews from around the globe land thast they thought was worthless desert and swamp but the Jews engineered the land to make it fertal. Then the Arabs turned around and tried to say that they the Jews stole it!"
"God is on the side of Israel... Israels very existance today was forseen in the Bible."

"these Muslims are hell bent on the destruction of Israel and hate them passionatly. Israel has tried to move on peacefully in the past but it's these Muslim freaks who won't let that happen. How can you bargin with people, Muslims..."

"What you don't get is these people don't think like we do here. It's a totally different mindset these Muslims have. I KNOW!" Nova Scotian

rac·ism noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

big·ot noun
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Not "name calling"; merely an observation, based upon Nova Scotian's own broad, sweeping, inaccurate and less-than-complimentary overgeneralizations, and the common usages of the terms according to Merriam-Webster.

If the jackboot fits...

Posted by: Nova Scotian 28-Jul-2006, 06:29 AM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 28-Jul-2006, 06:53 AM)
QUOTE
" They're Gods people and if I sound like a radical fine..."

Not radical at all; just your average, banal, garden-variety religious bigot and racist.




"long before Israel became a country again, many Arab tribal chieftans sold off to Jews from around the globe land thast they thought was worthless desert and swamp but the Jews engineered the land to make it fertal. Then the Arabs turned around and tried to say that they the Jews stole it!"
"God is on the side of Israel... Israels very existance today was forseen in the Bible."

"these Muslims are hell bent on the destruction of Israel and hate them passionatly. Israel has tried to move on peacefully in the past but it's these Muslim freaks who won't let that happen. How can you bargin with people, Muslims..."

"What you don't get is these people don't think like we do here. It's a totally different mindset these Muslims have. I KNOW!" Nova Scotian

rac·ism noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

big·ot noun
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Not "name calling"; merely an observation, based upon Nova Scotian's own broad, sweeping, inaccurate and less-than-complimentary overgeneralizations, and the common usages of the terms according to Merriam-Webster.

If the jackboot fits...

Don't try to justyify what you said! I don't care if you disagree with me but offend me which was what you seemed to be trying to do, I don't take that very well. I don't call ANYONE names in here! YOU were wrong in what you called me! Don't try to justify it in the meaning of the words.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 28-Jul-2006, 06:31 AM
Not "name calling"; merely an observation, based upon Nova Scotian's own broad, sweeping, inaccurate and less-than-complimentary overgeneralizations, and the common usages of the terms according to Merriam-Webster


Inaccurate? Obviously YOU don't know anyone who has had to live overthere!

Posted by: Emmet 28-Jul-2006, 08:43 AM
So, you're saying that if I used precisely the same fallacious reasoning (or lack therof) to so broadly paint Jews, or Christians, or Blacks, or Hispanics with the same nasty brush, the terms "bigot" or "racist" wouldn't come to mind, or is it only properly applicable to Muslims and/or Arabs?

Posted by: Herrerano 28-Jul-2006, 09:24 AM
I realize this may be out of place here in this discussion biggrin.gif, but I came across this
and it seems to be in line with the original topic here.


http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001203.html


Worth reading.

Leo cool.gif



Posted by: SCShamrock 28-Jul-2006, 11:56 AM
Emmet, I'm intrugued. You seem to have educated yourself quite extensively on what you view as Israel's atrocities, while trying to generate a comprehensive list of the military capabilities for them and others in the region. I wonder, have done an equal amount of research on the various Muslim groups and their atrocities? We all err in lumping them in under one title..."terrorists." There are many sources out there, but I would like to know if you are even aware of the breadth and scope of violence perpetrated in the name of Allah. Also, I'm very curious about your signature. What does it mean?

Here, if you do not already have a source to use, try http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

For any that choose not to click on my link, the list quotes a line from the Qur'an:

QUOTE (Qur'an @ Sura 9:5)
Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them.  Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.

Posted by: Emmet 28-Jul-2006, 12:01 PM
As we've discussed before, I'd no more rely upon you (or your sources) for a lesson on the true nature of Islam than upon Goebbels for tutelage on the true nature of Judaism, for precisely the same reasons.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 28-Jul-2006, 12:15 PM
I'm just curious. For those who think that Israel is justified in their actions, why are they justified in killing all the civilians they have? What about the children?

I'd like to state right off the bat that I'm not asking these questions in a slanted way, nor am I trying to take a side with these questions. I haven't entered an opinion in this matter due to a lack of knowledge on the State of Israel or really what is going on.

however, if the numbers I've been reading on civilian deaths and child deaths are true, I am curious as to how these casualties are justifiable.

Posted by: SCShamrock 28-Jul-2006, 12:17 PM
QUOTE (Emmet)
As we've discussed before, I'd no more rely upon you (or your sources) for a lesson on the true nature of Islam than upon Goebbels for tutelage on the true nature of Judaism, for precisely the same reasons.


I didn't ask you to rely upon me for anything sir. But as suspected, all you have to reply with is venomous rhetoric. Thanks for revealing your only interest in the Islamic world.

Posted by: Emmet 28-Jul-2006, 01:10 PM
Neither am I going to be lectured by you on "venomous rhetoric"....talk about the pot calling the kettle black! hitler.gif

CelticCoalition, I've definitely got an idea in answer to your question, but as you specifically addressed your question to "those who think that Israel is justified in their actions", I'll keep it to myself until asked.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34129

Posted by: SCShamrock 28-Jul-2006, 01:35 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 28-Jul-2006, 02:10 PM)
Neither am I going to be lectured by you on "venomous rhetoric"....talk about the pot calling the kettle black! hitler.gif [/URL]


Let's just be honest for once Emmet, shall we? You cannot answer the questions because you know it will reveal the hatred of Islam you so vehemently defend. Using your same logic for name calling...you are a self-righteous hypocrite.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 28-Jul-2006, 02:40 PM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 28-Jul-2006, 02:35 PM)
QUOTE (Emmet @ 28-Jul-2006, 02:10 PM)
Neither am I going to be lectured by you on "venomous rhetoric"....talk about the pot calling the kettle black! hitler.gif [/URL]


Let's just be honest for once Emmet, shall we? You cannot answer the questions because you know it will reveal the hatred of Islam you so vehemently defend. Using your same logic for name calling...you are a self-righteous hypocrite.

If I've sounded extream, well I think in some ways I have a right being that I have loved ones who have been there and lived through most of the ness over there. As Arabs, my wifes Mum and Dad went through hell in their early lives it it wasn't just Isreal that did it. Because they werem't Muslim they had to put up with hell in the refugee camps before finally settling is Jordan.

Let me tell you all this my father in law still owns land in Israel and would sell it in a secound. However he'd have to travel to Israel to complete the transaction. Here's the problem, he'd probably not get out alive! The Palistinians would make it a mission to kill him for selling the land to the as they say"rats".

Posted by: CelticCoalition 28-Jul-2006, 04:22 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 28-Jul-2006, 01:10 PM)
Neither am I going to be lectured by you on "venomous rhetoric"....talk about the pot calling the kettle black! hitler.gif

CelticCoalition, I've definitely got an idea in answer to your question, but as you specifically addressed your question to "those who think that Israel is justified in their actions", I'll keep it to myself until asked.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34129

You can give me an answer if you like. I don't mind biggrin.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 28-Jul-2006, 07:37 PM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 28-Jul-2006, 01:15 PM)
I'm just curious. For those who think that Israel is justified in their actions, why are they justified in killing all the civilians they have? What about the children?

.

How about the Israeli children who were killed? They don't target civilians, however Hesbula places themselves around innocient civilians on purpose!

Posted by: Nova Scotian 28-Jul-2006, 07:43 PM
QUOTE (Herrerano @ 28-Jul-2006, 10:24 AM)
I realize this may be out of place here in this discussion biggrin.gif, but I came across this
and it seems to be in line with the original topic here.


http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001203.html


Worth reading.

Leo cool.gif

I didn't get to read all of it but it looks interesting.

Posted by: SCShamrock 29-Jul-2006, 01:55 AM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 28-Jul-2006, 02:10 PM)
CelticCoalition, I've definitely got an idea in answer to your question, but as you specifically addressed your question to "those who think that Israel is justified in their actions", I'll keep it to myself until asked.[/URL]

You can answer some questions, but not others. Ok, I'll ask again, just for kicks. Do you know about all the violence perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Allah, or do you not? If you do, how would you defend Islam as being the "religion of peace?"

Posted by: SCShamrock 29-Jul-2006, 02:45 AM
Here you go Emmet, one of your own spreading love and peace again. I trust you have no problem with the Associated Press as a source. Hmmmm?

QUOTE (AP)
SEATTLE (AP) -- A man walked into a Jewish organization Friday afternoon and opened fire, killing one woman and injuring at least five others before he was arrested, officials said.

The gunman, who employees said claimed to be a Muslim angry at Israel, forced his way through the security door at the Jewish Federation after an employee had punched in her security code, said Marla Meislin-Dietrich, a co-worker who was not at the building at the time.

Staff members said they overheard him saying "'I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel,' before opening fire on everyone," Meislin-Dietrich said. "He was randomly shooting at everyone."


I'm sure he was justified though, right? Probably Bush's fault. unsure.gif

Posted by: Emmet 29-Jul-2006, 08:15 AM
QUOTE
I'm just curious. For those who think that Israel is justified in their actions, why are they justified in killing all the civilians they have? What about the children?
I'd like to state right off the bat that I'm not asking these questions in a slanted way, nor am I trying to take a side with these questions. I haven't entered an opinion in this matter due to a lack of knowledge on the State of Israel or really what is going on.
however, if the numbers I've been reading on civilian deaths and child deaths are true, I am curious as to how these casualties are justifiable.


QUOTE
I've definitely got an idea in answer to your question, but as you specifically addressed your question to "those who think that Israel is justified in their actions", I'll keep it to myself until asked.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34129


QUOTE
You can give me an answer if you like. I don't mind


I'd start off by saying again that the IDF is not only the fifth most powerful military in the world, but also one of the most technologically advanced, armed and equipped as they are by the United States. For them to claim that the massive civilian casualties are merely regrettable "collateral damage", merely unfortunate accidents of war, can only be interpreted one of two ways; A: they're grossly incompetent (as we all know, hardly likely), or B: they're intentionally targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure.
There are only two rationalizations I can think of for this; A: Collective punishment; punishing the entire country of Lebanon for the behavior of Hezbollah. At the onset of the Israeli attack, an Israeli general was quoted as saying that they would "turn back the clock on Lebanon 20 years". Considering the shocking extent of civilian casualties and the destruction of such strategic military assets as dairy plants, lighthouses, cardboard box factories, Proctor & Gamble baby food warehouses, power plants, water treatment facilities, and every road wider than a goat path, not to mention block after block of residential apartment buildings in Beirut and Tyre, at least two hospitals, and the international airport (Hezbollah doesn't have any air assets), they're achieving that objective, in spades.
And/or, B: they're trying to break the will of the Lebanese people to fight back, kind of like Nazi Germany did so successfully with the Blitz of London and bombing of Stalingrad, and the US in North Vietnam and Iraq (how well is that "shock and awe" strategy working out for you, by the way?).
Collective punishment, the indiscriminate targeting of civilians, and the targeting of military assets with a high probability of inflicting civilian casualties are all explicitly proscribed de jure war crimes pursuant to the Geneva Convention.

Miraculously, in spite of Israel's complete and unchallenged air supremacy, allowing FAC's to loiter over southern Lebanon all day long, and the limited range of the rockets bringing them well within the effective range of Israel's own MLRS's and 155mm guns, Hezbollah's Katyushas (a perfectly legitimate military target, and ostensibly the rationale for this bloodbath in the first place) still manage to lob 50-150 rockets into northern Israel every day, a rate of fire that's pretty much the same as when the Israeli bombing first began. I've got an idea about that, too; as long as Hezbollah keeps peppering the Israeli countryside with their antique peashooters, the Israeli people remain pissed off and enthusiastically supportive of the IDF in Lebanon (you've got to admit, 15 civilians killed by what; 1500 rockets? has got to make the Katyusha one of the most pathetically ineffective weapons ever devised; you're infinitely more likely to be hit by lightning than a Katyusha). Due to their minimal cost in lives versus the high propaganda value of leaving them relatively unscathed for the moment, I somehow I doubt that Katyusha launchers are very high on today's IDF to-do list.

Posted by: Emmet 29-Jul-2006, 08:27 AM
QUOTE
Here you go Emmet, one of your own spreading love and peace again. I trust you have no problem with the Associated Press as a source. Hmmmm?


I'm not Muslim.

I'm not Pakistani.

A new study conducted at Sonoma State University shows widespread bias in Associate Press (AP) news reports favoring US government positions.

On October 25, 2005 the American Civil Liberties (ACLU) posted to their website 44 autopsy reports, acquired from American military sources, covering the deaths of civilians who died while in US military prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2002-2004. The autopsy reports provided proof of widespread torture by US forces. A press release by ACLU announcing the deaths was immediately picked up by AP wire service making the story available to US corporate media nationwide. A thorough check of Nexus-Lexus and Proquest library data bases showed that at least 98 percent of the daily papers in the US did not to pick up the story, nor did AP ever conduct follow up coverage on the issue.

The Associated Press is a non-profit cooperative news wire service. The AP with 3,700 employees has 242 bureaus worldwide that deliver news reports 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to 121 countries in 5 languages including English, German, Dutch, French, and Spanish. In the US alone, AP reaches 1,700 daily, weekly, non-English, college newspapers, and 5,000 radio and television stations. AP reaches over a billion people every day via print, radio, or television.

Alison Weir, Joy Ellison, and Peter Weir of the organization If Americans Knew recently conducted research on the AP's reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The study was a statistical analysis of the AP newswire in the year 2004, looking comparatively at the numbers of Israeli and Palestinian deaths reported. In 2004 there were 141 reports of Israeli deaths in AP headlines and lead paragraphs, while in reality there were only 108 Israeli deaths. During this same period, 543 Palestinian deaths were reported by AP, while 821 Palestinians had actually been killed. The ratio of actual number of Israeli conflict deaths to Palestinian deaths in 2004 was 1:7, yet AP reported deaths of Israelis to Palestinians at a 2:1 ratio.

The same could be said of AP's reporting of children's deaths. Nine reports of Israeli children's deaths were reported by the AP in headlines and leading paragraphs in 2004, while eight actually occurred. Only 27 Palestinian children deaths were reported by AP when actually 179 children died. While there were 22 times more Palestinian children's deaths than Israeli children's deaths, the AP reported 113 percent of Israeli children's deaths and 15 percent of Palestinian children's deaths.


On February 29, 2004 AP widely reported that President Aristide was ousted by Haitian rebels and that the United States provided an escort to take him out of the country to a safe asylum. Within 24 hours an entirely different story emerged through independent radio. Instead of the US being the supportive facilitator of Aristide's safety, Pacifica Radio News reported that Aristide was actually kidnapped by US forces. AP quickly changed their story. On March 1, 2004 an AP report by Deb Riechman said, "White House officials said Aristide left willingly and that the United States aided his safe departure. But in a telephone interview with the Associated Press, Aristide said: "No. I was forced to leave."

The last AP report of Aristide's claiming that he had been kidnapped by the US in a State Department coup was on June 27, 2004. Since then there have been 60 news articles by AP including Aristide's name. Of these stories none mentioned Aristide's claim that he was kidnapped by the United States military. None mention the US backing of the coup. AP's bias in favor of the State Department's version of the Aristide's removal seems to be a deliberate case of AP-sanctioned forgetting.

AP is a massive institutionalized bureaucracy that feeds news stories to nearly every newspaper and radio/TV station in the United States. They are so large that top-down control of single news stories is practically impossible. However, research clearly indicates a built-in bias favoring official US government positions. The American people absorb these biases and make political decisions on skewed understandings. Without media systems that provide fair, critical and accurate reporting, democracy faces a dismal future.


http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/ap_bias.html

Posted by: Emmet 29-Jul-2006, 10:11 AM
QUOTE
  If I've sounded extream, well I think in some ways I have a right being that I have loved ones who have been there and lived through most of the ness over there. 


I'm an American taxpayer.

The research and development of the weapons systems being used to devastate Lebanon was funded entirely by my money.

The American military-industrial complex which supplies the weapons systems being used to devastate Lebanon is wholly subsidized by my money.

The weapons systems being used to devastate Lebanon that were given to Israel were paid for with my money (every U.S. loan to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress. Between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and not a dime ever repaid).

Due to our firm commitment to tax relief for the needy rich, the U.S. is the world's largest debtor nation; we borrow the money we give to Israel. Since 1949 the interest on those loans has totaled 49.937 billion dollars of my money.

Israel can actually use U.S. foreign aid to purchase weapons. Therefore, the weapons systems being used to devastate Lebanon that Israel bought from the U.S. were, you guessed it; actually paid for with my money.

I have a right, too. Let's just say that as an American taxpayer (total since 1949; $133.132 billion dollars of my money!), I feel that I've a legitimate vested interest in the matter at hand.

Also as you've already alluded to, 9/11 demonstrated that our myopic and unqualified support of Israel can actually have some rather negative repercussions here at home as well.

Posted by: haynes9 30-Jul-2006, 07:01 AM
So, Emmet, are then any news sources you find reliable that report things that don't support your positions? Believe me, I'm not a big fan of the media in generals, but where do you go for your news?

Posted by: Emmet 30-Jul-2006, 08:47 AM
QUOTE
So, Emmet, are then any news sources you find reliable that report things that don't support your positions? Believe me, I'm not a big fan of the media in generals, but where do you go for your news?


Pretty much all of them I read with a bit of skepticism (often quite a bit of skepticism); I always think of Joseph Goebbels; “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play”; in the case of the mainstream American press, a keyboard on which the big corporations can play, which come to think of it is pretty much the same thing. I do like Common Dreams (which draws from many sources), the Independent, the Guardian, and often the editorials of the Madison Times and the Toronto Star. I also read CNN, the BBC, and Al Jazeera. I find the major network evening TV news; NBC, ABC, and CBS nearly worthless, and Faux News Network completely worthless; about as "fair and balanced" as Al Jazeera.

As for supporting or not supporting my positions, information (if reliable, or at least believable) is information; therefore essentially neutral; whereas propaganda is most decidedly not. I do not intentionally cherry-pick facts that support my positions on issues, although I do disregard information I consider spurious or irrelevant.

To the best of my ability, "my positions" are based upon information interpreted as rationally as possible within the context of my beliefs, values, and understanding of history, and as such are always subject to revision at any time more accurate (or more believable) information becomes available. There's an old story of the learned scholars of the Royal Society insisting for years that there was no such thing as a black swan, until one day someone arrived from Russia with some black swans. I think of it as a lifelong learning process; dogmatic adherence to beliefs written in stone are likely in error, and the longer they go without examination and revision, the greater the likelihood of error becomes.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 30-Jul-2006, 09:25 AM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 29-Jul-2006, 11:11 AM)

I'm an American taxpayer.

The research and development of the weapons systems being used to devastate Lebanon was funded entirely by my money.

The American military-industrial complex which supplies the weapons systems being used to devastate Lebanon is wholly subsidized by my money.

The weapons systems being used to devastate Lebanon that were given to Israel were paid for with my money (every U.S. loan to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress. Between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and not a dime ever repaid).

Due to our firm commitment to tax relief for the needy rich, the U.S. is the world's largest debtor nation; we borrow the money we give to Israel. Since 1949 the interest on those loans has totaled 49.937 billion dollars of my money.

Israel can actually use U.S. foreign aid to purchase weapons. Therefore, the weapons systems being used to devastate Lebanon that Israel bought from the U.S. were, you guessed it; actually paid for with my money.

I have a right, too. Let's just say that as an American taxpayer (total since 1949; $133.132 billion dollars of my money!), I feel that I've a legitimate vested interest in the matter at hand.

Also as you've already alluded to, 9/11 demonstrated that our myopic and unqualified support of Israel can actually have some rather negative repercussions here at home as well.

Well being you're part of a Canadian Legion post, you can't move to Canada and and pay taxes and not support Israel. Many countries support Israel with trade and with that money they buy weapons. So there isn't too many places you can go without supporting Israel.

Also, just leaving these Arab Muslim extreamist alone and stopping supporting Israel is something we should do then everything will be all right? Well lets look at what happened when those Danish cartoonist published those pictures of Mohammad. Over little old cartoons! Yes. Christians have demonstrated against very offensive pictures of Jesus but the demonstration s are so small they're not noticed. How about what the Ottoman turks did? Israel wasn't even around as a nation but they invaded Armenia and other parts of western Europe saying it was they're Islamic duty to do so. So yes that's what we need to do just leave them alone. They hate us for what we have and the Influance we have in the world. Ie, Hollywood, the internet, entertainment, fashion, womens rights. The tantrum they pulled with those cartoons was just their way of trying to force fear on the west.

This is my last response to Emmet

Posted by: Nova Scotian 30-Jul-2006, 10:28 AM
How about what the Ottoman turks did? Israel wasn't even around as a nation but they invaded Armenia and other parts of western Europe

Eastern Europe I mean.

Posted by: Raven 30-Jul-2006, 11:26 AM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 29-Jul-2006, 09:15 AM)
I'd start off by saying again that the IDF is not only the fifth most powerful military in the world, but also one of the most technologically advanced, armed and equipped as they are by the United States. For them to claim that the massive civilian casualties are merely regrettable "collateral damage", merely unfortunate accidents of war, can only be interpreted one of two ways; A: they're grossly incompetent (as we all know, hardly likely), or B: they're intentionally targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure.

C the Hezbollah targets are so well intrenched in civilian areas that taking out the target involves civilian collateral damage no matter what.

Perhaps a part of the Hezbollah plan as it is a way to foment negative public opinion against the Israelies. The Hezbollah obviously have little regard for the Israelie civilians that they kill or for human life in general.

It is unfortunate that these brave people of the Hezbollah have to hide behind women and children when confronting their mortal enemies.
It is unfortunate that they feel that it is somehow an indication of their bravery that they can kill unarmed women and children.
It is unfortunate that they are so impotent and cowardly that they can not confront anyone who has an opportunity to defend themselves and so must resort to fighting a "war" of atrocity.

War Crimes more likely or how about just crimes. I am offended by their methods and I am offended by people who ignore their henious crimes and expect other people to sit by and either appease these criminals or do nothing in response. The Lebonese government either

A - does not care that these vermin live among them using their civilian population as sheilds
B - Supports what they do and are there by accountable
C - is to impotent themselves to do anything about it, in which case they still will suffer the consequences.

My 2 pennies

Mikel

Posted by: Nova Scotian 30-Jul-2006, 03:25 PM
QUOTE (Raven @ 30-Jul-2006, 12:26 PM)
C the Hezbollah targets are so well intrenched in civilian areas that taking out the target involves civilian collateral damage no matter what.

Perhaps a part of the Hezbollah plan as it is a way to foment negative public opinion against the Israelies. The Hezbollah obviously have little regard for the Israelie civilians that they kill or for human life in general.

It is unfortunate that these brave people of the Hezbollah have to hide behind women and children when confronting their mortal enemies.
It is unfortunate that they feel that it is somehow an indication of their bravery that they can kill unarmed women and children.
It is unfortunate that they are so impotent and cowardly that they can not confront anyone who has an opportunity to defend themselves and so must resort to fighting a "war" of atrocity.

War Crimes more likely or how about just crimes. I am offended by their methods and I am offended by people who ignore their henious crimes and expect other people to sit by and either appease these criminals or do nothing in response. The Lebonese government either

A - does not care that these vermin live among them using their civilian population as sheilds
B - Supports what they do and are there by accountable
C - is to impotent themselves to do anything about it, in which case they still will suffer the consequences.

My 2 pennies

Mikel

Excellent points Raven! It's about time someone else is looking at the insanity of Hesbula.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 30-Jul-2006, 06:42 PM
One thing I don't understand is holding up the actions of terrorists to justify similar acts by those who appose them. I agree that terrorists killing civilians is a horrible thing. However, pointing out that terrorists have no problem killing civilians and other civilians doesn't seem to me to be a good justification for another country doing the same. If anything it appears to be comparing them TO terrorists, not justifying them.

Also, it doesn't seem like anyone in here has evidence of the attrocities doone by the Hesbula and other that Israel is fighting. I've read a lot of stuff in here labling them as terrorists, etc...but no real evidence to back it up. Are those who are arguing for Israel assuming everyone knows how horrible their enemies are? Because as someone who doesn't know much of the situation it appears as if Israel is taking things a little far.

Also, and maybe I have outdated ideas of war, but if Israel is supposedly better outfitted than their enemies, and they've killed hundreds where there enemies have killed less than 100, it seems that Israel just doesn't care about the civians they are killing. I would think that an army as strong as they are would be able to fight this war w/o all the colateral damage they have if they really wanted to.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 30-Jul-2006, 08:16 PM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 30-Jul-2006, 07:42 PM)
aOne thing I don't understand is holding up the actions of terrorists to justify similar acts by those who appose them. I agree that terrorists killing civilians is a horrible thing. However, pointing out that terrorists have no problem killing civilians and other civilians doesn't seem to me to be a good justification for another country doing the same. If anything it appears to be comparing them TO terrorists, not justifying them.

Also, it doesn't seem like anyone in here has evidence of the attrocities doone by the Hesbula and other that Israel is fighting. I've read a lot of stuff in here labling them as terrorists, etc...but no real evidence to back it up. Are those who are arguing for Israel assuming everyone knows how horrible their enemies are? Because as someone who doesn't know much of the situation it appears as if Israel is taking things a little far.

Also, and maybe I have outdated ideas of war, but if Israel is supposedly better outfitted than their enemies, and they've killed hundreds where there enemies have killed less than 100, it seems that Israel just doesn't care about the civians they are killing. I would think that an army as strong as they are would be able to fight this war w/o all the colateral damage they have if they really wanted to.

Fighting a war w/o colateral damage is easier said then done.

Posted by: Macfive 30-Jul-2006, 08:50 PM
I'm not one to post much to the political forum, but just a few comments.

What Israel has is a War Machine. As echoed in this thread elsewhere, they have one of the most powerful armies on earth. Additionally, it is rumored that they have in their posession not just nuclear weapons, but the devestating neutron bomb.

Most of the military technology they have is U.S. made and backed.

The people of Israel are descendants of holocaust survivors. They will not allow the same to happen again to them and unfortunately, they seem to be neighbors to entire peoples that preach the destruction of their country.

Let's blame Hitler for this, because he is the one that began this nightmare. He does have a hand in all of this, and that is scary that one of the biggest monsters of the 20th century started this all!

As military technology spreads throughout the muslim world clashes will become more deadly and costly.

What needs to happen is the governments of these countries need to educate their people to respect other points of view. We all need to live together and our focus should be on our economies and raising the standard of living.

But somehow I don't think that is going to happen. What I see are peoples that are so proud of their culture, their religion and their lands that they think they are better than anyone else. It is national pride on steroids. Reminds me of the pre-WWII Japan and Germany.

But here is a question to ponder, say the Israel defenses do not hold, say they nuke tel avia - who is going save Israel? Who will come to defend their country?

Does the United States have the stomach for a full blown regional war, possibly another World War??? Do we want to send our sons and daughters to die by the 10,000's.....or........

do we make use of battlefield nuclear weapons?

I'm convinced that if it came down to it, we do not have the stomach nor the desire to lose many a good men and woman. The nuclear option will become more tempting and a solution to be pondered by politicians and presidents.

All because people do not get along and hate each other to the core. What a pitiful shame. All I can say is I am so glad to live in the United States where I can call black, white, chinese, muslims and a hundred other nationalities friends. I don't have hatred bottled up in me like a bottle that is about to explode.

I just pray to God this all comes to a peaceful end. The alternative is our worst fear.



Posted by: Emmet 30-Jul-2006, 09:00 PM
QUOTE
leaving these Arab Muslim extreamist alone and stopping supporting Israel is something we should do then everything will be all right?


No, but bludgeoning them with complete disregard for the innocent civilians around them isn't going to help, either (assuming that innocent civilians aren't being intentionally targeted, which is a proposition that's becoming increasingly hard to swallow in light of the body count). Israel acts as if they consider all Shi'a Lebanese to be synonymous with Hezbollah (or perhaps they consider the difference irrelevant; after all, they're all Arabs, right?), but at the rate they're inflicting "collateral damage", virtually all Shi'a in Lebanon (at least, those who survive), might become Hezbollah in the very near future. Yesterday they blew down another apartment complex, killing over 60 civilians. 135 Katyushas landed in northern Israel today, killing no one, for all practical purposes the same as on the first day three weeks ago. Other than slaughtering hundreds of innocent Lebanese, there's no evidence that Israel has accomplished anything but re-energize and make international heroes throughout the Muslim world out of what only a few weeks ago was an increasingly politically isolated (and increasingly irrelevant) minority party, and make themselves (and us) look like brutal war criminals in the eyes of most of the world (U.S. excepted, of course), Muslim and otherwise. I fail to see how teaching another generation how to hate, kill, and die will resolve anything...but perhaps that's not the real objective, anyway.

Posted by: SCShamrock 30-Jul-2006, 11:48 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 30-Jul-2006, 10:00 PM)
I fail to see how teaching another generation how to hate, kill, and die will resolve anything...but perhaps that's not the real objective, anyway.

Right on.

Posted by: Emmet 31-Jul-2006, 07:24 AM
As Macfive alluded to, it's often a matter of respect.

Demonizing your enemy is a decidedly double-edged sword. On the one hand, it's much easier to kill people you feel smugly superior to; racially, morally, technologically, or otherwise. On the other hand, the more you dehumanize your enemy, A; the harder it is to negotiate any common ground; the sine qua non for peace, and B; the more you think of them as ignorant, uncivilized, and primitive gooks, zipperheads, ragheads, camel jockeys or sandniggers (each war has it's own epithets, but they all mean the same thing), the more likely it becomes that you'll critically underestimate their resilience, resourcefulness and ingenuity and the limits of your own ability to project power, and according to Murphy, this will probably occur at the worst possible moment.

It's always been infuriatingly difficult to bomb an idea (which all religious and political movements are) and much easier to marginalize them instead. However, the latter requires a degree of imagination, forsight, and well...intelligence that seems to escape the grasp of our leaders. The former is so much easier, it doesn't give us a headache trying to understand the nuances, doesn't challenge us to examine our own role in the conflict, and of course is so much more entertaining to watch on the evening news.

Militant Islamists aren't lunatics. They are, like everyone else, motivated by an agenda.

Militant Islam isn't monolithic either; the objectives of these agendas may vary wildly between Shi'a, Sunni, Arab Nationalists, and others. Jingoistic platitudes like "They hate us for our freedoms" or "They're all committed to the utter destruction of Israel" are singularly unhelpful in understanding their motivations, and by extension, how to unmotivate them. If the past half-century of the Middle East suggests anything, it's that brute force, brutality, and barbarism not only doesn't work, but is spectacularly counterproductive, inflaming blinding rage and hatred (the inverse of common sense and accommodation), deepening resolve, and compelling all true believers (in either a nation or holy book, it's all pretty much the same) to circle the wagons, dig in their heels, and rally 'round the flag, pretty much like people everywhere else throughout history in similar circumstances. Sadly, history teaches us something else; this invariably provides the perfect soapbox for manipulative and opportunistic evil little men with agenda's of their own, who in better times would have remained in perfect obscurity.

You want to "defang" Hezbollah, Hammas, et al.? You must understand what motivates them. The hard part, of course, is that any impartial and dispassionate analysis of their agenda will reveal that at least some of their grievances are perfectly legitimate, which in turn requires the character, integrity, and moral courage to admit that you're wrong and say you're sorry; qualities so often sorely lacking in the aforementioned evil little men. Some of Hezbollah's stated conditions for peace; Israel has strewn land mines across southern Lebanon, and since their last futile invasion, has never provided maps so the Lebanese can remove what is a completely pointless and random threat to their people, for years and years, indiscriminately killing Hezbollah, inquisitive playing children, and wandering goats with deadly impartiality. Perhaps most important, Israel would like the integrity of their borders respected. Yeah, well, so would everyone else, including Lebanon. It's hard to credibly claim any right to self-defense and territorial integrity when you routinely violate precisely those same rights of your neighbors. No more overflights, shellings, reprisal air attacks, and incursions to kidnap or assassinate Lebanese or Palestinians. It's profoundly unrealistic (and patently unfair) to demand that Hezbollah and Hammas stay on their side of the fence while Israel blithely refuses to commit do the same.

Of course, no discussion of minding or mending of fences can take place without some discussion of where the property lines are drawn. Israel still occupies areas of Lebanon they've occupied since their last invasion; Shebaa Farms, not for it's strategic importance or that it in any way contributes to the security of Israel, but simply because it's good farmland. But most importantly is they key issue, unchanged since 1967; UN Resolution 242. The Arab League and Saudi Arabia have both at various times exacted a promise from Hezbollah, Fatah, Hammas and others to recognize Israel's right to exist in exchange for Israel complying with international law and withdrawing from the Golan, West Bank, and Gaza; land (which de jure isn't theirs to begin with) for peace. Sounds rather simple (not to mention fair), doesn't it? A modern day Warsaw Ghetto in Gaza will never substitute for Palestinian statehood.

You want Lebanon to "restrain" Hezbollah? Perhaps rather than encouraging Israel to blast the only successful moderate Arab democracy friendly to the West into bloody stinking rubble the U.S. could've enabled them to do exactly that; they sure as hell weren't equipped to do so with their antique T-55's and five helicopters. After all, carrots often do seem so much more appetizing when pared with sticks, but such is the nature of myopathy, missed opportunities, and the cognitive limitations of evil little men.

Posted by: Raven 31-Jul-2006, 07:55 AM
LIke Mac I normally don't post in this forum.

But I have dealt with bullies all my life and have found that coming to an understanding with them has nothing to do with understanding where they are coming from or motivates them beyond the fact that they are cowards. They are motivated by hate, power, selfishness, etc.... whether you see that or not. Basic human stuff.

Emmett I am not saying that Israel is perfect but you do not seem to be able to understand where they are coming from.

Who bloodied whose nose first is relevant.

If calling the Hezbollah vermin for how they opperate is demonizing them in your view so be it. I don't care who they are, anyone who operates to promote an agenda as they do, whether Nazi, Israeli or US in nationality has to be classified as vermin, coward, etc ....

Here is a lesson from history that is relevant to anyone who thinks that withdrawing support from Irael and sitting idlely by is the answer to these Meglamaniacs.

Martin Niemoeller was a Protestant pastor born January 14, 1892, in Lippstadt, Westphalia. He was a submarine commander in World War I. He was anti-communist and initially supported the Nazis until the church was made subordinate to state authority.

In 1934, he started the Pastors’ Emergency League to defend the church. Hitler became angered by Niemoeller’s rebellious sermons and popularity and had him arrested on July 1, 1937. He was tried the following year and sentenced to seven months in prison and fined.

After his release, Hitler ordered him arrested again. he spent the next seven years in concentration camps in “protective custody.“ He was liberated in 1945 and was elected President of the Protestant church in Hesse and Nassau in 1947. He held the title until 1964. He was also a President of the World Council of Churches in the 1960’s.

Niemoeller was a pacifist who spoke out against nuclear weapons. He is best known for his powerful statement about the failure of Germans to speak out against the Nazis:

“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”


The Israelies have not been involved in expansionism beyond response. History is clear about this. At the same time they have given up holdings in recent history that seems to have netted them the benefit of being viewed as weaklings by their Arab neighbors.

It seems that they only thing that will make the "anti Irael bullys" go away is for Irael to go away, and then who will they target next?

Sure we all want peace (or at least most of us smile.gif) but peace at what cost? Enslavement, being continually terrorized. Unfortunately the path to an acceptable peace is more often than not struggle or war.

We could have had peace with the Nazis if we had only been willing to appease them and we would never have had WW II.

Something to consider

Mikel

Posted by: Emmet 31-Jul-2006, 08:44 AM
QUOTE
Who bloodied whose nose first is relevant.


At this point in the game, why?

QUOTE
If calling the Hezbollah vermin for how they opperate is demonizing them in your view so be it. I don't care who they are...


And precisely how is that helpful?

QUOTE
The Israelies have not been involved in expansionism beyond response. History is clear about this.


Golan Heights, West Bank, Palestinian Jerusalem, Gaza, Shebaa Farms. The United Nations and I beg to differ.

QUOTE
At the same time they have given up holdings in recent history that seems to have netted them the benefit of being viewed as weaklings by their Arab neighbors.


Gaza is an arid strip of land which is now one of the most densely populated on earth, with a poverty rate over 80% which is routinely shelled, bombed, rocketed, invaded and bulldozed. The comparison to 1942 Warsaw isn't empty hyperbole. As for "being viewed as weaklings by their Arab neighbors", Israel is the 5th most powerful war machine in the world, with the second largest fleet of F-16 fighter-bombers in the world, and nuclear weapons. I may ascribe many things to Arabs, but moronic stupidity certainly isn't one of them.

QUOTE
Here is a lesson from history that is relevant to anyone who thinks that withdrawing support from Irael and sitting idlely by is the answer to these Meglamaniacs.

“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”


“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Muslims, but I was not a Muslim so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

One of my favorite quotes, but I don't think you at all comprehend the point Niemoeller was trying to make.

QUOTE
We could have had peace with the Nazis if we had only been willing to appease them and we would never have had WW II.


No, we could have avoided WWII if we had paid a bit more attention to what was happening in the Weimar Republic, and worked to marginalize and ultimately render National Socialism irrelevant by facilitating and encouraging elements that would have lead to a democratic Germany. By 1939 that opportunity had long passed.

Posted by: stoirmeil 31-Jul-2006, 09:30 AM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 31-Jul-2006, 09:44 AM)

Golan Heights, West Bank, Palestinian Jerusalem, Gaza, Shebaa Farms. The United Nations and I beg to differ.

. . . .

No, we could have avoided WWII if we had paid a bit more attention to what was happening in the Weimar Republic, and worked to marginalize and ultimately render National Socialism irrelevant by facilitating and encouraging elements that would have lead to a democratic Germany. By 1939 that opportunity had long passed.

1. And the whole blithering Sinai.

2. I dunno about that one, Emmet, though in hindsight it certainly might have been a turning factor if conditions and intervention attitudes had been attuned to it -- Who would "we" have been? On what standing might it have been done by the US in particular? the League of Nations was set up to head off conflicts between nations, not political tendencies within them, and Congress nixed the US joining it even though Wilson initiated it, because Congress wanted to strictly limit US involvement in any international affairs, especially wars, after WWI. What happened to Weimar economically had its parallel here too with the Great Depression, another reason not to extend our resources at the time. Politically, Weimar was never strong, and when it went soft there were many likely contenders; that 1932 election itself was a very close and dirty thing -- Hitler almost did not get in. The closest competitors were pretty far left, and I don't know that the US would have had any truck with that, post WWI.

In any case, I think it wasn't til later, post-WWII and getting into the Cold War, that the US began to take any strong active interest in dangerous leaders or regimes being put into power at the election stage, and to take a hand in fostering or skewing such elections. But I may be wrong.

Raven -- there was no basis of confidence or trust in trying to appease the Nazis. Look how they screwed the Russians with the Ribbentrop pact.

Posted by: Raven 31-Jul-2006, 09:39 AM
I don't know how to break out quotes from you Emmet so I will do it this way.

At this point in the game why?

If you had ever been sucker punched you would not have to ask this question.

And precisely how is that helpful?

Not saying it helps anything, but it doesn't hurt either. Just calling a spade a spade

Golan Heights, West Bank, Palestinian Jerusalem, Gaza, Shebaa Farms. The United Nations and I beg to differ.

Exactly my point, Israel response to attacks intiated by Arab nations. This would not have been tolerated by US, UN etc... you seem to have selective history distorder. Case in point if you bloody Israel's nose they are going to hit back. YOu can't forget about the intitial attack years or weeks later and just say how is that relavent.

Gaza is an arid strip of land which is now one of the most densely populated on earth, with a poverty rate over 80% which is routinely shelled, bombed, rocketed, invaded and bulldozed. The comparison to 1942 Warsaw isn't empty hyperbole. As for "being viewed as weaklings by their Arab neighbors", Israel is the 5th most powerful war machine in the world, with the second largest fleet of F-16 fighter-bombers in the world, and nuclear weapons. I may ascribe many things to Arabs, but moronic stupidity certainly isn't one of them.

I think you need to understand the bully mindset a bit more. It is difficult not being a bully to understand their culture. Much the same as it is difficult to understand the mind of a theif if you are not one. They wanted Gaza back regardless of how worthless you think the piece of land is.

If you think inciting Irael to attack is moronic stupidity, then if the shoe fits.....smile.gif

One of my favorite quotes, but I don't think you at all comprehend the point Niemoeller was trying to make.

I would beg to differ and contend that you do not have any comprehension of the point being made. It is obvious that the only thing necessary for evil men to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

No, we could have avoided WWII if we had paid a bit more attention to what was happening in the Weimar Republic, and worked to marginalize and ultimately render National Socialism irrelevant by facilitating and encouraging elements that would have lead to a democratic Germany. By 1939 that opportunity had long passed.

This begs the issue. Hindsite is 20 20 unfortunately you can never exercise hindsite on history. But I don't think that you at all comprehend the point that I was trying to make..... or do you want to understand the point?

I'm not sure what your emotional involvement is with this issue Emmett, I suppose it could be an idealistic lack of association with reality or lack of certain life experiences. You seem intelligent and educated on one hand but then you draw conclusions based on evidence that are similar to observing the Sun as it crosses the sky and coming to the conclusion that the Sun orbits the earth. A seemingly logical assumption that upon closer scrutiny reveals that one did not look at the big picture with total objectivity.

BTW I have no ax to grind in this issue as far as Israel is concerned but if I see something that is obviously wrong I usually speak up wink.gif

All the best

Cheers

Mikel

Posted by: Raven 31-Jul-2006, 09:45 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 31-Jul-2006, 10:30 AM)

Raven -- there was no basis of confidence or trust in trying to appease the Nazis. Look how they screwed the Russians with the Ribbentrop pact.

Hey Stormeil

That was my point, there is never any point to appeasement of tyrants/bullys

Mikel

Posted by: stoirmeil 31-Jul-2006, 10:04 AM
Actually, mentioning all those previous territorial conflicts (Golan Heights, West Bank, Palestinian Jerusalem, Gaza, Shebaa Farms, Sinai . . . ) is illuminating. All those wars and occupations had to do with making some kind of security buffer. (Well -- Sinai was a very BIG buffer, and that was more like an outright land grab . . . but it did go back to Egypt under international pressure.)

So what does it take to give Israel a sense of security (which she clearly has lost, big time, at this point -- there are pit-trained Rottweilers in my 'hood with a longer reaction threshold and more moderate responses) when there is such a long history of instability and hostile regimes that do not honor each other's aims and promises all around it? Clearly the US does not make Israel feel secure, and this administration is doggedly affiliated in its intentions, for whatever reasons.
( All sing now: note.gif This land is theirs, God gave this land to them. . . note.gif )

What has happened this past weekend, and this morning, frightens me more than anything. The IDF is not listening to anyone, even their own Prime Minister. Rice's shuttle is a pointless sad story. The 48 hour cease fire melted like an ice cream cone on a hot sidewalk. I could wish Powell was back in the saddle, if only because both sides might be marginally more inclined to respond to and work with a military man.

Posted by: stoirmeil 31-Jul-2006, 10:06 AM
QUOTE (Raven @ 31-Jul-2006, 10:45 AM)
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 31-Jul-2006, 10:30 AM)

Raven -- there was no basis of confidence or trust in trying to appease the Nazis.  Look how they screwed the Russians with the Ribbentrop pact.

Hey Stormeil

That was my point, there is never any point to appeasement of tyrants/bullys

Mikel

Sorry -- it seemed kind of head-on serious, if hard to believe. Should have known. unsure.gif

Posted by: Emmet 31-Jul-2006, 11:06 AM
QUOTE
  Who bloodied whose nose first is relevant.

At this point in the game why?

If you had ever been sucker punched you would not have to ask this question.


Just to clarify that we're talking about the same thing, I assume that you're referring to 1967; the "Six Day War"?

QUOTE
If calling the Hezbollah vermin for how they opperate is demonizing them in your view so be it. I don't care who they are...

And precisely how is that helpful?

Not saying it helps anything, but it doesn't hurt either. Just calling a spade a spade


I disagree. It's precisely that sort of demagoguery that makes starting wars possible in the first place, and then makes them so difficult to stop.

QUOTE
Gaza is an arid strip of land which is now one of the most densely populated on earth, with a poverty rate over 80% which is routinely shelled, bombed, rocketed, invaded and bulldozed. The comparison to 1942 Warsaw isn't empty hyperbole. As for "being viewed as weaklings by their Arab neighbors", Israel is the 5th most powerful war machine in the world, with the second largest fleet of F-16 fighter-bombers in the world, and nuclear weapons. I may ascribe many things to Arabs, but moronic stupidity certainly isn't one of them.

I think you need to understand the bully mindset a bit more. It is difficult not being a bully to understand their culture. Much the same as it is difficult to understand the mind of a theif if you are not one. They wanted Gaza back regardless of how worthless you think the piece of land is.


Perhaps the Palestinians wanted Gaza back because it was theirs in the first place?

QUOTE
...you can never exercise hindsite on history. But I don't think that you at all comprehend the point that I was trying to make..... or do you want to understand the point?


The study of history is hindsight. I quite understand your point; I'm not without experience with bullies. I disagree with your premises, and the logical progression from which your conclusions are derived.

QUOTE
If you think inciting Irael to attack is moronic stupidity, then if the shoe fits.....


By all accounts, that appears to be George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and John Bolton. No argument there.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 31-Jul-2006, 11:08 AM
I don't really think any force involved really matches a Bully mentality, and I think it's dangerous thinking of them as such.

Bullies are at their hearts cowards yes. But usually a bully will back down when presented with a threat.

I am more in mind to think of Zealots than bullies.

As for the sucker punch metaphor...usually when someone gets sucker punched they don't go to the offenders house and blow it sky high.

I have to agree with Mac on this issue. It appears to me as if all sides on this issue are not content with letting people do their own thing. It would be nice if we could all just get along...but unfourtunately I've never known Zealots to really be inclined to let other have their beliefs and them theres. Zealots rarely agree to disagree.

Posted by: SCShamrock 31-Jul-2006, 11:17 AM
It appears that mentioning the atrocities of Islamic radicals is being viewed as offering Israel an excuse for any action they take. I have to disagree with this assessment, although I'm still interested in a response from anyone who damns Israel......where is your voice day after day when Allah gets the credit for even more violence? It happens practically every day...car bombing, suicide bombing, random shooting. Is the absence of missiles and tanks what makes these attacks less abhorrent?

Posted by: stoirmeil 31-Jul-2006, 11:57 AM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 31-Jul-2006, 12:17 PM)
Is the absence of missiles and tanks what makes these attacks less abhorrent?

It's a good question. I think possibly, and in a certain limited way, it is or may be seen as less abhorrent by some. Or maybe abhorrent is not the word. . . But somehow less to be taken seriously. Or maybe -- there's a clearer sense that sanctions can be imposed and action can be taken against the official military action, if only because there's a street address to take the complaint to.

The more or less improvised appearance of the car bomb and the kidnapping/shootings or beheadings or what have you make it possible to conceptualize the perpetrators as a loosely affiliated group of radical hooligans who are making it up as they go, and who don't respond to an official government or represent its policies (at least overtly). (Back when it was little Palestinian kids thowing rocks, it also got them sympathy, because it looked so unequal and under-doggy. That calculated deception for the news cameras is over, anyway.) The idea of crushing volleys of government sponsored missile rounds has a different flavor, because it seems like there is official government intention and massive commitment of expenditure behind it, not to mention dragging in official allies and testing their commitments, and so forth. With the radical groups, you can also maintain the idea that they can be stamped or weeded out, since they are not rooted in official policies. (An unfortunate gardening analogy, if it lulls anyone to believe it. All the crabgrass and dandelions in the world will spontaneously drop dead and disappear before al Qaeda goes away.)

I don't agree with this idea that "unaffiliated" means less significant, or less likely to last. But it is possible that a tightly organized, government-approved strike initiative is going to pull more attention, and garner more coordinated disapproval, simply because there is an overt, fixed and identified administration behind it, with that street address to send emissaries to, and all that. And then too, western allies are typically held to a "higher" or "more civilized" (that is, western) standard. So much of this runs on appearances, it makes me morally queasy to the puking point anyway.

Of course, on the human level, there is no difference at all in the level of abhorrence between a man, woman or child blown to pieces in an improvised insurgent suicide bombing and one crushed to death in a building collapse caused by a government's planned retaliatory missile strike.

Posted by: Emmet 31-Jul-2006, 11:58 AM
QUOTE
It appears that mentioning the atrocities of Islamic radicals is being viewed as offering Israel an excuse for any action they take. I have to disagree with this assessment, although I'm still interested in a response from anyone who damns Israel......where is your voice day after day when Allah gets the credit for even more violence? It happens practically every day...car bombing, suicide bombing, random shooting. Is the absence of missiles and tanks what makes these attacks less abhorrent?


I wouldn't say that Arab attacks against Israeli civilians are any less abhorrent than Israeli attacks against Arab civilians; both are clearly war crimes, neither can be justified in a civilized society, and both are beneath the dignity of both Arab and Israeli. However, responding to the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers (kidnapped to try to negotiate the release of some of over 19,000 Lebanese and Palestinians, many previously kidnapped by Israel snatch teams infiltrated into Gaza and Lebanon) by wantonly devastating an entire noncombatant country (Lebanon and Hezbollah are not synonymous) and butchering hundreds of innocent civilians is absolutely inexcusable. Yeah, I wish Hezbollah would quit with the Katyushas, and Hammas with the Qassams. However, I think that it's important to note that out of over 2,000 rockets, Hezbollah have killed a grand total 18 Israeli civilians, and the Palestinians none, with these antiquated weapons which can literally only be pointed south (or north from Gaza, out to 10 km) and elevated for maximum range, while Israel has killed hundreds and hundreds of innocent civilians with the most sophisticated weaponry in the world, which is supposed to be able to minimize such collateral damage. Either the IDF is grossly incompetent (not bloody likely), or they're intentionally killing hundreds of civilians in reprisal, which I find not only unjustifiable, but obscene beyond words...although names, like Lidice, Guernica, Oradour-sur-Glane, and Kortelisy come to mind. This isn't self defense; this is mass murder.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 31-Jul-2006, 12:03 PM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 31-Jul-2006, 11:17 AM)
It appears that mentioning the atrocities of Islamic radicals is being viewed as offering Israel an excuse for any action they take. I have to disagree with this assessment, although I'm still interested in a response from anyone who damns Israel......where is your voice day after day when Allah gets the credit for even more violence? It happens practically every day...car bombing, suicide bombing, random shooting. Is the absence of missiles and tanks what makes these attacks less abhorrent?

Of course all these acts are horrible. But I suppose that I see these acts as violence perpetrated by terrorists, and I see terrorist actions as the actions of idividuals and not countries. It is horrible whenever a fanatic decides to kill innocents, but then I could come on here every day and decry the horrible events that occur every day all over the world. Where are the voices crying out against men for the rape of women? Where are the voices crying out for those killed by serial killers? To say that someone can't have a voice against the attrocities of war simply because they don't speak out against horrible acts everyday doesn't fly.

I think that the acts of terrorists are horrible, but I don't believe that means we should fight a war against countries they allign themselves with. Just because a crazy agrees with someone doesn't mean that someone should be a target.

I have to ask though, what claim to that land does Israel have? Everything I've read about the rise of Israel pretty much says the Jewish people decided to migrate there one day, then a few years later Britain decided to go ahead and tell them they could have the land (as long as they let the people already there stay). then Britain backed out and let Palestine take care of itself.

Frankly, in light of that, I can't side with either side in this struggle. I don't blame the Arabs for fighting for land that was theirs, but I also don't blame Israel for trying to protect what they have claimed. However, I don't think that Israel has some inherent RIGHT to the land.

Posted by: stoirmeil 31-Jul-2006, 12:05 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 31-Jul-2006, 12:58 PM)

Either the IDF is grossly incompetent (not bloody likely), or they're intentionally killing hundreds of civilians in reprisal, which I find not only unjustifiable, but obscene beyond words...although names, like Lidice, Guernica, Oradour-sur-Glane, and Kortelisy come to mind. This isn't self defense; this is mass murder.

They've never been incompetent in the life of that nation, and they are not starting now. But neither do I think it is sheer reprisal as a primary intent. I think there's a third reading, and in a way it's worse: they've dehumanized the meaning of "collateral damage," if possible, even more than we have, and it has been tabled indefinitely as a matter of moral consideration how many civilians have to be lost to get those SOBs to surrender or get out of there. Hiroshima wasn't a reprisal either. It was self-blinding to the civilian cost, so as to forcibly and definitively end it. It is also self-blinding to the cost of what it does to the soldiers carrying out the purging missions, but that's another story.

Posted by: Raven 31-Jul-2006, 12:09 PM
Couldn't get the quotes to pull out at all this time but no matter smile.gif

I disagree. It's precisely that sort of demagoguery that makes starting wars possible in the first place, and then makes them so difficult to stop.

You see, I disagree with you too! tongue.gif All this time I thought it was hostage taking and missile launching that makes the wars start and that the name I assigned came after the fact, in fact will not prolong the hostilities even a minute. If you decry actions for one side you should decry for both instead of calling one or the other a justification. However much more logical one will be over the other. (would it make you feel better if I called them "car bombing, missile launching, hostage taking thugs smile.gif)

Perhaps the Palestinians wanted Gaza back because it was theirs in the first place?

possetion is 9 tenths of the law. Perhaps the British would like to have the Eastern US back for the same reason. (no offense intended to the Brits, just an equally ridiculous example to go with Emmetts smile.gif) The israelies took Gaza from them in retaliation .... oh yeah you know how they got it smile.gif they did not have to give it back, but they did. Do you hate Israel for some reason? You have a very selective memory.... no offense, it just seems that you keep coming up with these obtuse arguments that you have to know don't really wash or are you in sales. (that would explain a lot wink.gif )


The study of history is hindsight. I quite understand your point; I'm not without experience with bullies. I disagree with your premises, and the logical progression from which your conclusions are derived.


Ditto, for me on you with the qualifier that we can learn from history that appeasement of tyrants etc... is a bad idea. We can not be Monday morning quarterbacks to any success.


By all accounts, that appears to be George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and John Bolton. No argument there.

To a point likely but I know you would like to ignore the kidnappers, missile launchers, car bombers etc....

Bullies are at their hearts cowards yes. But usually a bully will back down when presented with a threat.

I am more in mind to think of Zealots than bullies.


perhaps Zealous bullies. Cowards because they are to impotent to attack the one they are angry with so they find someone weak enough to attack instead. Perhaps short cited bullies. Cowardly in the fact that they only want to attack the weak with no opportunity to defend themselves. Which reminds me of another point, why is it ok for the protagonist in this case to justify their actions over land holdings etc and not ok for Israel to justify their actions based on first blood etc.. Just curious about the paradox of mind set (not saying that you have that either Celtic Coalition smile.gif just a question. Zealous short sighted bullies perhaps, but definitely cowards.

As for the sucker punch metaphor...usually when someone gets sucker punched they don't go to the offenders house and blow it sky high.

Generally that is true, it just depends on how hard you get punched. In this case responding to a series of high explosive missile delivered sucker punches with in kind explosives delivered by F-15 and tanks etc... does not seem totally out of line. Having seen red in the past as a recipient I can kind of relate to wanting your opponent to suffer, go down and stay down.


I hope this clears things up smile.gif

Mikel


Posted by: Raven 31-Jul-2006, 12:17 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 31-Jul-2006, 01:05 PM)
QUOTE (Emmet @ 31-Jul-2006, 12:58 PM)

Either the IDF is grossly incompetent (not bloody likely), or they're intentionally killing hundreds of civilians in reprisal, which I find not only unjustifiable, but obscene beyond words...although names, like Lidice, Guernica, Oradour-sur-Glane, and Kortelisy come to mind. This isn't self defense; this is mass murder.

They've never been incompetent in the life of that nation, and they are not starting now. But neither do I think it is sheer reprisal as a primary intent. I think there's a third reading, and in a way it's worse: they've dehumanized the meaning of "collateral damage," if possible, even more than we have, and it has been tabled indefinitely as a matter of moral consideration how many civilians have to be lost to get those SOBs to surrender or get out of there. Hiroshima wasn't a reprisal either. It was self-blinding to the civilian cost, so as to forcibly and definitively end it. It is also self-blinding to the cost of what it does to the soldiers carrying out the purging missions, but that's another story.

Good Point Stormeil

I couldn't agree with you more

Mikel

Posted by: Emmet 31-Jul-2006, 12:17 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 31-Jul-2006, 01:05 PM)
Either the IDF is [i]grossly incompetent (not bloody likely), or they're intentionally killing hundreds of civilians in reprisal, which I find not only unjustifiable, but obscene beyond words...although names, like Lidice, Guernica, Oradour-sur-Glane, and Kortelisy come to mind. This isn't self defense; this is mass murder.[/i]

They've never been incompetent in the life of that nation, and they are not starting now.  But neither do I think it is sheer reprisal as a primary intent.  I think there's a third reading, and in a way it's worse:  they've dehumanized the meaning of "collateral damage," if possible, even more than we have, and it has been tabled indefinitely as a matter of moral consideration how many civilians have to be lost to get those SOBs to surrender or get out of there.  Hiroshima wasn't a reprisal either.  It was self-blinding to the civilian cost, so as to forcibly and definitively end it.  It is also self-blinding to the cost of what it does to the soldiers carrying out the purging missions, but that's another story.

Reprisal, collective punishment, or simply what abstractly look like ants when viewed through a high-tech bombsight from 10,000 feet, regardless of the "primary intent", it's unequivocally a crime against humanity.

Posted by: Raven 31-Jul-2006, 12:26 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 31-Jul-2006, 01:17 PM)
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 31-Jul-2006, 01:05 PM)
Either the IDF is [i]grossly incompetent (not bloody likely), or they're intentionally killing hundreds of civilians in reprisal, which I find not only unjustifiable, but obscene beyond words...although names, like Lidice, Guernica, Oradour-sur-Glane, and Kortelisy come to mind. This isn't self defense; this is mass murder.[/i]

They've never been incompetent in the life of that nation, and they are not starting now.  But neither do I think it is sheer reprisal as a primary intent.  I think there's a third reading, and in a way it's worse:  they've dehumanized the meaning of "collateral damage," if possible, even more than we have, and it has been tabled indefinitely as a matter of moral consideration how many civilians have to be lost to get those SOBs to surrender or get out of there.  Hiroshima wasn't a reprisal either.  It was self-blinding to the civilian cost, so as to forcibly and definitively end it.  It is also self-blinding to the cost of what it does to the soldiers carrying out the purging missions, but that's another story.

Reprisal, collective punishment, or simply what abstractly look like ants when viewed through a high-tech bombsight from 10,000 feet, regardless of the "primary intent", it's unequivocally a crime against humanity.

I couldn't disagree with you more Emmett rolleyes.gif

and I'm certainly not hating wink.gif

Mikel

Posted by: stoirmeil 31-Jul-2006, 12:30 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 31-Jul-2006, 01:17 PM)

Reprisal, collective punishment, or simply what abstractly look like ants when viewed through a high-tech bombsight from 10,000 feet, regardless of the "primary intent", it's unequivocally a crime against humanity.

I'm not disagreeing with that in any way. Call it my occupational hazard -- I think the way an offender is thinking, or has anaesthetized his thinking, has something to do with the methods you take toward heading him off (assuming you can communicate at all -- and aren't we pinning some hope on negotiation?). And I think there is a difference between intentional vengeance and whatever you call this robotic destruction. You see a gross inequity of force and casualties. So do I -- but I also see a nation that is a crucial ally in the region that seems to have lost both its mind and its soul, but not its trigger finger. I'm scared s***less by it, but I'm also grieving, and not only for the casualties. I believe it is much harder to pull back from this collective mental state than from plain, clearheaded reprisal.

Posted by: Emmet 31-Jul-2006, 01:11 PM
QUOTE
Who bloodied whose nose first is relevant.
   
At this point in the game, why?

If you had ever been sucker punched you would not have to ask this question.

Just to clarify that we're talking about the same thing, I assume that you're referring to 1967; the "Six Day War"?


QUOTE
Perhaps the Palestinians wanted Gaza back because it was theirs in the first place?

possetion is 9 tenths of the law.


And therefore "might makes right". What was that you were saying about "tyrants/bullys"?

QUOTE
  The Israelies have not been involved in expansionism beyond response. History is clear about this...Israel response to attacks intiated by Arab nations... you seem to have selective history distorder. Case in point if you bloody Israel's nose they are going to hit back. YOu can't forget about the intitial attack years or weeks later and just say how is that relavent. The israelies took Gaza from them in retaliation .... oh yeah you know how they got it  they did not have to give it back, but they did. Do you hate Israel for some reason? You have a very selective memory.... no offense, it just seems that you keep coming up with these obtuse arguments that you have to know don't really wash or are you in sales. (that would explain a lot )


Ahhh...you are referring to the Six Day War. Yes, I do know how Israel got Gaza, although apparently you do not. On the 5th of June, 1967, Israel "sucker punched" Egypt in Operation Moked with a surprise attack that destroyed virtually the entire Egyptian Air Force on the ground, killing over 100 Egyptian pilots who were up until that moment noncombatants, and simultaneously invading Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula with 700 tanks. No; of my many failings, "selective history distorder" certainly isn't one of them.

As a side note of interest, three days later the USS Liberty (AGTR-5) an American "technical research ship" (OK; a spy ship) was attacked without provocation in international waters 12 1/2 miles off the Sinai Peninsula by the IDF with multiple air and PT boat attacks, killing 34 American servicemen and wounding 173. Not only were Israeli radio communications monitored which in the clear identified the USS Liberty as American ship, but at least one Israeli pilot refused to fly the second mission, and was sentenced to prison as a result.

Perhaps after a bit of research on the subject, you might want to revise your impression of exactly who the "tyrants/bullys" are.

Posted by: stoirmeil 31-Jul-2006, 01:17 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 31-Jul-2006, 02:11 PM)
As a side note of interest, three days later the USS Liberty (AGTR-5) an American "technical research ship" (OK; a spy ship) was attacked without provocation in international waters 12 1/2 miles off the Sinai Peninsula by the IDF with multiple air and PT boat attacks, killing 34 American servicemen and wounding 173. Not only were Israeli radio communications monitored which in the clear identified the USS Liberty as American ship, but at least one Israeli pilot refused to fly the second mission, and was sentenced to prison as a result.

Where could I read more about this?

Posted by: Emmet 31-Jul-2006, 01:27 PM
QUOTE
  I'm not disagreeing with that in any way....I think the way an offender is thinking, or has anaesthetized his thinking, has something to do with the methods you take toward heading him off (assuming you can communicate at all -- and aren't we pinning some hope on negotiation?).


Precisely. If you want to deescalate a conflict, you must at least try to understand what's motivating the combatants in the first place, and wherever possible eliminate or at least minimize those factors that feed those motivations. The "methods you take toward heading him off" might involve carrots, perhaps sticks, or some confluence of both, but it's pretty obvious that simply brutally bombing each other into submission hasn't worked to either's advantage in the past, and I see no reason to suspect the same approach will suddenly yield success this go 'round, the sunny optimism of Condoleezza Rice, the abject scorn of John Bolton, or the infantile babblings of George Bush nonwithstanding.

Posted by: Emmet 31-Jul-2006, 01:34 PM
QUOTE
  As a side note of interest, three days later the USS Liberty (AGTR-5) an American "technical research ship" (OK; a spy ship) was attacked without provocation in international waters 12 1/2 miles off the Sinai Peninsula by the IDF with multiple air and PT boat attacks, killing 34 American servicemen and wounding 173. Not only were Israeli radio communications monitored which in the clear identified the USS Liberty as American ship, but at least one Israeli pilot refused to fly the second mission, and was sentenced to prison as a result.


Where could I read more about this?


http://www.ussliberty.org/
http://www.rense.com/general39/pilot.htm
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0693/9306019.htm
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ussliberty.html
http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/

Posted by: CelticCoalition 31-Jul-2006, 01:35 PM
QUOTE (Raven @ 31-Jul-2006, 12:26 PM)
QUOTE (Emmet @ 31-Jul-2006, 01:17 PM)
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 31-Jul-2006, 01:05 PM)
Either the IDF is [i]grossly incompetent (not bloody likely), or they're intentionally killing hundreds of civilians in reprisal, which I find not only unjustifiable, but obscene beyond words...although names, like Lidice, Guernica, Oradour-sur-Glane, and Kortelisy come to mind. This isn't self defense; this is mass murder.[/i]

They've never been incompetent in the life of that nation, and they are not starting now.  But neither do I think it is sheer reprisal as a primary intent.  I think there's a third reading, and in a way it's worse:  they've dehumanized the meaning of "collateral damage," if possible, even more than we have, and it has been tabled indefinitely as a matter of moral consideration how many civilians have to be lost to get those SOBs to surrender or get out of there.  Hiroshima wasn't a reprisal either.  It was self-blinding to the civilian cost, so as to forcibly and definitively end it.  It is also self-blinding to the cost of what it does to the soldiers carrying out the purging missions, but that's another story.

Reprisal, collective punishment, or simply what abstractly look like ants when viewed through a high-tech bombsight from 10,000 feet, regardless of the "primary intent", it's unequivocally a crime against humanity.

I couldn't disagree with you more Emmett rolleyes.gif

and I'm certainly not hating wink.gif

Mikel

Isn't the mindset of the terrorist that there are no "innocents"? Isn't that how they justify their actions?

And in answer to your question, in all honesty I don't agree with either side, as I posted earlier. I can't agree or disagree with either sides motivations.

However, I suppose I target Israel for this reason: to say that terrorists are horrible is true. To say that their actions are horrible is true as well. However, to kill civilians as terrorists do, to kill without regard to innocence of actions. To kill someone because they agree with your enemy, though they themselves have never shed blood. To do these things is to become a terrorist. I would like to support Israel or the Arabs in this. I would like to feel like one side is justified in fighting. But in this case, I feel like both sides are using terrorist actions against the other. And I can't support either of them.

I also suppose I just feel a little stronger about the deaths of 100s of civilians in retaliation for the deaths of dozens.

No matter how horrible it is to kill civilians, I feel it is worse to retaliate by killing civilians. To do so makes this a collateral damage war, not a war of armies. Instead of armies fighting, it's the side who loses the most people who loses.

In a war like that, what's to stop anyone from using nuclear weapons? What's to stop the middle east wiping itself off the face of the earth?

Someone has to rise above terrorism. For powerful armies to start using terrorist tactics is terrifying and disheartening. I suppose I place the burden on Israel to be the "bigger" country, morally speaking. I don't see that happening. So that's why I might seem hard on Israel.

Really I feel like this WILL be a matter of might = right in the end.

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 31-Jul-2006, 01:42 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 31-Jul-2006, 02:17 PM)
Where could I read more about this?

Try here:
http://www.ussliberty.org/.
Here's just one quote:
QUOTE
"The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack...was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.... It was our shared belief. . .that the attack. . .could not possibly have been an accident.... I am certain that the Israeli pilots [and] their superiors. . .were well aware that the ship was American."
          -- Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, US Navy (retired), senior legal counsel to the US Navy Court of Inquiry

Having been a member of the SIGINT community myself (albeit airborne, not on a ship), I have long been aware of this bit of treachery. We were all aware of the dangers we faced from our enemies, operating in close proximity to enemy borders in order to gain needed military intelligence; however, we did not expect this from a "friendly" country--the injustice being compounded by the White House-directed cover-up.

Posted by: Emmet 31-Jul-2006, 02:22 PM
QUOTE
  Isn't the mindset of the terrorist that there are no "innocents"? Isn't that how they justify their actions?
...to say that terrorists are horrible is true. To say that their actions are horrible is true as well. However, to kill civilians as terrorists do, to kill without regard to innocence of actions. To kill someone because they agree with your enemy, though they themselves have never shed blood. To do these things is to become a terrorist.


"All those in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah. In order to prevent casualties among Israeli soldiers battling Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon, villages should be flattened by the Israeli air force before ground troops move in."
Haim Ramon, Israeli minister of justice, 7/27/06

Posted by: Raven 31-Jul-2006, 02:29 PM
I am sure you realize this Emmet but you edited my quote and changed it to suite your response.

BTW I almost forgot

Cause and effect

The Six-Day War (Hebrew: מלחמת ששת הימים transliteration: Milkhemet Sheshet HaYamim, Arabic: حرب الأيام الستة transliteration: ħarb al-ayam as-sita), also known as the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Six Days' War, or June War, was fought between Israel and the nearby Arab states of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria. It began when Israel launched a preemptive attack against Egypt following the latter's blockade of Israeli shipping in the Straits of Tiran, removal of UNEF peacekeeping forces from the Sinai, and deployment of military forces in the Sinai on the Israeli border. Jordan in turn attacked the Israeli cities of Jerusalem and Netanya. At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day.

That's how war often works. Sometimes the sucker punch can be delivered in Self defense although I would personally never see it that way. So are you saying we should give Texas back to Mexico smile.gif

You are probably right Emmett, I am likely an ignoropottamus smile.gif

All the best

Mikel

Posted by: Emmet 31-Jul-2006, 02:37 PM
Oh, I see... even though Israel started the war, they're still the victim. Howdeeply stupid of me not to have realized this before!

Posted by: Raven 31-Jul-2006, 02:58 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 31-Jul-2006, 03:37 PM)
Oh, I see... even though Israel started the war, they're still the victim. Howdeeply stupid of me not to have realized this before!


I can simply understand what their reasoning was for making a pre-emptive strike.

I don't believe I mention victim or you being stupid Emmett. Obtuse maybe smile.gif

But certainly not stupid!

Mikel


Posted by: Emmet 31-Jul-2006, 03:03 PM
QUOTE
Either the IDF is grossly incompetent (not bloody likely), or they're intentionally killing hundreds of civilians in reprisal, which I find not only unjustifiable, but obscene beyond words...although names, like Lidice, Guernica, Oradour-sur-Glane, and Kortelisy come to mind. This isn't self defense; this is mass murder. 


They've never been incompetent in the life of that nation, and they are not starting now. But neither do I think it is sheer reprisal as a primary intent. I think there's a third reading, and in a way it's worse: they've dehumanized the meaning of "collateral damage," if possible, even more than we have, and it has been tabled indefinitely as a matter of moral consideration how many civilians have to be lost to get those SOBs to surrender or get out of there. Hiroshima wasn't a reprisal either. It was self-blinding to the civilian cost, so as to forcibly and definitively end it. It is also self-blinding to the cost of what it does to the soldiers carrying out the purging missions, but that's another story.


Stoirmeil, you might be interested in this: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744061.html

Just in case anyone suspects that all I read is Al Jazeera...

Posted by: stoirmeil 31-Jul-2006, 03:40 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 31-Jul-2006, 03:22 PM)

"All those in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah. In order to prevent casualties among Israeli soldiers battling Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon, villages should be flattened by the Israeli air force before ground troops move in."
Haim Ramon, Israeli minister of justice, 7/27/06

This much is strategically true -- southern Lebanon is very bad terrain for ground fighting, especially if it's the enemy's turf and he's familiar with it, in which case it's very bad for you and very good for him. So -- clearing the whole thing from the air before going in is a good way to spare your troops ambushes and so forth.

This is a mighty clear example of what I was saying before: a very stern, no-quarter perception of the necessity of collateral damage, and the unwillingness or even the inability to account for the damage as being one human individual at a time. You note the necessity of prefacing this with the first statement: they are all related in some way to Hezbollah. (Even the children?) It justifies whatever you have to do, and recognizes no individual conditions of identity.

Like ice. Dissociation of the facts and deeds from any emotional content. The byproduct of it is that thing we read as unbelievable arrogance and not caring what anyone thinks. Psychologically, that has to be broken up and scattered. What will you do? Drop leaflets on the IDF rank and file troops, bypassing the officers, showing pictures of dismembered children from Qana? This mental position is defended better than that mythical hole in the mountain out in Nevada (?) where they hide Cheney.

The problem is, the ones who can resist exposure are praised and valued by thier superiors. They come to see the coldness and hardness as a rare virtue. One of the eeriest, craziest things I ever read (and I'm looking for the citation, but can't find it) was either Hitler or Goering telling the high ranking officers near the end of the war that this was one of their finest achievements, that the world would unfortunately never know about: that they carried out their extermination duties without spiritually succumbing to them, that they remained human. But it's far from being only a Nazi "achievement" -- the Nazis simply went a little further than most in praising themselves for it.

Where did this quotation of Haim Ranon come from, by the way?

Thanks for the link, Emmet. I think the author is probably going to be on the next tramp steamer heading for Gibralter, before they throw him up against the wall and shoot him. So -- he'll be here with thousands of other "temporary" Israeli expats ("yardim") who end up staying and bringing up their kids here. The flow of moderate intellectuals away from Israel in the last 20 years and the flow of conservative orthodox hawks in (thousands from Brooklyn alone) has changed the "conscience" of the land immensely too.


Posted by: Herrerano 31-Jul-2006, 04:03 PM



From a story on the BBC (27/7/06)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5219360.stm

QUOTE
Mr Ramon - a close confidant of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert - said "everyone understands that a victory for Hezbollah is a victory for world terror".

He said that in order to prevent casualties among Israeli soldiers battling Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon, villages should be flattened by the Israeli air force before ground troops moved in.

He added that Israel had given the civilians of southern Lebanon ample time to quit the area and therefore anyone still remaining there could be considered a Hezbollah supporter.

"All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah," Mr Ramon said.

(emphasis added)


As you can see, the meaning is somewhat different then was previously implied. Context makes a big difference.

Leo cool.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 31-Jul-2006, 04:19 PM
OK, I can see that. But there's still a problem -- many people were given neither ample time nor the means to get out. Why do you think those kids were hunkered down in the basement of 3-story building (great way to get buried alive, thinking a basement is a bomb shelter), if they could get out? Do you think they were saying to themselves "Nuh-uh, we hang with Hezbo and we're stayin' right here with our homies!"?


Posted by: Herrerano 31-Jul-2006, 04:56 PM
No, if the events transpired as reported, then it is indeed incredibly sad.

One supposes that those whom had the means fled, and those who didn't hunkered down and stayed, hoping for the best.

One can argue forever that modern technical advances in warfare prove that whenever civilians are killed it was intentional. But that argument presupposes that all of the conditions at a weapons deployment were at least equal to its ideal parameters in design. Sort of a naive viewpoint of war.

If you are interested a fairly comprehensive report of the Qana incident one is given here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/israeli-air-strike-kills-51/2006/07/30/1154197998127.html?page=5

Below is an excerpt from the article:

QUOTE
Israeli warplanes struck Qana only hours after Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah threatened to rocket more cities in central Israel if attacks on Lebanon continued.

"There are many cities in central Israel which will come into target range ... if the barbaric aggression on our country and people continues," he said yesterday.

Israel's air force was unaware that civilians were sheltering in a building it bombed in Qana, the military chief said.

"We did not know of the whereabouts of civilians in the village," Lieutenant-General Dan Halutz was quoted as saying by the NRG Maariv website after meeting President Moshe Katsav.

A senior air force commander said a precision-guided bomb was dropped on a home in Qana on the assumption that it was sheltering Hezbollah crews that had fired several volleys of missiles into northern Israel.

"Had we known there were that many civilians inside, especially women and children, we certainly would not have attacked it," the commander told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Asked how Israel's intelligence services could know about missile launches from Qana but not about the presence of dozens of civilians, the commander said: "We are capable of detecting missile launches because they are very dynamic."

By contrast, he said the civilians appeared to have been holed up in the building for days, and were therefore almost impossible for aerial surveillance systems to discern.



Leo

Posted by: Emmet 31-Jul-2006, 05:10 PM
QUOTE
Where did this quotation of Haim Ranon come from, by the way?


http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34158

Posted by: Emmet 31-Jul-2006, 05:23 PM
QUOTE
 
He added that Israel had given the civilians of southern Lebanon ample time to quit the area and therefore anyone still remaining there could be considered a Hezbollah supporter.

"All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah," Mr Ramon said.


(emphasis added)

As you can see, the meaning is somewhat different then was previously implied. Context makes a big difference.


Ah; kind of like all those hapless Negroes who remained in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina; obviously, they've no one to blame but themselves.

What of all of the reports from several different sources of carloads of refugees flying white bedsheets (and several IRC ambulances; white with big red crosses on the roofs) being strafed and rocketed by Israeli Apache helicopters while trying to escape southern Lebanon? What about the 80% of Lebanese roads and over 90% of bridges that had been previously destroyed? In precisely what way do fluttering leaflets absolve Israel of any guilt for the devestation of another country!?

Posted by: stoirmeil 31-Jul-2006, 05:47 PM
So, guys, your two posts of Haim Ranon are worded quite differently, and it seems not to be a matter of context so much as two diferent remarks with the same basic content -- or the same one very badly bent for the reporter's purposes. How can you know?

Look -- maybe I'm naive, but this seems to me to be the basic effect of napalming, but from the air, to strip the terrain so you can see what the hell you're doing before going in. The IDF has enough wretched experience with Lebanon to want to do the least amount of ground combat possible. As I remember, they did try one sally over the last several days and lost more heavily than they liked, so they are back to air strikes.

Posted by: Emmet 31-Jul-2006, 05:57 PM
I have not read of Israeli use of napalm (yet; citation?). There has however been documented use of white phosphorous and cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 31-Jul-2006, 06:09 PM
I've been away for just a day and look at this thread! LOLOL! tongue.gif All I'm going to say is how does a nation, Israel, deal with a people, The Arab/ Muslim world, who are hell bent on destroying them? Who say Israel is a sworn enemy, who teach in elementry school books in Arab schools how to kill Jews and preach hatrid to their children? So how exactly should Israel deal with these barbarians? By the way the barbarian quote comes from my friend who is a Kurdish Iranian and is ALso a Muslim. Besides, we Celts are all technically barbarians so it's all right then. thumbs_up.gif lolol

Posted by: CelticCoalition 31-Jul-2006, 06:21 PM
They should deal with them with intelligence, honor, and precision. Not blunt, brute, unguided force and anhilation. If they use the same ideas and tactics against their enemy that their enemy is accused of, how are they better?

Posted by: jedibowers 31-Jul-2006, 06:27 PM
I've been away all weekend and have been trying to catch up. It seems to me that some of you have forgotten that Hezbollah is a terrorist group. Hezbollah came across the border and killed 9 Israel soldiers and kidnapped two more. This was an act of war. Israel has all rights to protect it's self. I've heard this weekend that Lebenon government is standing behind Hezbollah. I'm sad that there has been so many inocent deaths, but when terrorist hide behind non-soldiers, that happens. Why has no one talked about all the damage that Hezbollah has done to Israel?

The way I look at it is that Hezbollah are terrorist and they need to be dealt with in way need to be to get rid of them. I say go for it and route them out and get rid of the terrorist. This is becoming close to being WW3 with war against terrorist all over the world.

Posted by: Herrerano 31-Jul-2006, 06:32 PM

CelticCoalition Posted on 31-Jul-2006, 07:21 PM
QUOTE
They should deal with them with intelligence, honor, and precision. Not blunt, brute, unguided force and anhilation. If they use the same ideas and tactics against their enemy that their enemy is accused of, how are they better?



Some people just plain aren't interested in talking or listening. Believe it or not, there really and truly are evil people in the world to whom no amount of talking or reasoning will ever make a difference.

I say this after having learned it myself, by being stupidly naive, when I would have been better served being cunning and crafty. Some of us learn our lessons hard.

I think the argument could be made here that sometimes intelligence and precision and honor require blunt brute force.

Leo cool.gif




Posted by: CelticCoalition 31-Jul-2006, 06:49 PM
QUOTE (Herrerano @ 31-Jul-2006, 06:32 PM)
CelticCoalition Posted on 31-Jul-2006, 07:21 PM



Some people just plain aren't interested in talking or listening. Believe it or not, there really and truly are evil people in the world to whom no amount of talking or reasoning will ever make a difference.

I say this after having learned it myself, by being stupidly naive, when I would have been better served being cunning and crafty. Some of us learn our lessons hard.

I think the argument could be made here that sometimes intelligence and precision and honor require blunt brute force.

Leo cool.gif

I never said Israel should try and talk this out. I never have said Israel should not fight. I've never even said that Israel should cease fire.

What I don't agree with is the blow everything up and let God sort them out mentality Israel appears to be using to fight this war.

Intelligence, honor, and precision are not antonyms of war. They should be at the top of the list of descriptions of a war.

I realize that it is impossible to negotiate or talk with terrorists. Part of what I understand terrorists to be are racially drivin fanatics. I do not beleive that a terrorist cares about the distinction between civilian and military. Nor do they see innocents.

But to abandon those distinctions is to become a terrorist. To say that because the enemy knows no bounds neither will we...well how does that make Israel any different than the terrorists they fight?

To fight terror with terror...well that resolves nothing.

Posted by: stoirmeil 31-Jul-2006, 06:53 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 31-Jul-2006, 06:57 PM)
I have not read of Israeli use of napalm (yet; citation?). There has however been documented use of white phosphorous and cluster bombs in civilian areas.

The effect of, by analogy. Not the stuff itself. Destruction at a safe distance is what I mean.

Lebanese who were not affiliated with or sympathetic to Hezbollah up to now have been driven into the arms of the organization by Israel's destructive aggression. There was already a social service wing of the organization in place, but I don't think they even have to be helping in that way yet to pull this loyalty from the people. It's just a little too much of an abstraction to understand that Hezbollah is drawing Israeli fire and using the people as shields. The bombs, the panic, the horrific injuries and the threat of immediate death at any moment while running for their lives are coming straight from the IDF planes, and that conclusion comes easier. Also, Hezbollah now takes the role of brother victim, hunted by the same monstrous force.

The IDF has been snookered. They've been well known for big dependable overkill responses, but it would not even have had to be this big in numbers. It's big in the mind and in appearance because of the superior technology and the military efficiency, and it's huge because of the shadow that supplied the IDF and that they are assuming could be a military backup if they need it -- us. I haven't heard that this hell's brew was a coordinated provocation between Gaza and Lebanon, but it certainly looks like it was seizing the opportunity.

Meanwhile who knows where those soldier lads are now that were kidnapped: they've served their purpose very well, might as well let them go. The activity can roll along now on civilian casualty retaliation.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 31-Jul-2006, 06:56 PM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 31-Jul-2006, 07:21 PM)
They should deal with them with intelligence, honor, and precision. Not blunt, brute, unguided force and anhilation. If they use the same ideas and tactics against their enemy that their enemy is accused of, how are they better?

Well they don't care about honor so why give it.

Posted by: Macfive 31-Jul-2006, 07:06 PM
Please note that the opinions and views expressed here in our politics forum does not represent those of Highlander Radio or CelticRadio.net. This forum is provided as a service to our members and is open to all views and opinions. In order to allow members to express their views openingly, this forum is unmoderated.

Of course direct name calling will not be tolerated, but you should realize that you enter into this forum at your own risk!

I thought it might be a good time to inject this here as the discussion maybe getting heated! wink.gif This is not directed at anyone, just thought it might be a good reminder for those not accustomed to our politics forum!

Posted by: Emmet 31-Jul-2006, 07:22 PM
QUOTE
Israel has all rights to protect it's self.


And Lebanon doesn't? Is the right to infiltrate, kidnap and assassinate at will exclusively Israel's? Why should Israel alone have the right to violate the right of others at will with impunity, and when others repay their kindness in kind, it's called "terrorism".

QUOTE
Why has no one talked about all the damage that Hezbollah has done to Israel?


We have; to date, in response to Israel's bombing campaign, Hezbollah has fired over 2000 rockets, and killed 18 civilians. Israel has flown over 15,000 bombing missions, fired hundreds of thousands of artillery shells, and killed 600+ civilians (hard to get an accurate count with all of the collapsed buildings). Does anyone really believe this is a slap-dash, spur-of-the-moment rescue operation for two soldiers, with no advance logistical or strategic planning?

And my all-time favorite:

QUOTE
I'm sad that there has been so many inocent deaths, but when terrorist hide behind non-soldiers, that happens.


http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20060720_Human_Shields_in_Beit_Hanun.asp

Posted by: Raven 31-Jul-2006, 08:19 PM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 31-Jul-2006, 07:21 PM)
They should deal with them with intelligence, honor, and precision. Not blunt, brute, unguided force and anhilation. If they use the same ideas and tactics against their enemy that their enemy is accused of, how are they better?


I think by being alive at the end of the day they will feel better, after all it's war not a soccer match.

I guess the question to ask is how many who are critical of Israels defensive response have ever been on a battle field where it was not clear who the combatents were and who the civilians were.

And after seeing someone blown to bits by a child rolling a handgrenade or a comrades head blown off by a woman, would feel the same about Israel's response and how they are over reacting, doing things that don't make military sense etc...

Secondly
I have no doubt that we in the public are often spoon fed by the media and govt what they want us to hear so that we will arrive at the conclusions that they want us to by taking quotes out of the context that they were originally in to get different meaning.

Finally, Context of quotation does matter. Leo used the same quote as Emmett in the context it was written and it changes the meaning of the quote to say that their view point changes the meaning is not accurate.

Taking the quote out of context just like earlier misquotes of myself and putting words in my mouth was an obvious attempt to manipulate what was said to an agenda. People who attempt to manipulate this way show beyond a doubt that they value their agenda above the truth of the matter.

I find that I don't respect opinions of people that I agree with who would stoop to this type of manipulation, much less someone who appears to have an unreasonable position to begin with.

Mikel

Posted by: stoirmeil 31-Jul-2006, 08:21 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 31-Jul-2006, 08:22 PM)

Does anyone really believe this is a slap-dash, spur-of-the-moment rescue operation for two soldiers, with no advance logistical or strategic planning?


I think the provocation was very likely planned, or at least dived on as a prize opportunity, between Hamas and Hezbollah. If you think this was in actuality an Israeli scheme, loaded and cocked and just waiting for some provocation to go off, then I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about why at this juncture. There is a certain potential logic in a response to intelligence about an arms buildup, hitting some unacceptable critical risk level in Lebanon, and wanting to play it like self defense (though I'm not sold on it) -- but why now? Certainly gives Bush a hotfoot, with no warning. Or does the scheme go even that far, do you think, and that's why the footdragging on the cease-fire, before the strike on Qana?

I dunno. Nothing is outside the realm of possibility, given recent public opinion on all the conflict fronts, but -- I dunno. Anybody got any thoughts?

Posted by: Raven 31-Jul-2006, 08:24 PM
QUOTE (Macfive @ 31-Jul-2006, 08:06 PM)
Please note that the opinions and views expressed here in our politics forum does not represent those of Highlander Radio or CelticRadio.net. This forum is provided as a service to our members and is open to all views and opinions. In order to allow members to express their views openingly, this forum is unmoderated.

Of course direct name calling will not be tolerated, but you should realize that you enter into this forum at your own risk!

I thought it might be a good time to inject this here as the discussion maybe getting heated! wink.gif This is not directed at anyone, just thought it might be a good reminder for those not accustomed to our politics forum!

great timing Mac biggrin.gif

Posted by: jedibowers 31-Jul-2006, 08:25 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 31-Jul-2006, 09:22 PM)

And Lebanon doesn't? Is the right to infiltrate, kidnap and assassinate at will exclusively Israel's? Why should Israel alone have the right to violate the right of others at will with impunity, and when others repay their kindness in kind, it's called "terrorism".


If Hezbollah had not attacked and kidnapped Israel's soldiers, we would not be talking about this at all. Hezbollah started this current situation. For the three weeks, people in northern Israel have been living in bomb shelters which have cut down on the deaths. There have been building blown up by Hezbollah rockets.

Posted by: stoirmeil 31-Jul-2006, 08:32 PM
QUOTE (Macfive @ 31-Jul-2006, 08:06 PM)
I thought it might be a good time to inject this here as the discussion maybe getting heated! wink.gif

Ah, Mac. Not nearly as heated as the thing itself under discussion. sad.gif

But thanks for the reminder. It's a good opportunity this forum offers.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 31-Jul-2006, 09:43 PM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 31-Jul-2006, 06:56 PM)
Well they don't care about honor so why give it.

I have no answer for that. Those who do not value honor enough to uphold it in the face of attrocity...well there's no answer for them good enough.

I don't see Isralies fighting in the areas that are being bombed. I simply see Israel bombing them 20 years back. I'm sure the ground troops will follow and do clean up work. At that time, since the Israeli army has already shown a strategy of killing anything and anyone moving across the border...well I wouldn't be surprised if everyone across the border becomes their enemy.

I've never been on a battle field where I don't know who the enemy is. I haven't ever been in battle. I suppose to some that means I don't have a valid opinion about war. I do know though that I don't approve of mindless slaughter in the face of the war machine, women, children, whomever.

I do know of one veteran of a war where the enemy wasn't clear who wants a cease fire in the Middle East. Here's a link the the CNN online article:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/31/hagel.mideast/index.html

Does he have a right to an opinion since he's been in war?

Posted by: stoirmeil 31-Jul-2006, 09:58 PM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 31-Jul-2006, 10:43 PM)

I've never been on a battle field where I don't know who the enemy is. I haven't ever been in battle. I suppose to some that means I don't have a valid opinion about war. I do know though that I don't approve of mindless slaughter in the face of the war machine, women, children, whomever.

. . . . Does he have a right to an opinion since he's been in war?

You have a right to an opinion. I don't believe you have to experience battle to have anything to say about it, and I won't let anybody shut me down that way. I have deep respect for anyone who has lived through it and gained wisdom from it, but I don't think that happens to everone who engages in battle either.

I am listening with respect and interest to the confusion and difficulty knowing whom to engage, including armed women or children. This goes a step further than boobytrapped wounded or babies, for intance, since it implies that the woman or child knows him/herself to be a combattant and is to some extent cooperating.

So I have a question -- when an attacker knows his best shot is to keep distance and use long range weapons of some kind, and avoid close fighting, but can't tell easily what it is he's fighting or whether it's the right enemy -- is he bound ethically or honorably to give up the advantage of distance and go in close, regardless of the risk, for precision?

Posted by: SCShamrock 01-Aug-2006, 02:56 AM
Imagine living among these people.

user posted image


Posted by: Nova Scotian 01-Aug-2006, 04:16 AM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 31-Jul-2006, 10:43 PM)
I have no answer for that. Those who do not value honor enough to uphold it in the face of attrocity...well there's no answer for them good enough.

I don't see Isralies fighting in the areas that are being bombed. I simply see Israel bombing them 20 years back. I'm sure the ground troops will follow and do clean up work. At that time, since the Israeli army has already shown a strategy of killing anything and anyone moving across the border...well I wouldn't be surprised if everyone across the border becomes their enemy.

I've never been on a battle field where I don't know who the enemy is. I haven't ever been in battle. I suppose to some that means I don't have a valid opinion about war. I do know though that I don't approve of mindless slaughter in the face of the war machine, women, children, whomever.

I do know of one veteran of a war where the enemy wasn't clear who wants a cease fire in the Middle East. Here's a link the the CNN online article:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/31/hagel.mideast/index.html

Does he have a right to an opinion since he's been in war?

I was in the first Gulf War.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 01-Aug-2006, 04:18 AM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 01-Aug-2006, 03:56 AM)
Imagine living among these people.

user posted image

Oh common we need to sympithize with them! tongue.gif LOLOL No. Very good case in point.

Posted by: capttrk1 01-Aug-2006, 04:25 AM
I CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONFLICT BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THE STAR OF DAVID BEING IN THE BLUE SECTION OF THE AMERICAN FLAG. WHY IS IT THAT EVERY TIME SOMEONE STARTS A WAR THEY BURN OUR FLAG BUT IF A NATURAL DISASTER OCCURS ITS HELP US AMERICA HELP US PLEASE.
ON THE MUSLIM RADICALS MUHAMMAD MUST BE ROLLING IN HIS GRAVE SAYING THATS NOT WHAT MY TEACHINGS WERE ABOUT.

LIKE ANY OTHER PEOPLE WHOM HAVE OCCUPIED AN AREA OF LAND FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS ISREAL HAS A RIGHT TO EXIST AND PROSPER SO DOES LEBONON,SYRIA,IRAN,IRAQ,PALESTINE. IF THESE IDIOTS WOULD TAKE THE RELIGIONS OUT OF THE PICTURE , THEY WOULD ALL HAVE A HELL OF AN ECONOMY, AND LIFE.

ON AN AFTER THOUGHT DON'T YOU THINK THAT AFTER HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF FIGHTING AND KILLING EACH OTHER THAT THEY WOULD GET TIRED OF IT .
AND AS FOR CONDOLEEZZA RICE SHE CAN ONLY DO WHAT SHE IS TOLD AND HAD NO INSIGHT TO STOP THE FIGHTING BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T. THE UNITED NATIONS PROVED ONCE AGAIN THAT THEY ARE WORTH NOTHING,YOU CAN STAND THERE AND CONDEMN ALL YOU WANT BUT IN REALITY ALL YOU ARE SAYING IS PLEASE STOP,DON'T DO THAT 'BAD LITTLE COUNTRY.

Posted by: Emmet 01-Aug-2006, 05:15 AM
QUOTE
If Hezbollah had not attacked and kidnapped Israel's soldiers, we would not be talking about this at all. Hezbollah started this current situation.


Actually, Israel "started this current situation" when they invaded Lebanon last time in 1978; killing 18,000 Lebanese. Hezbollah came into being as a resistance movement in response to the Israeli occupation. Had Israel not invaded and occupied Lebanon (and killed 18,000 innocent Lebanese; they were after the PLO), "we would not be talking about this at all."
Israel perpetuated "this current situation" by continuing to occupy parts of Lebanon, keeping Lebanese captured during the previous occupation in Israeli jails (over 20 years now), and continuing to mount incursions into Lebanon to kill and kidnap Lebanese.

Ever wonder where Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah came from? Nasrallah came to power in Hezbollah when Israeli forces assassinated Hezbollah leader Sheikh Abbas Mussawi, along with his wife, his child and five bodyguards in Lebanon.
Israeli soldiers kidnapped Mustafa Dirani in Lebanon, assassinated Abdel Aziz Rantissi and Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in Gaza.
Israel assassinates wheelchair-bound Nasir Jarrar (who had lost an arm, 2 legs in 2 previous assassination attempts in 5/01 and 4/02) in a friend's home in Tubas, firing rockets from helicopters at the house, then bulldozing it. Israel dropped a quarter-ton bomb on a Gaza City home in an attempt to assassinate top Hamas fugitives. Instead, the blast reportedly killed nine members of a Palestinian family — Nabil Abu Salmiyeh, his wife and seven of their nine children, aged 4 to 18. The head of Hamas' military wing, Mohammed Deif, was wounded but escaped, Israel said. Sheikh Salah Shehada killed by an Israeli one ton bomb from an F-16 that hit an apartment building in the Gaza Strip. The hit caused the collapse of the five-story building and damaged several adjacent buildings. In addition to Shehada, at least 14 other Palestinian Arabs, including several children, were killed by the raid. 154 people were wounded.

Again, why is it OK for Israel to do it, but terrorism when others engage in precisely the same behavior?

"The British Government has made it repeatedly clear that so-called "targeted assassinations" of this kind are unlawful, unjustified and counter-productive" Jack Straw

Posted by: Emmet 01-Aug-2006, 05:22 AM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 01-Aug-2006, 03:56 AM)
Imagine living among these people.

user posted image

On February 25, 1994, 29 Muslims were killed by US-born Israeli settler Baruch Goldstein who opens fire on Muslim worshippers at prayer at Haram al-Ibrahimi mosque in Hebron.

Imagine living among these people.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 01-Aug-2006, 08:36 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 31-Jul-2006, 09:58 PM)
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 31-Jul-2006, 10:43 PM)

I've never been on a battle field where I don't know who the enemy is.  I haven't ever been in battle.  I suppose to some that means I don't have a valid opinion about war.  I do know though that I don't approve of mindless slaughter in the face of the war machine, women, children, whomever.

. . . . Does he have a right to an opinion since he's been in war?

You have a right to an opinion. I don't believe you have to experience battle to have anything to say about it, and I won't let anybody shut me down that way. I have deep respect for anyone who has lived through it and gained wisdom from it, but I don't think that happens to everone who engages in battle either.

I am listening with respect and interest to the confusion and difficulty knowing whom to engage, including armed women or children. This goes a step further than boobytrapped wounded or babies, for intance, since it implies that the woman or child knows him/herself to be a combattant and is to some extent cooperating.

So I have a question -- when an attacker knows his best shot is to keep distance and use long range weapons of some kind, and avoid close fighting, but can't tell easily what it is he's fighting or whether it's the right enemy -- is he bound ethically or honorably to give up the advantage of distance and go in close, regardless of the risk, for precision?

I would say it is all a matter of goals. If Israel's goal is to destroy Lebanon, then I'd say they are doing a pretty good job. Killing every last man, woman, and child is a great way to get rid of a group of people. Also, if they are after land, I suppose they are using a good tactic as well. It's much easier to take ownership of land when the previous inhabitants are either dead or run off.

However, if their goal is to reach peace with their neighbors, I would say they are going about it the wrong way. I suppose it goes back to what you were saying about dehumanizing the enemy. If you send in ground troops that can make some distinction between enemy and friend and you can reach out to the people of lebanon, you put yourself in a much greater position to gain the trust of the Lebonese while at the same time moving towards a goal of removing the Hezbollah from power. If the Hezbollah were seen to have brought this pain on the people and the Israelis were seen as a source of protection and end to hostilities, then Israel would find themselves in a better posistion for achieving peace.

However, this comes at a scrifice of troops and distance from the enemy.

By doing what they are doing, bombing without clear knowledge of the enemy, killing women and children...they are putting themselves at a safe distance from the carnage yes...but what they are sacrificing is connection to the Lebonese people. To Israel and to many others the Hezbollah are terrorists. I'm not going to say they aren't. However, who are the Lebonese supposed to turn to? The distant Israelies who are destroying their homes and people without regard for who the enemy is? Or the terrorists, who are familiar and are fighting against th Israelies? Would you side with the one killing your people, or with the one fighting against them?

Frankly I see what Israel is doing as putting them in the position of the faceless invader. They are demonizing themselves in the eyes of the Lebonese and are creating MORE enemies than had they sacrificed their superior position of distance.

Now...ethically and honorably? If Israel WAS bound to ethics of war or honor, I would say that giving up the advantage of distance is necessary. But only if one is bound to ethics and honor. Where is the honor in killing hundreds of innocents for the sake of destroying an enemy? Yes, the Hezbollah might be destroyed by all this...but at what cost? The consequences of using this bombing from a safe distance tactic could be devastating to Israel in the long run...and it certainly doesn't make them look much better to the Arabs in the area.

Now some will say "who cares about the Arabs! I have pictures of them holding up signs against the Israelis, saying to kill them! You can't talk diplomatically with them!" In that case, I suppose genocide is the only answer then. If every Muslim is a racist fanatic bent on killing and nothing else, I guess that belief gives rise to the idea that they must be wiped out.

I see these pictures...and I can't help but think of the hatred in this country that groups hold against each other. I think about how the Israeli's immigrated into that country and were persecuted and faced with hatred. I think about that...and I thinka bout the immigration problems we have in this country. I think about the racism and the hatred that we've faced in this country. And I think about how we've avoided conflict of the nature that is going on over in the middle east here in our country. I wonder why that is, and why things are so different.

I think about the signs I've seen held up in areas where I've lived speaking out against homosexuals and hispanics. I think about what happened in the founding of this country to the Native American people.

I think about all that...and I wonder if the minorities in this country feel the way that picture in here is supposed to represt the Israeli people.

Posted by: Raven 01-Aug-2006, 09:13 AM
CelticCoalition

I was not implying that you were not allowed to have an opinion.

I just wanted to point out that when the enemy is embedded in a civilian population and many of the combatents appear to be civilians it changes how you fight the battle.

The goal in battle is to win at all costs. When your life is on the line the rules go out the window. This is something that is difficult to understand if you have never been there.

The propaganda masters hold up figures of women and children killed as proof that Israel or the US does not care who they kill or that they are guilty of war crimes. They also revise history through the use of selective out of context misquoting to prove a point that they could not make with out skewing the evidence.

If you have an ounce of compassion in your body it is difficult not to be sucked in by this retoric. If you have a sense of honor an fair play it is difficult to play in a game where there are no rules.

Also realize that it makes no sense in a war where one side has no rules for engagement to expect the other side to play it any differently. (even though the US has a history in all engagements since Korea of hand cuffing their troops in this maner)

Finally intent is very important when considering response to an attack. Just because Hezzabolah was not capable of inflicting massive cassualties on Israel due to preparedness on Israels part and lack of technology on H's part in no way lessons their intent to kill non military Israelies indescrimenantly.

Just points to consider when condemning actions of combatents involved in a life or death struggle.

I am not condoning/justifying anything as has been suggested, only looking at it from another perspective.

Mikel

Posted by: SCShamrock 01-Aug-2006, 09:52 AM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 01-Aug-2006, 06:15 AM)


Again, why is it OK for Israel to do it, but terrorism when others engage in precisely the same behavior?

I'm sorry Emmet, I didn't realize you had addressed me with this specific question. I will gladly answer you. Please read the whole answer before responding. wink.gif

I do not think there is a distinction between different forms of terrorism. People often want to argue about Israel stealing the land they occupy as a provocation for the violence perpetrated against them. The vast majority of this violence has been in the form of terrorism. I assume we do not need a dictionary for this word? Knowing a little about the historical conquering of lands, I can understand attempts to reacquire this land. Any attempts, however, should come in the form of military attacks on key government positions in an effort to overthrow them, not in the isolated killings of civilians with low-grade weaponry. Most of the attacks against Israelis has been a method of punishment by innumerable Muslims vowing the destruction of Israel and hatred for all Jews.

That being said, if the nation of Israel (land, not people this time) is supposed to be so holy as to be ordained by God, then its occupants should then be representatives of that God, no? Israel (people, not land this time) do not have a track record of infallibility. Otherwise, why would Moses have led them through the wilderness for 40 years eating Manna? Hmmm. So to those who like to give Israel a free pass anytime they inflict pain on their neighbors, I say, read your bible again. The bible tells them "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." However, devastating a country's civilians and infrastructure with destruction and overwhelming force is in no way and "eye for an eye." And again, to those who wish to give Israel a free pass for any and all things.........remember, even their Torah tells the tale of how God punished them for their transgressions. For the Gentiles among us, Psalm 80 might be good reading for you now. However.................

Israel has suffered this punishment from various Muslim groups (terrorism) for so long that the question should have always been: "how much can they take--what will be the straw that breaks the camel's back?"

Personally, I grew weary of the entire Middle East a couple of decades ago, hoping they would all blow each other to hell so the violence would stop. I don't give any of them a pass until I see two things. 1. Israel shut up and keep to yourself. 2. All Muslim nations start hunting down and executing terrorists. Until this happens, I can do no more than wait for them all the kill each other, and know there will never be peace.

Posted by: Emmet 01-Aug-2006, 10:15 AM
QUOTE
The goal in battle is to win at all costs. When your life is on the line the rules go out the window.


So, if you fight "to win at all costs" (assuming the majority of those "costs" are not borne by you, but by noncombatant civilians, as you're clearly advocating), recognizing no rules to constrain your behavior (Hague Conventions, Nuremberg Charter, UN Charter, Geneva Conventions) precisely what makes you any better or more worthy of victory (or survival) than your admittedly equally barbaric opponent? If you're going to be that beastly, why wouldn't the world be a better place if you both simply annihilated each other?

Posted by: Emmet 01-Aug-2006, 10:27 AM
QUOTE
I do not think there is a distinction between different forms of terrorism. People often want to argue about Israel stealing the land they occupy as a provocation for the violence perpetrated against them. The vast majority of this violence has been in the form of terrorism. I assume we do not need a dictionary for this word? Knowing a little about the historical conquering of lands, I can understand attempts to reacquire this land. Any attempts, however, should come in the form of military attacks on key government positions in an effort to overthrow them, not in the isolated killings of civilians with low-grade weaponry.


So, any country (or dispossessed refugees) that are too impoverished to mount a traditional military challenge to the 5th most powerful military in the world (backed up by the US) is simply shite out of luck?

What about capturing soldiers, instead of civilians, to use as bargaining chips to win the release of POW's?

What's the ethical distinction between dropping a 1 ton bomb on an occupied apartment complex from an F-16 at 2:00 AM, and detonating a car bomb or explosive belt at a café or market?

Posted by: Raven 01-Aug-2006, 10:32 AM
Emmett you make me laugh with your selective reading biggrin.gif and additive coments and deliberate misunderstandings of my posts tongue.gif

I have not mentioned worthy, more worthy, etc in any of my posts.

As far as conventions rules for engagement etc... there is no point mentioning that again as you seem to have not concept of the difference between a war targeting military targets that see's collateral damage, versus a campaign of terror/fear/intimidation with the obvious intentional targeting of cilivilians to the exclusion of actual military targets.

You also seem to have no clear desire to understand a war where the combatents are not clearly identified or anything else that I write for that matter.

It seems your mind is made up and don't confuse you with the facts because you will simply edit them to your liking. I'm sorry you feel the need to not be logical and attribute meaning to my statements that is not there. It makes any evidence you post suspect in my view. You may have some valid arguements somewhere, but it is impossible to see them, because in your need to be right at all costs, you twist my statements to something that was not implied in my posts.

You should learn to read entire articles, posts, etc instead of editing them to your own personal world view. You may find yourself someday in a position that will forever change this position that you are so entrenched in although, I would not wish that on anyone.

All the best to your endeavor to be right!

Mikel

Context matters

Posted by: SCShamrock 01-Aug-2006, 11:20 AM

QUOTE (Emmet)
So, any country (or dispossessed refugees) that are too impoverished to mount a traditional military challenge to the 5th most powerful military in the world (backed up by the US) is simply shite out of luck?


Pretty much, unless someone or something formidable enough to take them on joins in. Surely this point is not lost on you. And from the wording here, I am inferring that you approve of the efforts of Hezbollah, Hamas, and all other Muslim factions acts of terrorism. Do you agree with the punishment of Israel? Do you agree with the death of innocent Israelis? Is that true?

QUOTE (Emmet)
What about capturing soldiers, instead of civilians, to use as bargaining chips to win the release of POW's?


I see nothing wrong with it.

QUOTE (Emmet)
What's the ethical distinction between dropping a 1 ton bomb on an occupied apartment complex from an F-16 at 2:00 AM, and detonating a car bomb or explosive belt at a café or market?


I have already answered this.

Posted by: stoirmeil 01-Aug-2006, 11:27 AM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 01-Aug-2006, 11:15 AM)

So, if you fight "to win at all costs" (assuming the majority of those "costs" are not borne by you, but by noncombatant civilians, as you're clearly advocating), recognizing no rules to constrain your behavior (Hague Conventions, Nuremberg Charter, UN Charter, Geneva Conventions) precisely what makes you any better or more worthy of victory (or survival) than your admittedly equally barbaric opponent? If you're going to be that beastly, why wouldn't the world be a better place if you both simply annihilated each other?

I don't think "winning at all costs" only means "cost to the other guy," and it doesn't seem to me that's what Raven is advocating. The IDF has a history of ruthlessness, and as I keep saying it is chilling what it does to them and apparently makes them capable of -- but they have paid plenty of lives.

I'm interested in something SCShamrock is saying here. I made the point once before that the perception among many Israelis of the relationship between biblical prophecy and the present state of affairs is often quite cynical. This is something I've talked to a number of Israelis about (students, and a few very close personal friends). It is a burden to them that many biblically oriented people in the US have expectations of Israelis that they themselves don't subscribe to, and are either ready to forgive the "chosen people" anything, or conversely ready to hold them up to unreasonably high ethical standards and criticize them heavily, on biblical criteria, when they can't or don't choose to meet them.

So here we have a variation on this theme, in SCShamrock's last post [edit -- it's a few posts back now]:
"That being said, if the nation of Israel (land, not people this time) is supposed to be so holy as to be ordained by God, then its occupants should then be representatives of that God, no? Israel (people, not land this time) do not have a track record of infallibility. Otherwise, why would Moses have led them through the wilderness for 40 years eating Manna? Hmmm. So to those who like to give Israel a free pass anytime they inflict pain on their neighbors, I say, read your bible again. The bible tells them "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." " Followed by a reminder that God punishes the Israelites when they don't behave well, and an invitation to read Psalm 80, which is a good idea and illustrates the issue very well:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm80.htm

The first footnote reads:
"[Psalm 80] A community lament in time of military defeat. Using the familiar image of Israel as a vineyard, the people complain that God has broken down the wall protecting the once splendid vine brought from Egypt (Psalm 80:9-14). They pray that God will again turn to them and use the Davidic king to lead them to victory (Psalm 80:15-19)."

There is no present Davidic king; David Ben Gurion remarked humorously that the new Israel couldn't be a revivification of the old upper and lower kingdoms because he couldn't stomach the idea of being King David II. But he carried the simultaneous titles of Prime Minister and Minister of Defense for years -- a practical necessity. It's a modern nation, a modern democracy, and the Israeli majority has no illusions at all about being "chosen" for anything privileged. This is not to say that they won't take advantage of the expectations of others, again a mite cynically, and re giving Israel a "pass" for doing things others are heavily sanctioned for, well, that's a very valid point and it should not be that way. But a lot of it comes from the persistant habit of biblicizing this modern militarized democracy.

Nor is the matter unclouded by the beliefs of a very loud minority of orthodox, lots of them coming from the United States and settling very defiantly in the disputed territories. They have a scary sense of biblical destiny, and they still have a swing vote in the Knesset, which is a right pain in the arse for most of the country's goals. And they are hostile toward arabs, and also conveniently (some think intentionally, out of some martyr impulse) placed to be the targets of border aggression. Baruch Goldstein, whom Emmet cites as being a terrorist (under a broad definition I suppose he was; but he was also certifiably nuts, and his action was not typical) is a good if extreme example.

And again, up to this day educated Israelis know their bibles way better than we ever will, and I might say in a much purer and more immediately grounded context that does not include the controversial NT readings of prophecy. One of the things I mean to ask my friend is why all the generations of the Israeli tank (one of the most terrifying juggernauts you will ever see) have been called "Merkavah". So what's that? It's the chariot in the vision of Ezekiel, and it has all kinds of mystical Kabbalistic implications as well as being directly symbolic of the land of Israel reviving itself from a valley of dry bones into a living entity. But the modern version of Merkavah has also blown gaping holes in thousands of other people's peace and prosperity. I don't know if it's pure irony to call it that, or a kind of in-joke that also incorporates the serious proprietary sense of the bible as a document that belongs to them in a unique way. Or just a symbolic way of recognizing that the only chariot that's going to make dem dry bones come back to life and stay that way is a damn heavy militancy that involves every single citizen from the age of 18 to 49.

I guess the point of all this is: either giving Israel an indulgent "pass" for any behaviour, or criticizing them harshly for not living up to biblical expectations and pointing to their troubles as God's punishment, are both complicating the issues in ways that have had and still have large practical ways of playing out in foreign policy, though that should be almost unbelievable in this day and age. I believe heartily that we could lose that component of the debate and see just a little more light falling on the real issues.

Posted by: Herrerano 01-Aug-2006, 12:42 PM
Good points Stormeil.

Sometimes in the heat of an argument it is way too simple and easy to just pull out the old, "He's right because God said so" reasoning.

Not to take anything away from those who have a more religiously fundamental worldview (notice I did not say Christian here), but the basic tenants of an argument should hold up despite particular beliefs. (wow, trying to say this in a general way to make it clear that it concerns all belief systems is really really hard).

Anyway, there are a couple of things that this left me thinking as I lay my head on my pillow last night. First of all, to CC, and his remark about honor etc. It's that desire to hold ourselves and those we think of as 'honorable' to a higher standard that causes such deep disappointment when something like the incident at Qana happens. On the other hand, it is not that hard to see how those things could have happened either. Hizbollah hides like cowards amongst the civilian population and shields itself with innocents as it fires its missiles towards Israel. Israelies, now infected with the desire to win, but to win cheaply, without spending those groundpounding grunt lives tries to do what has always been impossible from the air and wage war without looking into the eyes and faces of the enemy. That is all it takes for a tragic incident like that to occur and instantly Israel has practically handed victory over to Hizbollah.

If you're interested in reading a bit more about this here are a couple of links.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_road_to_qana_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110008733

***

Oh yeah, remember, the IDF comprises the whole of the Israeli defense forces, most of them are just regular folks. Weren't you really referring to the 'spooks' among them when you made this comment?

stoirmeil Posted on 01-Aug-2006, 12:27 PM
QUOTE
The IDF has a history of ruthlessness, and as I keep saying it is chilling what it does to them and apparently makes them capable of -- but they have paid plenty of lives.


But then that would really be the subject of an entirely new thread, and could apply to sof people in any branch of service in any country.




Well, back to my midget racing and endless speculations about Cuba. biggrin.gif

Leo cool.gif


Posted by: stoirmeil 01-Aug-2006, 01:02 PM
QUOTE (Herrerano @ 01-Aug-2006, 01:42 PM)
Israelies, now infected with the desire to win, but to win cheaply, without spending those groundpounding grunt lives tries to do what has always been impossible from the air and wage war without looking into the eyes and faces of the enemy.

Indeed. That's a "shock and awe" strategy well learned, if just as badly conceived. Would we not have a hell of a nerve to condemn them for it?

By "spooks" I think you mean Mossad? I don't know what else you might be referring to. But no -- the IDF is run top down by its generals with a lot of discipline, and insubordination in the form of refusal to carry out orders is treated as harshly as it is in any other military, maybe much more so. I was referring to the army as run by its leaders. Of course, military people are ordinary people. But the aura of discipline in the IDF is very, very strong and determined, and the ruthlessness I mean is a function of the nature of the order given and the expectation that it be carried out with no less than maximum speed and efficiency, and no trace of wavering.

Posted by: Emmet 01-Aug-2006, 02:29 PM
QUOTE
either giving Israel an indulgent "pass" for any behaviour, or criticizing them harshly for not living up to biblical expectations and pointing to their troubles as God's punishment, are both complicating the issues in ways that have had and still have large practical ways of playing out in foreign policy, though that should be almost unbelievable in this day and age. I believe heartily that we could lose that component of the debate and see just a little more light falling on the real issues.


Quite so. "Because the Bible tells be so" is not a defensible argument for mass murder. Neither are movies like "Exodus" a good grounding in Middle Eastern history.

As any numismaticist will tell you, you can't properly judge the value of a coin by only examining one side.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Israelies, now infected with the desire to win, but to win cheaply, without spending those groundpounding grunt lives tries to do what has always been impossible from the air and wage war without looking into the eyes and faces of the enemy.



Indeed. That's a "shock and awe" strategy well learned, if just as badly conceived. Would we not have a hell of a nerve to condemn them for it?


As a country (that hasn't renounced it as awful, purposeless, and futile), absolutely. Individually, only if we had supported the same strategy in Iraq, and still, despite everything, continue to believe the State every time they tell us that everything's just coming up roses over there.

QUOTE
The IDF has a history of ruthlessness, and as I keep saying it is chilling what it does to them and apparently makes them capable of --


Yeah; it's not just Shin Bet or Mossad; the history of the IDF in toto is a study in ruthlessness. Not necessarily a bad thing per se; war is nasty business, they live in a bad neighborhood, and soldiers aren't social workers. However, there must be universally agreed upon de jure parameters of civilized behavior beyond which nations and individuals should be proscribed from going (of course, considering our recent experience in places like Fallujah, the U.S. would have a hell of a nerve to condemn them for that, too).

Posted by: Emmet 01-Aug-2006, 03:01 PM
QUOTE
I am inferring that you approve of the efforts of Hezbollah, Hamas, and all other Muslim factions acts of terrorism. Do you agree with the punishment of Israel? Do you agree with the death of innocent Israelis? Is that true? 


Absolutely not. However, I do believe that the issues involved are a bit more complicated than some people suspect, and some folks appear to me to have an entirely one sided (and rather simplistic) view of the conflict. I'm trying to suggest that there is more than one side (Israel's) to the story, and that there is a considerable (and growing) body of evidence to suggest that the Israelis aren't necessarily on the side of the angels. I am quite capable of recognizing the legitimate grievances of Palestinians and Lebanese without being a flag-waver for Hammas and Hezbollah.

Personally, I believe in the United Nations, support the Beirut Declaration of 2002, and wouldn't trust in the good offices of Condoleezza Rice as far as I could throw her.

Posted by: Dogshirt 01-Aug-2006, 05:01 PM
We should all remember that the bible was written BY jews FOR jews. The fact that the bible as you know it was pieced together from a LOT of jewish texts by a Roman emporer and others to suit them selves should NOT be overlooked. ANYTHING that they didn't like simply wasn't included! The bible is NOT an anceint book, just a book pieced together by men to suit themselves. Do NOT expect to get any wisdom from a book WRITTEN by men, COMPILED by men, and EDITED by men. There is FAR too much man and not enough god in the bible to take seriously!


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Raven 01-Aug-2006, 07:05 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 01-Aug-2006, 06:01 PM)
We should all remember that the bible was written BY jews FOR jews. The fact that the bible as you know it was pieced together from a LOT of jewish texts by a Roman emporer and others to suit them selves should NOT be overlooked. ANYTHING that they didn't like simply wasn't included! The bible is NOT an anceint book, just a book pieced together by men to suit themselves. Do NOT expect to get any wisdom from a book WRITTEN by men, COMPILED by men, and EDITED by men. There is FAR too much man and not enough god in the bible to take seriously!


beer_mug.gif

Wrong thread wink.gif

Posted by: Dogshirt 01-Aug-2006, 07:19 PM
Not when some are using afore mentioned text to excuse Isreal's homicidal spree!


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 01-Aug-2006, 07:22 PM
QUOTE (Raven @ 01-Aug-2006, 08:05 PM)
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 01-Aug-2006, 06:01 PM)
We should all remember that the bible was written BY jews FOR jews. The fact that the bible as you know it was pieced together from a LOT of jewish texts by a Roman emporer and others to suit them selves should NOT be overlooked. ANYTHING that they didn't like simply wasn't included! The bible is NOT an anceint book, just a book pieced together by men to suit themselves. Do NOT expect to get any wisdom from a book WRITTEN by men, COMPILED by men, and EDITED by men. There is FAR too much man and not enough god in the bible to take seriously!


beer_mug.gif

Wrong thread wink.gif

Ah, come on, Raven. dry.gif You know it's not irrelevant. I don't come down on this as hard as Dogshirt, but I do agree with him in so far as I feel strongly that it has no place in this level of life and death foreign policy.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 01-Aug-2006, 07:42 PM
What do ya say we just TRY to keep the Bible out of it. I do believe it to be true but tried to seperate it the best I can. I'll say again, Israel is no angles in this, but neither is Hesbula who DID start this current conflict. I'd like to put all those who sympithize with these muslim extreamist in and Muslim country for about 10 years and see for themselves what kind of people Israel is dealing with. I'll say again for the 4th time look at how these "civilized folkes " acted when those cartoons of Mohamad were published. But those sympethitic to Hesbula don't want to aknowledge that.

Posted by: Emmet 01-Aug-2006, 07:46 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 01-Aug-2006, 08:19 PM)
Not when some are using afore mentioned text to excuse Isreal's homicidal spree!


beer_mug.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5193092.stm

Posted by: Dogshirt 01-Aug-2006, 07:51 PM
QUOTE
What do ya say we just TRY to keep the Bible out of it. I do believe it to be true but tried to seperate it the best I can. I'll say again, Israel is no angles in this, but neither is Hesbula who DID start this current conflict. I'd like to put all those who sympithize with these muslim extreamist in and Muslim country for about 10 years and see for themselves what kind of people Israel is dealing with. I'll say again for the 4th time look at how these "civilized folkes " acted when those cartoons of Mohamad were published. But those sympethitic to Hesbula don't want to aknowledge that.



I'm not the one who brought it in, just trying ro keep it in perspective.
And does Saudi Arabia count? Nice people, country is a little dry for my tastes, but it was okay!


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Dogshirt 01-Aug-2006, 07:55 PM
And I'll need a postal address to send that Gordon letter, my scanner is "sick" right now.
Seems the gist is that the Clan is badly fractured and split and these people want to tighten it up and restructure it in the US.


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 01-Aug-2006, 07:58 PM
Thanks, Emmet. That's really kind of scary . . . it's just exactly what I was referring to. Complicates things tremendously. The link in the column to the right, in the article you linked in, called "Pew Forum," lays the statistics out in an illuminating way.


Ahem, well. Here is a calendar for the month of August that will let you check the breaking news as it comes out of IDF official sources and into globalsecurity.net. You may agree, disagree, or think it's a bunch of unmitigated propaganda -- but it's a pretty prominent voice in the debate that ought to be assessed, and this is a nice compact place that's being updated constantly.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/08/index.html

I had the IDF home page open earlier, but it won't open for me now. No doubt they sent a hagana-bot to my hard drive and found out I was talkin' with y'all, and I'm a poor security risk. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 01-Aug-2006, 08:09 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 01-Aug-2006, 08:55 PM)
And I'll need a postal address to send that Gordon letter, my scanner is "sick" right now.
Seems the gist is that the Clan is badly fractured and split and these people want to tighten it up and restructure it in the US.


beer_mug.gif

I'll e-mail it to you on within this site OK?

Posted by: Dogshirt 01-Aug-2006, 08:11 PM
Fine


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 01-Aug-2006, 08:12 PM
And does Saudi Arabia count? Nice people, country is a little dry for my tastes, but it was okay!

Saudi? What were you doing there unsure.gif Anyway I'm not talking Govt. contractors I mean as a citizen who is not of the Muslim faith.

Posted by: Dogshirt 01-Aug-2006, 08:13 PM
QUOTE
had the IDF home page open earlier, but it won't open for me now. No doubt they sent a hagana-bot to my hard drive and found out I was talkin' with y'all, and I'm a poor security risk. 




TSK TSK naughty.gif


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 01-Aug-2006, 08:14 PM
or think it's a bunch of unmitigated propaganda -- but it's a pretty prominent voice in the debate that ought to be assessed, and this is a nice compact place that's being updated constantly.

If he disagrees with it, then he'll probably think it's propaganda! biggrin.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 01-Aug-2006, 08:21 PM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 01-Aug-2006, 09:14 PM)


If he disagrees with it, then he'll probably think it's propaganda!  biggrin.gif

Hey, hey, I'm not peddling it myself, just providing a source that's tracking developments closely and reporting/interpreting them. smile.gif Still gotta keep eyes open.

Eh, it's opening again. Take your chances:
http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/homepage.asp?clr=1&sl=EN&id=-8888&force=1


Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center site (link within IDF home page):
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/default.htm

Posted by: Emmet 01-Aug-2006, 09:20 PM
QUOTE
I'll say again for the 4th time look at how these "civilized folkes " acted when those cartoons of Mohamad were published. But those sympethitic to Hesbula don't want to aknowledge that.


Perhaps no one wants to encourage another racist diatribe about how evil, wicked, and bloodthirsty all Muslims are.

Posted by: SCShamrock 02-Aug-2006, 01:16 AM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 01-Aug-2006, 06:01 PM)
We should all remember that the bible was written BY jews FOR jews. The fact that the bible as you know it was pieced together from a LOT of jewish texts by a Roman emporer and others to suit them selves should NOT be overlooked. ANYTHING that they didn't like simply wasn't included! The bible is NOT an anceint book, just a book pieced together by men to suit themselves. Do NOT expect to get any wisdom from a book WRITTEN by men, COMPILED by men, and EDITED by men. There is FAR too much man and not enough god in the bible to take seriously!


beer_mug.gif

No, we should hang on your every word and take that to our graves. I see.

I agree, wrong thread.

Posted by: SCShamrock 02-Aug-2006, 01:23 AM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 01-Aug-2006, 10:20 PM)

Perhaps no one wants to encourage another racist diatribe about how evil, wicked, and bloodthirsty all Muslims are.

Might as well. Israel seems to be getting their fair share of harsh commentary.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 02-Aug-2006, 04:30 AM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 02-Aug-2006, 02:23 AM)
QUOTE (Emmet @ 01-Aug-2006, 10:20 PM)

Perhaps no one wants to encourage another racist diatribe about how evil, wicked, and bloodthirsty all Muslims are.

Might as well. Israel seems to be getting their fair share of harsh commentary.

I'm responding to you because I refuse to respond to Emmet. I think those cartoons and they reaction they bought showed just how a big majority of how Islam is. It's not a religion of peace in my opinon. Ut's too bad that the ones who practice it peacefully get a bad rep for it and they are in fear to stand up and speak out against the violence those cartoons started. At least those in the Middle East.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 02-Aug-2006, 04:31 AM
Ut's too bad

It's biggrin.gif

Posted by: Emmet 02-Aug-2006, 06:07 AM
QUOTE
QUOTE
Perhaps no one wants to encourage another racist diatribe about how evil, wicked, and bloodthirsty all Muslims are.


Might as well. Israel seems to be getting their fair share of harsh commentary.


Harsh perhaps, but well deserved (with citations), and directed at the policies of the political state of Israel, not Jewish people in general.

What if I were to propose that Fred Phelps was truly representative of all Christians?
I see no discernable qualitative difference in stating that all Muslims are murderous than in stating that all Jews are cheats, all Blacks are lazy, all Latinos are thieves, or all Irish are drunkards, and I fail to see how such statements contribute anything of value to the conversation.

Posted by: Raven 02-Aug-2006, 06:49 AM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 01-Aug-2006, 08:51 PM)
QUOTE
What do ya say we just TRY to keep the Bible out of it. I do believe it to be true but tried to seperate it the best I can. I'll say again, Israel is no angles in this, but neither is Hesbula who DID start this current conflict. I'd like to put all those who sympithize with these muslim extreamist in and Muslim country for about 10 years and see for themselves what kind of people Israel is dealing with. I'll say again for the 4th time look at how these "civilized folkes " acted when those cartoons of Mohamad were published. But those sympethitic to Hesbula don't want to aknowledge that.



I'm not the one who brought it in, just trying ro keep it in perspective.
And does Saudi Arabia count? Nice people, country is a little dry for my tastes, but it was okay!


beer_mug.gif

my mistake, I somehow missed that beer_mug.gif

I was actually referring to the validity/accuracy/trustworthy of the Bible issue.

It does have a bit to do with this discussion as a historical document and likely as a prophetic document. But this would be the wrong thread to get into any of that.

Can you please accept my humblest apologies Dogshirt unsure.gif

'Mikel

Posted by: Raven 02-Aug-2006, 08:17 AM
BTW

All the talk about one side or the other with their propeganda.

They both are putting out propeganda it just comes down to who you believe.

I know one side launched missiles at the other with the intent of killing anyone they could. (abeit ineffectively but not for lack of desire)

I think it is easy to say that Israel over reacted and is over reacting when you are not an Israelie.

I agree that Israel is not without fault as their history truly indicates. I agree they are in this conflict due to actions of their own (but not the one Emmett is talking about and he would likely disagree with me smile.gif)

I don't think that you can mount a believable arguement for present circumstances based on something that happened a half a life time ago and then throw out what happened a week ago.

Sure the Jews and the Arabs pretty much hate each other. I empathize with the situation more due to past life experience than any need to think Irael right or wrong.

This is a military action, and if I were directing it I would be very ruthless myself with the idea of how to be as thrifty as possible with my ground troop. In other words in order to minimize my own loss of life, I would be a lot less concerned about loss of life on the other side.

If that mean't warning Lebonese to get out of the way because we are going to level you neighborhood because we keep getting missile launched from there and I don't want to spend my ground troops digging it out, that is the way I would do it.
If I was a Lebonese whose house got blown up collaterally I probably would not like the Israelies very much after that even if I had no prior prejudice, but as a military commander that would be very low on my list of worries.

Not a matter of who is more worthy etc... just a fact of how war is fought.

The talk about rules of engagement that come with the concept of limited war are bogus. If you have to live by different rules than those you are fighting, you should not go to war, because you will loose every time. That would be like playing football and one team could do anything that they wanted including clipping, jumping off side, late hits etc... and the other side played strictly by the rules. The honorable rule abiding team would loose.

The US has had experience with limited war time after time and been labeled loosers as a result of their self imposed rules of engagement. If you refuse to fight a war to win then there is only one alternative. If you are not going forward you are loosing. This has been a sore spot for me with the US military for most of my life as I have the attitude that if you are going to war, and are going to spend US lives, you should go in with the intent of giving it everything it takes to win and win decisively using all resources available or you should not go at all.

Good bad or indifferent, I have always respected Israels commitment to a fight once they engage. Whether you like them or not you have to admit that they fight with the intent of ending the issue from a military point of view.

Irsael sports a sizeable motivated army that is made up mostly of civilians that has been cited as the 5th most powerful in the world. They have compulsory military service beginning at age 17 and staying in reserve until age 49 for both male and female. They could conceivably field an army of 3 million should the need arrise and as I said before they are motivated. I would personally say that rating them number 5 in world military power is a serious underestimation.

With this in mind it doesn't make sense to launch obsolete missiles into a populated area that the best you can do is kill 18 people of no military consequence and expect to do anything other than stir up a mess of Hornets.

I guess it comes back to whose propoganda do you believe?

MIkel

Posted by: stoirmeil 02-Aug-2006, 08:56 AM
QUOTE (Raven @ 02-Aug-2006, 09:17 AM)
If you refuse to fight a war to win then there is only one alternative.  If you are not going forward you are loosing. This has been a sore spot for me with the US military for most of my life as I have the attitude that if you are going to war, and are going to spend US lives, you should go in with the intent of giving it everything it takes to win and win decisively using all resources available or you should not go at all.


This is perfectly true in common sense, and I think it's what Israel has always had as a general philosophy of war. It helps that Israel's leaders have so often been military people, and that all the citizenry is at least nominally in the military too -- and that they are literally surrounded and constantly threatened with hostility. Certain things are just assumed in a very hard-headed, no-nonsense way. One of the images that really stuck with me when I visited the upper Galilee years ago was a little mountain kibbutz with a bomb shelter with Big Bird and Cookie Monster painted on the doors. They grow up with it in their faces.

There's always the problem of spin, though, and leaders do have to worry about world perceptions, approval and condemnation, and alliances. Israel has been a headache to more US administrations than this one, because the rest of the world does not hold its attitudes about this. There is also the problem of what humans under a lot of pressure are capable of in terms of atrocities -- just about limitless, and personally I don't even trust the comfy armchair perspective I myself am in, not can I say what I would do under extreme threat. If we really can countenance throwing out the Geneva Conventions and the idea of war crimes altogether, and simply saying s*** happens sometimes when people are really fighting to win (like Sabra and Shatila, or Dresden, or My Lai), then most of the problem goes away. Somehow, though, I think (and I hope) that we have something innate in us as a species that prevents us from losing all sense of empathy (or more strongly, shame) about "collateral damage" (read: screwing up and whacking civilians) and other abuses and inequities. So if we have to be atrocious in order to fight to win, the propaganda that arises out of this shame as a face-saving cover must continue. It's foolish to condemn it. You might say wading through it is the civilian citizen's price to pay.

Posted by: Raven 02-Aug-2006, 09:06 AM
I am not saying throw out "War Crimes" altogether. (i.e. rape, torture, gathering up and assasinating - ethnic cleansing type stuff) I just think that intent and context needs to be considered. Collateral damage and friendly fire would not qualify. Even if one does not believe the collateral damage bit, it is a fact of war and it would be difficult to prove it was otherwise in this case since the attacks on Israel have come from civilian populated areas, hence the strikes to take out that threat would have a higher incidence of colateral damage.

All I know is that if I had a neighbor launching missiles at Israel and I valued my life, I would be moving to another hood wink.gif

Mikel

Posted by: Emmet 02-Aug-2006, 09:28 AM



QUOTE
I know one side launched missiles at the other with the intent of killing anyone they could. (abeit ineffectively but not for lack of desire)


Israel launched air attacks against Lebanon first. Still, I'm not sure of the value of chicken-or-the-egg arguments at this point.


QUOTE
I don't think that you can mount a believable arguement for present circumstances based on something that happened a half a life time ago and then throw out what happened a week ago.


Not to "throw out what happened a week ago", but I don't think it's at all possible to understand "what happened a week ago" in any depth divorced from the historical context of what is obviously an ongoing conflict of some sixty years duration.

QUOTE
This is a military action, and if I were directing it I would be very ruthless myself with the idea of how to be as thrifty as possible with my ground troop. In other words in order to minimize my own loss of life, I would be a lot less concerned about loss of life on the other side...The talk about rules of engagement that come with the concept of limited war are bogus.


So you would willfully and intentionally violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, UN Resolution 1674, and Article 7 & 8 of the International Criminal Court (ICC). In other words, you would intentionally commit war crimes.

QUOTE
If I was a Lebonese whose house got blown up collaterally I probably would not like the Israelies very much after that even if I had no prior prejudice, but as a military commander that would be very low on my list of worries.


But perhaps that should figure higher on your worry list if, as you observed, the result of your cavalier attitude towards the suffering of the Lebanese or Palestinian people is very likely to result in a marked increase in popular support for Hezbollah and Hammas among the general population (with a proportional decrease in support for more moderate political forces amenable to negotiation and peaceable accommodation), and a new influx of extremely angry and vengeful young recruits with little or nothing to lose. What about the loss of international sympathy and goodwill such brutality will engender? What happens when those young victims of yours inevitably regroup and retaliate with whatever crude weapons they can cobble together? Wouldn't all these considerations tend to make any transient battlefield victory you achieve rather Pyrrhic in the long run? Israel invaded Lebanon to exterminate the PLO. In the process, they killed 18,000 Lebanese. As a direct result of their efforts, they got Hezbollah. Now, Israel has invaded Lebanon to exterminate Hezbollah. Don't you think that renders the deaths of all those Israeli soldiers killed in Lebanon between 1982 to 2000 rather pointless?

QUOTE
With this in mind it doesn't make sense to launch obsolete missiles into a populated area that the best you can do is kill 18 people of no military consequence and expect to do anything other than stir up a mess of Hornets.


As of today, 19, but you're right; it's certainly not a force even remotely capable of "pushing Israel into the sea"; not much of an offensive armory at all.
However, when you're under attack, you defend yourself with what you've got, however impotent and inconsequential it may be.



Posted by: SCShamrock 02-Aug-2006, 11:43 AM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 02-Aug-2006, 07:07 AM)
Harsh perhaps, but well deserved (with citations), and directed at the policies of the political state of Israel, not Jewish people in general.

Citation? You seriously used the word citation? You make an assumption here that is unwarranted; and that is your citing your sources makes your posts more credible than mine. Or have you forgotten how you regarded my comments as worthless early in the conversation?


QUOTE (Nova Scotian)
I'm responding to you because I refuse to respond to Emmet. I think those cartoons and they reaction they bought showed just how a big majority of how Islam is. It's not a religion of peace in my opinion.


N.S., you likely won't get a better feeling discussing the Israel/Lebanon situation with me. You have indicated your view that Israel can do no wrong because they are protected by God. I, on the other hand, have been quite frank about this, even referencing Psalm 80, in which Israel was begging God to allow them back in His good graces:

QUOTE
O LORD God of hosts, how long wilt Thou be angry with the prayer of Thy people? Thou has fed them with the bread of tears, and Thou has made them to drink tears in large measure. Thou dost make us an object of contention to our neighbors; and our enemies laugh among themselves. O God of hosts, restore us, and cause Thy face to shine upon us, and we will be saved. Psalm 80: 4-7


As a Christian, I feel it my duty to try to be honest in my world-view. This does not mean viewing the wold apart from my religious beliefs, but it also does not mean being so dogmatic as to assert that any group of people are above reproach for their wrongful actions simply because they are "God's chosen people." There is absolutely nothing in the Christian bible to indicate any one group of people is not accountable for their actions. Quite the contrary. So, while I do agree with you that Israel (the people, not the stretch of real estate) has ordinance with God, I do not believe they even remotely deserve amnesty. As for Islam, the evidence is overwhelming. So much violence has and is committed in the name of their god--overtly, proudly, shamelessly--and with very little condemnation for this violence voiced from their leaders. Sure, Khamenei,Abdulaziz, or some other Islamic country's leader may publicly denounce violence committed by Muslims in the name of their god, but that is about as much an Islamic statement as President Bush denouncing a Christian's similar crime would be a Christian statement.

Now, where does this leave me? Well, I think we can all use a little more level-headedness from time to time. I think people who you only hear damning the actions of those who attack Islamic people and never the other way around, need to be more honest with themselves and everyone else. I think you need to be more honest about Israel, and stop with this "God's chosen people" rhetoric. In the end, we are all basing our opinions on what we believe to be right and wrong. And trust me, you do not have to have family members who are Islamic, Jewish, Christian, Israeli, etc., to distinguish between right and wrong. Lastly, I do not agree with the barbaric nature of Israel's attack on Lebanon's people and infrastructure. No good can ever come from the mass murder of innocent civilians. However, win, lose, or draw, I hope they utterly crush Hezbollah.

Disclaimer: none of my words are intended to be confrontational, so please don't hit me with your flame thrower smile.gif

Posted by: Emmet 02-Aug-2006, 01:23 PM
QUOTE
Harsh perhaps, but well deserved (with citations), and directed at the policies of the political state of Israel, not Jewish people in general. 


QUOTE
Citation? You seriously used the word citation? You make an assumption here that is unwarranted; and that is your citing your sources makes your posts more credible than mine. Or have you forgotten how you regarded my comments as worthless early in the conversation?




QUOTE
EARLY IN THE CONVERSATION:
Emmet...You seem to have educated yourself quite extensively on what you view as Israel's atrocities, while trying to generate a comprehensive list of the military capabilities for them and others in the region. I wonder, have done an equal amount of research on the various Muslim groups and their atrocities?...I would like to know if you are even aware of the breadth and scope of violence perpetrated in the name of Allah.


I was concerned that I may have been too harsh in my response based upon conversations we've had on this topic before, so I went back, re-read it, looked at your citation (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com, a particularly virulent bit of hate speech on the Web)....and sadly, I was correct in my original asessment;

QUOTE
EARLY IN THE CONVERSATION:
I'd no more rely upon you (or your sources) for a lesson on the true nature of Islam than upon Goebbels for tutelage on the true nature of Judaism, for precisely the same reasons.


Again, my criticisms (harsh or otherwise) are directed towards the policies of the political state of Israel, not Jewish people in general. My citations have included the Geneva Conventions, United Nations resolutions, the International Criminal Court, the Nuremburg Charter, and the charter of the United Nations, among others...feel free to Google them. The web site you cited in your post is clearly bigoted (oh yeah; I cited Webster's Dictionary, too) hate speech directed explicitly at Islam and Muslims, apparently, all 1.6 billion of them. I find it patently offensive. No apologies.

QUOTE
Also, I'm very curious about your signature. What does it mean?


Shalom and Salaam in both Hebrew and Arabic; the symbol in the middle means the same.

Posted by: stoirmeil 02-Aug-2006, 02:51 PM
You really have to assess what you find on the web very carefully. We discussed this "Religion of Peace" webheap a long time ago when Sniper and Shamalama were posting a lot of similar comments and citing this same site. It has very little to commend it in terms of verifiability, and the website authors who won't divulge their names are still buried 16 links in somewhere down low, professing fear of assassination if they admit who they are. dry.gif However, the Geneva conventions, UN resolutions, and other documents of international law, such as it is, were crafted back in the days when you had to do more than cut, paste, and photoshop a dumpload of odds and ends and hit "send." I'll grant you that those old official documents are a lot less fun and rage-titillating, because they are a very long and demanding read, and there are no pictures to look at. smile.gif

Posted by: Raven 02-Aug-2006, 05:35 PM
Emmett, Emmett, ,Emmett if you ever want any respect from me for you or you views this is certainly not the way to earn it. (Mikel shakes head while smiling, much as he would at a recalcitrant child)

You are really a piece of work smile.gif

I find your edited out of context deliberately misinterpreted responses to my posts amusing. You really should be ashamed of yourself wink.gif

Anyone that wants to know what I really said should just refer back to my posts at the top of this page so that it is clear what I was really saying and not take to much stock in Emmetts revisionist reprints.

Of course I did not mean any of the things you suggested and only someone who had the intention of deliberately twisting or misinterpreting what I wrote could have possibly come up with that.

I know you feel superior to me on this issue Emmett smile.gif but come on use a little common sense. All anyone has to do on this last one is look a couple of posts above yours and they will clearly be able to see that the parts you left out give a totally different picture than you paint beer_mug.gif have a beer

I saw interviews tonight on the PBS news programs with lebanese who were in the affected areas that heard the announcements that Israel was getting ready to target their neighborhood and guess what they did..... they left. Sure they aren't happy but they are alive just the same. Cavalier laugh.gif realistic is more like it.



Best of luck with your agenda

Mikel


Posted by: Dogshirt 02-Aug-2006, 06:34 PM
Since we ALL seem to have calmed down a bit and explained our point a bit better, then I will take the time to do so also.
First, I am NOT a christian, I follow the traditional beliefs of my people. You can belive what you want, and as an American I will fight to the death for you to do so. This does not mean that I take anything you shove at me (religiously speaking) as gospel or the truth. I belive "The Big Three" to be the biggest bane to mankind that has ever come down the pike!
That being said, from my personal point of view, it is much easier to draw corelalations between my people and Hesbollah, the PLO and Hammas than it will ever be with israel (The nation and Political unit, NOT the jewish people!)
Based SOLELY on actions and attitude it is far easier to identify with them (The PLO, etc) as being the in the same situation, than it is to see israel in any sort of GOOD light, filling the role of the Whiteman. I have looked at this situation for close to 45 years and CANNOT see israel as being in the right ONCE! They have grabbed land that was not their's and then killed those who lived there for the crime of daring to object.
My reference to the invalidity of the bible still stands. It is ALL based on jewish texts, and as such, of course they are the chosen of THEIR god.
I'm sorry, but NOTHING will ever convince me that israel is right and those who oppose them are wrong. You see, I'm culturally conditioned to reject their argument.

But we COULD all still have a beer_mug.gif !


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: SCShamrock 02-Aug-2006, 06:53 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 02-Aug-2006, 02:23 PM)




Shalom and Salaam in both Hebrew and Arabic; the symbol in the middle means the same.

I dismiss your entire post with the exception of the explanation of the symbol. Thank you for that, as I was very curious.

The source I linked for you was just for the extensive list of terror activity that resulted in death which was perpetrated by Muslims. You can use any list from any source you wish, so long as it is accurate. I'm not saying we should be keeping score here, but rather hoping to shed light on the duplicity of hanging Israel, and excusing terrorists. I think my views have been thoroughly expressed, and continuing will probably be useless---so I'll leave posting further comments to the rest of you. I'm glad the discussion has remained as civil as it has.

Later

Posted by: Emmet 03-Aug-2006, 04:28 AM
QUOTE
The source I linked for you was just for the extensive list of terror activity that resulted in death which was perpetrated by Muslims.


As I pointed out in a previous post, not all citations are created equal.

As for my "duplicity of hanging Israel, and excusing terrorists", I've never "excused" terrorism by any of the combatants. The Arab-Israeli conflict is the direct result of Israel's brutal subjugation and repression of the Palestinian people, illegal occupation of the Golan, West Bank, Palestinian Jerusalem, and Gaza, and the carte blanche we provide them to terrorize their neighbors like Lebanon with impunity. You want peace in the Middle East? Eliminate the raison d'être of the terrorist groups. Israel secure within her original 1967 borders, with a commitment not to shell, bomb, kidnap and kill (terrorize) her neighbors at will or to interfere in their internal politics in any way, that security defined by mutual regional treaty and guaranteed by the UN. How effective do you think Hamas and Hezbollah recruiting drives would be then? Spreading outright hate-filled lies like frothing-at-the-mouth rants about "Islamofascists" and dire warnings of how America will soon become an Islamic theocracy, and claims that the bombing of Qana was actually a Hezbollah psy-op, a fraud staged (complete with the dead bodies of 54 villagers, about 1/2 of them children) for the media, only promotes further baseless suspicion and hatred and does nothing to increase the understanding among different peoples or promote peace, which I would have kinda thought would have been a Christian's approach to the problem. What was that whole thing about "not bearing false witness against thy neighbor" anyway? Thanks, but between your sources and mine, I think I'll stick with people like the BBC or the International Red Cross for firsthand verifiable information from the actual scene of events.

Posted by: John Clements 03-Aug-2006, 07:24 AM
Emmet, The next time I raise a glass. It’ll be toasting you, and those who think like you.

jc

Posted by: haynes9 03-Aug-2006, 10:55 AM
Read this report today. Thought it would be an interesting insertion into the debate. Have a great day!

"Wonder why civilians are still being injured and killed, when Israel long ago warned them through leaflets to leave Hezbollah areas?

As related by Lebanese Christians, Hezbollah brings the war right to their homes. So if they weren't in a Hezbollah area before, Hezbollah brings rocket launchers in the midst of Christian homes, knowing the Israelis will fire back at the launcher. Hezbollah is apparently hoping for Christian civilian deaths, to help them win the PR battle in the west. As noted in a July 28 NY Times article, "Christians Fleeing Lebanon Denounce Hezbollah," by Sabrina Tavernise,

...for some of the Christians who had made it out in this convoy, it was not just privations they wanted to talk about, but their ordeal at the hands of Hezbollah -- a contrast to the Shiites, who make up a vast majority of the population in southern Lebanon and broadly support the militia.

" Hezbollah came to Ain Ebel to shoot its rockets," said Fayad Hanna Amar, a young Christian man, referring to his village. "They are shooting from between our houses."

"Please," he added, "write that in your newspaper."

Many Christians from Ramesh and Ain Ebel considered Hezbollah's fighting methods as much of an outrage as the Israeli strikes. Mr. Amar said "Hezbollah fighters in groups of two and three had come into Ain Ebel, less than a mile from Bint Jbail, where most of the fighting has occurred. They were using it as a base to shoot rockets, he said, and the Israelis fired back."


Since Lebanese civilians have been warned by Israel to leave any area where there are rocket launchers, the Christians try to leave, but are sometimes prevented by Hezbollah.

One woman, who would not give her name because she had a government job and feared retribution, said Hezbollah fighters had killed a man who was trying to leave Bint Jbail.

"This is what's happening, but no one wants to say it" for fear of Hezbollah, she said."

Posted by: stoirmeil 03-Aug-2006, 11:09 AM
It doesn't sound unlikely at all, unfortunately. With the truck-mounted missile launchers, they could draw fire to wherever they wanted to and then scoot. It's another example too of the complexity of the relations among these people, very difficult to disentangle and interpret if you're not a member of the group.

Posted by: Raven 03-Aug-2006, 11:26 AM
Leo asked me to post that he has not deserted/lost interest in this debate but has temporarily lost his primary access to this site.


He sends his beer_mug.gif

To everyone smile.gif

Mikel

Posted by: CelticCoalition 03-Aug-2006, 12:17 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 02-Aug-2006, 06:34 PM)
Since we ALL seem to have calmed down a bit and explained our point a bit better, then I will take the time to do so also.
First, I am NOT a christian, I follow the traditional beliefs of my people. You can belive what you want, and as an American I will fight to the death for you to do so. This does not mean that I take anything you shove at me (religiously speaking) as gospel or the truth. I belive "The Big Three" to be the biggest bane to mankind that has ever come down the pike!
That being said, from my personal point of view, it is much easier to draw corelalations between my people and Hesbollah, the PLO and Hammas than it will ever be with israel (The nation and Political unit, NOT the jewish people!)
Based SOLELY on actions and attitude it is far easier to identify with them (The PLO, etc) as being the in the same situation, than it is to see israel in any sort of GOOD light, filling the role of the Whiteman. I have looked at this situation for close to 45 years and CANNOT see israel as being in the right ONCE! They have grabbed land that was not their's and then killed those who lived there for the crime of daring to object.
My reference to the invalidity of the bible still stands. It is ALL based on jewish texts, and as such, of course they are the chosen of THEIR god.
I'm sorry, but NOTHING will ever convince me that israel is right and those who oppose them are wrong. You see, I'm culturally conditioned to reject their argument.

But we COULD all still have a beer_mug.gif !


beer_mug.gif

I have heard that the jewish people originated in this area and were driven off by the romans. I don't know if this is just a bible story or accurte history...but I beleive it is accurate history.

In that case, would Israel be a case of the white man taking land from native tribes...or would it be more like the native tribes reclaiming their land from the white man?

Posted by: SCShamrock 03-Aug-2006, 12:56 PM
Ok, I know I'm posting again, but I wanted to share this in case it slipped by anyone.

QUOTE
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel, Iranian state media reported.

In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders in Malaysia, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate cease-fire to end the fighting between Israel and the Iranian-back group Hezbollah.

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," Ahmadinejad said, according to state-run television in a report posted on its Web site.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746081.html

This kind of rhetoric serves only to inflame the situation. Ahmadinejad knows his words are empty, as Iran has no intention to intervene.

Posted by: Emmet 03-Aug-2006, 03:40 PM
http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/


QUOTE
I have heard that the jewish people originated in this area and were driven off by the romans. I don't know if this is just a bible story or accurte history...but I beleive it is accurate history.


As I recall, according to the Bible the area was originally populated by Canaanites. God instituted the first documented case of ethnic cleansing, giving the Jews express orders to slaughter every Canannite man, woman, and child, and got quite pissed off when some of His "chosen people" secretly kept a few of the more comely Canaanite women as sex slaves.

Don't think it's really apropos to the current conflict, other than perhaps by way of explaining where some of the Israeli sense of entitlement and privilege might be derived from.



Posted by: Nova Scotian 03-Aug-2006, 05:43 PM
I have heard that the jewish people originated in this area and were driven off by the romans. I don't know if this is just a bible story or accurte history...but I beleive it is accurate history.

The Jews weren't the first ones there but they did have that land prior to the Palistinians. Palistine was never a nation. The region was so named by the Romans. The First "Israeli", Abraham, was actually from Ur which is in Iraq. Actually the proper name would have been Israelite in those times. My history might not be exact because I don't have my Bible or historical atlas handy.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 03-Aug-2006, 05:48 PM
In addition if Israel were to retreat to the origional borders of 1946. That wouldn't end ANY conflict with the Muslim extreamist. The extreamist would simply look at it as victory and continue the battle because their goal is NO ISRAEL!. They don't hate the USA because of Israel only. They hate our way of life and think it's THEM who should be the masters with all the power and money to keep all non-muslims as slaves.

Posted by: Dogshirt 03-Aug-2006, 06:46 PM
QUOTE
In addition if Israel were to retreat to the origional borders of 1946. That wouldn't end ANY conflict with the Muslim extreamist. The extreamist would simply look at it as victory and continue the battle because their goal is NO ISRAEL!.


You say that like it's a BAD thing.


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 03-Aug-2006, 06:57 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 03-Aug-2006, 07:46 PM)

You say that like it's a BAD thing.


beer_mug.gif

Did you read the WHOLE thing or only the part that you agree with. Dog, I love ya but keep wishing.

Posted by: Dogshirt 03-Aug-2006, 07:15 PM
I DID read the whole thing, but they haven't the proverbial snowballs chance! Too many armed rednecks (And some that aren't so red)!


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: haynes9 03-Aug-2006, 10:39 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 03-Aug-2006, 06:46 PM)

You say that like it's a BAD thing.

Dog, do we ever agree on anything tongue.gif ? I am as Pro-Israel as you are Anti-Israel! At least the dialog has gotten a bit more civil.

I would love to visit your part of the country someday. Feel free to give me a shout out if you ever come to Navajo country. We can munch on some serious frybread and argue over all your incorrect views laugh.gif !

Always enjoy the debate. Have a great day, Dog!

Posted by: Nova Scotian 04-Aug-2006, 04:14 AM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 03-Aug-2006, 08:15 PM)
I DID read the whole thing, but they haven't the proverbial snowballs chance! Too many armed rednecks (And some that aren't so red)!


beer_mug.gif

biggrin.gif LOLOLOL laugh.gif Down here in Florida, they say I'm a yankee but my neck is getting redder everyday thumbs_up.gif beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Dogshirt 04-Aug-2006, 04:59 AM
Sunscreen, lad! Ye've got ta use sunscreen! wink.gif


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Raven 04-Aug-2006, 06:11 AM
There are those that contend that if the Israelites had done the job like God told them to they wouldn't have the problems that they have today, as the Cananites are reputably the ancestors of the Arabs on some level. BTW I think the Biblical account says they made some of the women wives (I guess that could mean sex slave to some smile.gif) and they also spared children.

If the arguement is as I saw earlier "perhaps they just want their land back" in regard to the Palestinians and Gaza, well... maybe it was the other way around smile.gif

BTW the Biblical record of the historical trek of the Israelites is not disputed by archeological evidence, if anyone cares about that.

In other words all evidence to date confirms the accounts and none disputes. That is not to say that ever word/stop etc... has a piece of archaological evidence to support it, but what there is does.

Really when you get down to the displacement deal it is the history of mankind. Even the native Americans were displaced from time to time by other natives, although never on the scale that happened with the Euro invasion, given time who knows how that all would have played out.

I personally feel that if someone had sworn to erradicate my race from the Earth, I would do everything in my power to stop it, and ..... I think anyone else in this discussion would do the same.

my 2 pence

Mikel

Posted by: Emmet 04-Aug-2006, 06:20 AM
QUOTE
In addition if Israel were to retreat to the origional borders of 1946. That wouldn't end ANY conflict with the Muslim extreamist. The extreamist would simply look at it as victory and continue the battle because their goal is NO ISRAEL!. They don't hate the USA because of Israel only. They hate our way of life and think it's THEM who should be the masters with all the power and money to keep all non-muslims as slaves. 


Wow; that's so floridly non-reality based that it's really hard to respond. However, you do get points for limiting your hysteria to "extreamist" instead of all Muslims as in your previous posts; down to a few hundred thousand from 1.6 billion. While certainly there will always be a few wingnuts, both Arab and Israeli, who will resist any peace proposal, all major Arab players have agreed in principle to formally recognize Israel's right to exist, respect her borders, accept foreign peacekeepers, and formally declare the Arab-Israeli conflict over. It's Israel, not her Arab neighbors, who adamantly refuses to sit down at the table, and the United States that enables them to do so.
Besides our unprovoked attack and brutal occupation of Iraq, Muslims are pissed at the United States because we finance Israel's periodic temper tantrums and run interference for them in the Security Council (of course, our idiot king's pompous declarations of "crusade" didn't win many friends over there, either).
Our policies have done nothing but kill and maim and impoverish hundreds of thousands of Muslims, engendering the well-deserved hatred and hunger for revenge that breeds "extreamist". A "Global War on Terror" that does nothing but kill innocent civilians while generating legions of recruits for Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Al Queda simply doesn't appear to me to be a very workable strategy for success.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 04-Aug-2006, 05:59 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 04-Aug-2006, 05:59 AM)
Sunscreen, lad! Ye've got ta use sunscreen! wink.gif


beer_mug.gif

True biggrin.gif

Posted by: Emmet 06-Aug-2006, 07:28 AM
"The Bush administration and an overwhelming bipartisan majority of Congress have gone on record defending Israel's assault on Lebanon's civilian infrastructure as a means of attacking Hezbollah “terrorists.” Unlike the major Palestinian Islamist groups, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah forces haven't killed any Israeli civilians for more than a decade. Indeed, a 2002 Congressional Research Service report noted, in its analysis of Hezbollah, that “no major terrorist attacks have been attributed to it since 1994.”

While Hezbollah's ongoing rocket attacks on civilian targets in Israel are indeed illegitimate and can certainly be considered acts of terrorism, it is important to note that such attacks were launched only after the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on civilian targets in Lebanon began July 12. Similarly, Hezbollah has pledged to cease such attacks once Israel stops its attacks against Lebanon and withdraws its troops from Lebanese territory occupied since the onset of the latest round of hostilities. (The Hezbollah attack on the Israeli border post that prompted the Israeli assaults, while clearly illegitimate and provocative, can not legally be considered a terrorist attack since the targets were military rather than civilian.)

Indeed, the evolution of this Lebanese Shiite movement from a terrorist group to a legal political party had been one of the more interesting and hopeful developments in the Middle East in recent years...In Lebanese parliamentary elections earlier last year, Hezbollah ended up with fourteen seats outright in the 128-member national assembly...Hezbollah controls one ministry in the 24-member cabinet. While failing to disarm as required under UN Security Council resolution 1559, Hezbollah was negotiating with the Lebanese government and other interested Lebanese parties, leading to hopes that the party's military wing would be disbanded within a few months. Prior to calling up reserves following the Israeli assault, Hezbollah could probably count on no more than a thousand active-duty militiamen.

In other words,whatever one might think of Hezbollah's reactionary ideology and its sordid history, the group did not constitute such a serious threat to Israel's security as to legitimate a pre-emptive war.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3412


Posted by: Nova Scotian 06-Aug-2006, 12:20 PM
Lets just keep apeasing Hesbula and groups like them and we'll see what happens.

Posted by: Emmet 07-Aug-2006, 05:37 AM
Calling upon Israel to abide by international law is hardly appeasement.

Posted by: Emmet 07-Aug-2006, 06:43 AM
"Mothers of Israel, Lebanon and Palestine: How many more graves until we shout stop? How much collective mourning until we shout stop? Let us look into each other's eyes and recognize each other's pain with empathy; let us see the human being behind the green and the blue. Let us force all to come to the table and not to a grave to talk. How many more of our children need to die before we realize there is no revenge for a lost child? We cannot let them take our children away without a word. Where is our voice in all this madness?"

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746313.html


Posted by: Emmet 07-Aug-2006, 08:36 AM
Israel's whole casus belli in Lebanon revolves around the "abduction" of two IDF soldiers on Israeli territory during a cross-border raid by Hezbollah, thereby making the Israeli attack on Lebanon defensive in nature; a spur-of-the-moment rescue operation to free their two soldiers.

“The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon." AP, 7/12/06

“The two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aitaa al-Chaab, near to the border with Israel, where an Israeli unit had penetrated” Agence France Presse, 7/12/06

"In a deliberated way, [Israel] sent a commando in the Lebanese back-country to Aitaa al-Chaab. It was attacked by Hezbollah, taking two prisoners." www.VoltaireNet.org, 7/12/06

MSNBC online first reported that Hezbollah had captured Israeli soldiers "inside" Lebanon, only to change their story hours later after the Israeli government gave an official statement to the contrary.

"The Lebanese Shi'ite Hezbollah movement announced on Wednesday that its guerrillas have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. The two soldiers were captured as they "infiltrated" into the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border." Hindustan Times, 7/12/06

"The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon" Forbes, 7/12/06

"It all started on July 12 when Israel troops were ambushed on Lebanon's side of the border with Israel." Asia Times, 7/15/06

"For its publication of the true story the two soldiers were on an IDF mission and captured inside Lebanon near the town of Aitaa al-Chaab. The IDF instructed the press to use the term "abducted" instead of "captured". Our refusal to do so, has led to revocation of the accreditation of our journalist Silvia Cattori in Israel." Oui, 7/22/06

user posted image

"Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared," said Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University. "In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal, when it became clear the international community was not going to prevent Hezbollah from stockpiling missiles and attacking Israel. By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board." Matthew Kalman, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/MIDEAST.TMP, July 21, 2006

IT'S ALL BEEN A LIE!

Posted by: Raven 07-Aug-2006, 09:43 AM
My memory of events is a little different than Emmett's (admittedly my Short term memory is not what it once was wink.gif ) but given the misquoting/out of context qoutin of my own personal posts (not to mention remembering it a bit differently) I could not just take his timeline of recent events at face value.

In fact he is correct while misleading at the same time. Hezbollah did not start off with rockets but with Shelling as is indicated in the following article and every other internet cronology of events from many legitimate news sources. This was how I remembered the events taking place before Israel began air strikes. Emmett has repeated stated that Israel drew first blood.

I.E. on page 19 of this thread
in response to a portion of my post that read
QUOTE
I know one side launched missiles at the other with the intent of killing anyone they could. (abeit ineffectively but not for lack of desire)



Emmett responded
QUOTE
Israel launched air attacks against Lebanon first. Still, I'm not sure of the value of chicken-or-the-egg arguments at this point.


The following article form which this excerpt is taken can be found in it's entirety at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict


QUOTE

Triggered by a cross-border Hezbollah raid and shelling across the Blue Line into Israel, which resulted in the capture of two and killing of three Israeli soldiers, Israel retaliated with an air and naval blockade of Lebanon, massive airstrikes across the whole country, and ground incursions into southern Lebanon [16]. Hezbollah in turn immediately responded with large-scale rocket attacks into Northern Israel [17].



I found this article by the History Guy that made me realize why I thought rockets were involved. Again the complete article can be found at http://www.historyguy.com/israel-lebanon_war_2006.html

QUOTE
Hezbollah launched "Operation True Promise" at 9:05 AM, on July 12, 2006. The operation began with a diversionary attack of rockets and mortar shells fired at Israeli settlements and military posts near the Israel-Lebanon border. Hezbollah troops then entered Israel, attacked two armored Israeli Humvees, patrolling the border village of Zar'it, with rocket propelled grenades, killing three soldiers and capturing two others. The Hezbollah force then retreated back into Lebanon with their captives, later identified as Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev.


Here is a quote from the CNN timeline. It seems the only one denying the launch of rockets first by Hezzbollah is Emmett. You can access this timeline off of this page http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/mideast_conflict

QUOTE
Hezbollah fires a pair of rockets into northern Israel from southern Lebanon, and guerrillas capture two Israeli soldiers during an attack along the Lebanese border between the Israeli towns of Zar'it and Shtula. Eight Israeli soldiers also die in fighting that day. In response, Israeli ground, air and naval forces attack at least eight Hezbollah bases and five bridges in southern Lebanon.


I would wait a little longer before I put this stance out again Emmett as it will become increasing difficult to document what the order of operations was, the further away that we get wink.gif

Again in the interest of your own credibility, I would suggest not rewriting history that can be so easily documented.

Cheers

Mikel




Posted by: stoirmeil 07-Aug-2006, 11:06 AM
It doesn't seem like it's all that easy to document, though, does it? Emmet is citing a number of sources here, some American and some not, which to my mind is an important distinction. As does the accuracy of the report of exactly where those two soldiers were picked up. There's a big difference between "kidnapping" and "capturing inside enemy territory". The conflicting reports you are posting between you have them either inside Lebanon or between two towns just over into Israel, the three spots making a very tight little triangle. I've got to look at this more carefully before deciding for myself, but I find it very plausible that the Israeli patrol was on the other side.


It looks more and more to me like this is a confrontation that both sides have been aware was coming and have been preparing for. The kidnapping/capture is an initiating event or "spark", but this was fully loaded and even cocked beforehand. What is making it necessary to go through this dance of negotiations, pseudo-cease-fires, comparative casualty counts and all the rest, is the rest of the world watching and lobbing in condemnations and approvals. Neither side has any high opinion of its being any of our business, but both will take any advantage they can get from the content of world uproar, since it is unavoidable.

Of coure, I'm not saying that it isn't our business. Everything that has potential to negatively affect territories or populations, inside or outside any group's national boundaries, in any way, is everybody's business. No effects are contained in such a way as not to affect anyone else, and never will be again. Some of the world is knuckling under to that reality faster than others. Islamic fundamentalist factions are notoriously reactionary about this new world order, but you can't say in honesty that either America or Israel are making any speed records on it.

Posted by: Emmet 07-Aug-2006, 11:34 AM
Oh, so it's only me, isolated and all alone, hallucinating all of those citations from Associated Press, MSNBC, Forbes, and the San Francisco Chronicle in the U.S., Agence France Presse, VoltaireNet, and Oui in France, Deutsche Presse Agentur GmbH in Germany, Hindustan Times in India...nice try. Simply because the dutiful White House stenographers of the mainstream American media regurgitate IDF press releases verbatim doesn't necessarily make them true. As for allegedly misquoting you, I think your original posts speak volumes on their own to anyone with half a brain. Please do try to come up with something a bit more thoughtful to bring to the discussion than simply smirking and calling me a liar.


Posted by: Emmet 07-Aug-2006, 11:57 AM
QUOTE
Of course, I'm not saying that it isn't our business. Everything that has potential to negatively affect territories or populations, inside or outside any group's national boundaries, in any way, is everybody's business. No effects are contained in such a way as not to affect anyone else, and never will be again.


In addition to Donne's maxim, I would point out that this atrocity is being executed with weapons supplied by us, financed by us, cheerleaded by us, and under the protection of a guaranteed veto in the Security Council compliments of us. Around 11 billion dollars a year should give us some sense of shared responsibility and co-ownership of the actions and their consequences; it sure as hell hasn't gone unnoticed among the rest of the world.

Incidentally, if the allegations that the Israeli soldiers were legitimately captured inside Lebanon are true, that would make all arms sales and resupply efforts to Israel illegal under the Arms Export Control Act (22 USCS § 2778). If the U.S. knew about it and violated U.S. law anyway, the Bush administration has made America equally complicit in the crimes against humanity now being perpetrated by Israel.



Posted by: stoirmeil 07-Aug-2006, 12:17 PM
Another random fact makes me think this was anticipated and not a spur of the moment rescue mission: Hezbollah has gotten hold of some very powerful, very effective anti-tank missiles (from whom, I wonder? I doubt very much it's home manufacturing) that can actually penetrate and destroy one of the Israeli Merkava tanks. Those tanks are like a walled fortress on wheels; they are designed to be extremely troop-protective. It makes me wonder whether, combined with the known fact that lower Lebanon is very difficult terrain for ground troops, the initial decision was a mini-shock-and-awe campaign, again prepared beforehand and waiting for a trigger. I have no doubt Israeli intelligence would have picked up that these anti-tank missiles were being brought in.

Posted by: Raven 07-Aug-2006, 12:19 PM
How do you know that I am smirking Emmett?(you must have some sort of internet spy system of your own wink.gif - which BTW is also inaccurate) If we had a smirking smiley you would not have seen it on any of my posts.

I never called you a liar, I am not in the habit of calling other people on this board names.

Because someone has a slanted viewpoint and trys to make a case by pulling comments out of context (different than misquoting) does not make them a liar, just not a credible source in my book. YOu will notice that I would like to see credible posts from you, and as I have stated before.......

***Even if I agreed with you Emmett, I would have problems with material that you use to support your case, due to this total disregard that you have for context of quotes and information****

Now that the argument over who fired missiles first is in the garbage, we go to where the soldiers were acquired. I can see why that could come into question and why in the beginning the information might even be contradictory, but again you history in the mishandling of quotes by me makes me question the accuracy of what you presented above my previous post (which by the way I was preparing while you were posting so even though chronologically is comes after, it is no way to be construed as a response) I take issue with a number of thoughts presented in that post as well, but I won't confuse the issue with my viewpoint, history and sources since you obviously don't care about all of that.

As far as your misquoting/out of context quoting me, allow me to make that more clear to you what I am talking about. YOu see the 2 amount to the same thing to me as either is altering the intent of what I actually said. Sorry if that generated any confusion.

For example - the following is only an example of how important context is to quoting
Emmett wrote
QUOTE
allegations that the Israeli soldiers were legitimately captured inside Lebanon are true

so even you admit this??

The previous is only an example of a misquote/out of context quote and why I view them as the same thing.

BTW I do think my posts speak what I really mean by themselves. Thank you so much for noticing smile.gif (smiley not a smirk)

This is indeed a difficult thing to research the farther we get from the actual events. I never said the sources were not good, only the way they have been used. Now that some time has elapsed it is a bit more difficult to see what each of the cited agencies actually said as they are of course on to the latest thing and a few weeks ago is ancient history.

Finally don't think that I don't think that I can learn anything from you Emmett. As a result of this exchange, I have figured out how to break out mulitple quotes and am paying more attention to the spell checker.

I got nothing but mad love for you Emmett!

Mikel




Posted by: stoirmeil 07-Aug-2006, 02:11 PM
Jeez, you guys. If I didn't know this was really an outbreak of peace between you, I'd say we should get Condie in here while she's on hold and see what she can do with you. tongue.gif


QUOTE (Emmet @ 07-Aug-2006, 12:57 PM)

In addition to Donne's maxim . . .

I hold by Donne's maxim, for what it is. smile.gif Ever read the whole passage, not just the ringing part? http://www.incompetech.com/authors/donne/bell.html

But I'm talking about much more concrete interdependence, mostly economic and environmental.
Take a look here, for example:
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/08/07/you_cant_drink_mud_and_salt_hydropolitics_and_the_invasion_of_lebanon.php

OK -- this is from The Scotsman as a kind of tongue in cheek to all us celtic types -- but it's all around the web today. Do you think this is the next massive headache, either as a crowbar to force "better" UN plan conditions for Hizbollah, or to actually provoke an Israeli response? Syria isn't Lebanon. They'd have an all-out regional engagement if Israel attacked Syria.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1141692006

Posted by: Raven 07-Aug-2006, 03:04 PM
beer_mug.gif beer_mug.gif beer_mug.gif beer_mug.gif wink.gif

Mikel

Posted by: Emmet 07-Aug-2006, 03:56 PM
QUOTE
I hold by Donne's maxim, for what it is.  Ever read the whole passage, not just the ringing part?    http://www.incompetech.com/authors/donne/bell.html


Yes, "for what it is". One of many reasons I think that shallow plastic patriotism and rabid nationalism are highly dubious luxuries humanity simply can no longer afford in the modern world. Focusing upon our commonalities rather than our differences is increasingly becoming quite literally a matter of survival.

QUOTE
But I'm talking about much more concrete interdependence, mostly economic and environmental.
Take a look here, for example:
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/08/07/you_ca..._of_lebanon.php


Great article. Provides a much more plausible scenario than Israel's pious claims of self-defense. On numerous occasions I've read of Israel's capping of Palestinian wells, and I recall once reading that they'd run a pipeline from the Litani River during their last occupation of Southern Lebanon. I'll have to look for some citations.

QUOTE
Do you think this is the next massive headache, either as a crowbar to force "better" UN plan conditions for Hizbollah, or to actually provoke an Israeli response? Syria isn't Lebanon. They'd have an all-out regional engagement if Israel attacked Syria.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/internatio...m?id=1141692006


Personally, I think it's false bravado; Assad bellicosely standing on the border rattling his rusty, old, Soviet-era saber in hopes of dissuading Israel from attacking Syria (Syria's military certainly isn't much of a deterrent).

However, I'm not at all sure that "an all-out regional engagement" isn't precisely what Bush has been hoping for all along. Many of the neo-Fascist lunatic fringe that manipulate our idiot king's marionette strings have been militating for attacking Syria and/or Iran ever since the first American boots hit Iraq, and their rabid talking heads on the talk shows have been enthusiastically frothing at the mouth about "World War III" ever since Israel dropped the first bomb. It fits with their imperialistic plot for a "New American Century", dovetails perfectly with the American Taliban's bloody-minded eschatology, would mean massive profits for their patrician war-profiteer oligarch patrons, and grabs the headlines while relegating their colossal failures, crimes, and betrayals both domestically and internationally to the back pages, while hopefully rallying enough semi-literate jingoes and frightened dimwits to carry them through the fall elections (or at least provide a plausible enough fiction for the co-opted commentators of the corporate-controlled mainstream media to explain why once again all of the the exit polls were so very, very wrong).


Posted by: stoirmeil 07-Aug-2006, 04:34 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 07-Aug-2006, 04:56 PM)

Yes, "for what it is". One of many reasons I think that shallow plastic patriotism and rabid nationalism are highly dubious luxuries humanity simply can no longer afford in the modern world. Focusing upon our commonalities rather than our differences is increasingly becoming quite literally a matter of survival.


You bring me back to a project I abandoned many years ago, that's due for resurrection, it would seem. It was a broad historical and social comparison of national anthems, both for words and the subjective character of the music. (I was a music student at the time, and the instructor thought the musical analysis was too subjective to be useful, and the whole project not enough about music per se. He also thought I wasn't old enough to write the book he thought it would take, and that may have been fair. I'm not so easily tyrannized by teachers these days.)

Your last paragraph does bring me up short. I have been wondering why the first pass with Auntie Condie fell so flat, with the administration subsequently dallying about immediate cease-fires, and why they have come up with the preposterous idea of leaving Israeli military in Lebanon (what the hell for? Peacekeeping? Maybe training their legitimate army? Build a few schools and hospitals?) in this cease-fire packet being put together now? I know the area will need policing for quite a while, but by one of the warring forces? The message is so insulting I can't see how the Arab world could take it: Israel is our boy in the region, and that's where your policing is going to come from.

On the wider scale, do they have any idea what they would be setting loose by encouraging a regional escalation? You would think the crap that came loose and started rolling around in flaming balls in Iraq would be an immediate object lesson.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 08-Aug-2006, 02:45 PM
If anyone wants to read something very interesting but at the same time frightning, read the new thread I just started. I've been critized for being anti-muslim. I DON'T hate muslims. But what I've been trying to convey and what Israel knows is explained on that thread.

Posted by: SCShamrock 09-Aug-2006, 09:07 AM
I wanted to post this somewhere, and this seemed as good a place as any. From
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1680477/posts:

QUOTE
1. ISRAEL BECAME A STATE IN 1312 B.C., TWO MILLENNIA BEFORE ISLAM;

    2. ARAB REFUGEES FROM ISRAEL BEGAN CALLING THEMSELVES "PALESTINIANS" IN 1967, TWO DECADES AFTER (MODERN) ISRAELI STATEHOOD;

    3. AFTER CONQUERING THE LAND IN 1272 B.C., JEWS RULED IT FOR A THOUSAND YEARS AND MAINTAINED A CONTINUOUS PRESENCE THERE FOR 3,300 YEARS;

    4. THE ONLY ARAB RULE FOLLOWING CONQUEST IN 633 A.D. LASTED JUST 22 YEARS;

    5. FOR OVER 3,300 YEARS, JERUSALEM WAS THE JEWISH CAPITAL. IT WAS NEVER THE CAPITAL OF ANY ARAB OR MUSLIM ENTITY. EVEN UNDER JORDANIAN RULE, (EAST) JERUSALEM WAS NOT MADE THE CAPITAL, AND NO ARAB LEADER CAME TO VISIT IT;

    6. JERUSALEM IS MENTIONED OVER 700 TIMES IN THE BIBLE, BUT NOT ONCE IS IT MENTIONED IN THE QUR'AN;

    7. KING DAVID FOUNDED JERUSALEM; MOHAMMED NEVER SET FOOT IN IT;

    8. JEWS PRAY FACING JERUSALEM; MUSLIMS FACE MECCA. IF THEY ARE BETWEEN THE TWO CITIES, MUSLIMS PRAY FACING MECCA, WITH THEIR BACKS TO JERUSALEM;

    9. IN 1948, ARAB LEADERS URGED THEIR PEOPLE TO LEAVE, PROMISING TO CLEANSE THE LAND OF JEWISH PRESENCE. 68% OF THEM FLED WITHOUT EVER SETTING EYES ON AN ISRAELI SOLDIER;

    10. VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE JEWISH POPULATION OF MUSLIM COUNTRIES HAD TO FLEE AS THE RESULT OF VIOLENCE AND POGROMS;

    11. SOME 630,000 ARABS LEFT ISRAEL IN 1948, WHILE CLOSE TO A MILLION JEWS WERE FORCED TO LEAVE THE MUSLIM COUNTRIES;

    12. IN SPITE OF THE VAST TERRITORIES AT THEIR DISPOSAL, ARAB REFUGEES WERE DELIBERATELY PREVENTED FROM ASSIMILATING INTO THEIR HOST COUNTRIES. OF 100 MILLION REFUGEES FOLLOWING WORLD WAR 2, THEY ARE THE ONLY GROUP TO HAVE NEVER INTEGRATED WITH THEIR CORELIGIONISTS. MOST OF THE JEWISH REFUGEES FROM EUROPE AND ARAB LANDS WERE SETTLED IN ISRAEL, A COUNTRY NO LARGER THAN NEW JERSEY;

    13. THERE ARE 22 MUSLIM COUNTRIES, NOT COUNTING PALESTINE. THERE IS ONLY ONE JEWISH STATE. ARABS STARTED ALL FIVE WARS AGAINST ISRAEL, AND LOST EVERY ONE OF THEM;

    14. FATAH AND HAMAS CONSTITUTIONS STILL CALL FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL. ISRAEL CEDED MOST OF THE WEST BANK AND ALL OF GAZA TO THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, AND EVEN PROVIDED IT WITH ARMS;

    15. DURING THE JORDANIAN OCCUPATION, JEWISH HOLY SITES WERE VANDALIZED AND WERE OFF LIMITS TO JEWS. UNDER ISRAELI RULE, ALL MUSLIM AND CHRISTIAN HOLY SITES ARE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL FAITHS;

    16. OUT OF 175 UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS UP TO 1990, 97 WERE AGAINST ISRAEL; OUT OF 690 GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS, 429 WERE AGAINST ISRAEL;

    17. THE U.N. WAS SILENT WHEN THE JORDANIANS DESTROYED 58 SYNAGOGUES IN THE OLD CITY OF JERUSALEM. IT REMAINED SILENT WHILE JORDAN SYSTEMATICALLY DESECRATED THE ANCIENT JEWISH CEMETERY ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES, AND IT REMAINED SILENT WHEN JORDAN ENFORCED APARTHEID LAWS PREVENTING JEWS FROM ACCESSING THE TEMPLE MOUNT AND WESTERN WALL.


Posted by: stoirmeil 09-Aug-2006, 11:01 AM
This seems to be a list that demonstrates it as self evident that Jews have a much greater right or claim to the land than Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular. I think it has to be taken apart item by item, since some of the items are geopolitical and historical, and others are virtually irrelevant, like what direction people pray in, yet they are all mixed together as if they are of equal significance, to make up a list that comes at the reader like an avalanche.

Notably, the Roman period is not mentioned, except obliquely in the following:
". . . AFTER CONQUERING THE LAND IN 1272 B.C., JEWS RULED IT FOR A THOUSAND YEARS AND MAINTAINED A CONTINUOUS PRESENCE THERE FOR 3,300 YEARS . . . "

The Israelites took Canaan (ruthlessly -- as both the biblical and archaeological records show) and held onto it for 1000 years through a succession of increasingly weak and corrupt rulers, as well as a few exiles (also very plain in the biblical record), until Rome conquered and occupied the land, and finally in 72 CE executed or expelled all the religious and civic leaders and intelligentsia, leaving Jewish peasants on the land as being of no consequence and not likely to lead any further uprisings; and indeed, those who were left on the land did not succeed in retaking it, nor ever indeed attempt to in any meanigful way, for almost two more millenia, until the Zionist influx from Europe that didn't really heat up to anything practical until after the assassination of the Russian Tzar in 1881 or so.

It's not clear how much of the Palestinian population is directly and purely descended from Canaanites; but the Jews have not been ethnically pure in all that time either. European Jewry, who were the driving force in retaking that piece of turf, are mixed all over the place with every stock from Spain to Siberia, and are no more pure descendants of the Israelites than modern Palestinians are of the indigenous Canaanites.

All this is merely to illustrate that the Jews have no more right by mere force of historical occupancy or direct descent than the people they conquered, killed and expelled earlier. I think you have to debate the situation now, in the 21st century, in some other terms. (I've already made my point about the relative cogency of religious argument and ownership by divine right.) I think the State of Israel is crucially important in that region and needs to survive, but the justification has to be in the here and now, and justification for ruthless behaviour and lack of international cooperation is not to be found in the historical record.

Posted by: Raven 09-Aug-2006, 11:21 AM
QUOTE
This seems to be a list that demonstrates it as self evident that Jews have a much greater right or claim to the land than Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular. I think it has to be taken apart item by item, since some of the items are geopolitical and historical, and others are virtually irrelevant, like what direction people pray in, yet they are all mixed together as if they are of equal significance, to make up a list that comes at the reader like an avalanche.


Being the devil's advocate (so to speak tongue.gif ) I look at this post and see not that the Israelies have more claim to the land but that they have just as much claim as the Arabs.

As far as religeous significance (i.e. which way people face to pray and what they call Holy) That can not be discounted as it is part of the dispute (i.e. part of why each group feels they have a right to be there) at least in the Israelie eyes and the Muslim eyes too. (maybe not quite the same type of reasoning, but at least on some level)

Slainte

Mikel

Posted by: stoirmeil 09-Aug-2006, 11:41 AM
QUOTE (Raven @ 09-Aug-2006, 12:21 PM)

Being the devil's advocate (so to speak  tongue.gif ) I look at this post and see not that the Israelies have more claim to the land but that they have just as much claim as the Arabs.

As far as religeous significance (i.e. which way people face to pray and what they call Holy)  That can not be discounted as it is part of the dispute (i.e. part of why each group feels they have a right to be there) at least in the Israelie eyes and the Muslim eyes too. (maybe not quite the same type of reasoning, but at least on some level)

Slainte

Mikel

Equal claim I'll grant you readily, but that's not what the fundamentalist forces on either side want to take the time and sweat to work out. And they must -- there is no other way -- if for no other reason than figuring out how to collectively preserve their ecology and water supply, which is dying very rapidly, and they'll all have to leave if they can't save it.

The religious elements are certainly part of the debate, but the weight of it driving the conflict, in the here and now, is still likely to be more geopolitical and economic. The leaders on both sides, I believe, are mostly cynical (again, except for the fundamentalist elements, and again, on both sides) and use the religious arguments pretty cold bloodedly to whip up sentiment and drive the fighting spirit. Arabs do this a lot more than Israelis, by the way -- Israelis have American evangelical types to do that for them, if they need it (which is debatable). Israeli Orthdox in the debatable territories are another story, and the Israeli government and moderate population at large would frequently like to see them all expelled.

I also think, as I've said before, that the evangelical cohort in this country loudly crying out the biblical justifications for Israel's behaviour in this conflict is a pain in the butt, complicates the situation and makes it hugely harder for the Israelis to function in their own cause (and as I've said, many of them think so too), and Americans should back off that kind of commentary. My opinion, but bigtime not ONLY my opinion.

Posted by: Raven 09-Aug-2006, 12:41 PM
If I have not made it clear in the past, let me make it clear now.

I do not believe that the Israelies are justified in any agression for Biblical reasons.

On the other hand depending on what account you believe of order and location of events. (which I don't believe at this late date any solid evidence can be presented either way - I tend to believe the popular media version partially because of the Rad Mus sworn to exterminate Israel etc... thing) I can totally understand the Israelie response in every single modern conflict in the region. (and I have been alive for all of them real time so I have that memory of events as well as historical accounts which match up with how I remember them)

It really comes down to who you believe (i.e. which news agency - I don't really see them in conflict appart from those with political/religeous agendas) also the fact that the story may change relatively close to the events can be an indication of cover up or not. This is not a conclusion that I myself would readily jump to without good evidence to support it. (it's not like the media and various govts have not covered up things in the past:))

Good talk smile.gif

Mikel


Posted by: stoirmeil 09-Aug-2006, 01:21 PM
QUOTE (Raven @ 09-Aug-2006, 01:41 PM)
It really comes down to who you believe (i.e. which news agency - I don't really see them in conflict appart from those with political/religeous agendas) . . .

I think the problem is that with regard to press and news media in the US, as polarized politically as WE have become, this means virtually everybody. sad.gif
Reportage about this conflict (and slanting of it) is even getting me off my kibble about NPR, which I like and have always fairly trusted for even-handed news coverage and analysis. You can really hear the disparities when the Washington-generated NPR programs and the BBC programs, both of which are carried on my public radio station, play back to back. It's quite disorienting sometimes.

Posted by: Raven 09-Aug-2006, 02:30 PM
I totally understand that and I personally generally prefer to listen to/watch the BBC. smile.gif

Posted by: SCShamrock 11-Aug-2006, 10:08 AM
I am late to participate in your exchange Mikel and Lynn. I agree Lynn, the part of the list about which direction someone is praying, well that is only pertinent to religious leaders of the region, and perhaps some of the more rabid military officers. As far as your furthering the history lesson goes, I thank you for your efforts, but am also in agreement. The "who, what, when, where, why" of it all, when speaking about history going back that far, should be of little consequence to the current conflicts, operation of governments, or friend/enemy status of any party involved.

Mikel, it is good to see the tone change in this thread. The reason I posted this latest clipping was not in an attempt to say "neener neener, Israel was there first", but rather to help cool some of the acrid speech coming from some of our members that frankly, hate Israel, and do not wish her to remain a sovereign nation. That line of reasoning hasn't helped quell the violence or the tempers of those in that region, and there is no reason to believe it will be any more useful here.

Posted by: Emmet 12-Aug-2006, 07:08 AM
QUOTE
...some of our members that frankly, hate Israel, and do not wish her to remain a sovereign nation.


I certainly hope you aren't referring to me, as those conclusions can't be supported by referencing any of my (or as near as I can tell, anyone else's) posts in this thread.

As for your list, much of it is irrelevant, and much of it in error, from a proudly militaristic far-right-wing web site with no supporting citations.

In other news...
America is expediting the delivery of our own version of the Katyusha to Israel; the M26 rocket. It's the primary ammunition for the M270 MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System). Each of the 12 unguided M26 rockets carries 644 M77 DPICM submunitions ( Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions; cluster bombs).
During much of the 1980’s, the United States maintained a moratorium on selling cluster munitions to Israel, following disclosures that civilians in Lebanon had been killed with the weapons during the 1982 Israeli invasion. Israel has been using cluster bombs; M483A1 DPICM 155mm shells, against civilian targets during their current invasion of Lebanon as well; including their artillery attack on the Lebanese village of Blida on July 19th and unknown Lebanese targets on the 23rd. Human Rights Watch and other groups have campaigned for the elimination of cluster munitions, noting that even if civilians are not present when the weapons is used, some submunitions that do not detonate on impact (around 14%) later injure or kill civilians indescriminately, not unlike ramdomly scattered land mines.
The M26 "is a particularly deadly weapon," Bonnie Docherty, a researcher with Human Rights Watch, who helped write a study of the United States’ use of the weapons in the 2003 Iraq invasion. "They were used widely by U.S. forces in Iraq and caused hundreds of civilian casualties."

State Department officials "are discussing whether or not there needs to be a block on this sale because of the past history and because of the current circumstances,'' but added that it was likely that Israel will get the rockets, but will be told to "be careful.'' Anyone who reads the papers knows how historically "careful" Israel has been to avoid civilian casualties in Lenbanon and Gaza.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-mideast-israel-rockets.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/24/isrlpa13798.htm


Posted by: SCShamrock 12-Aug-2006, 09:01 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 12-Aug-2006, 08:08 AM)

I certainly hope you aren't referring to me, as those conclusions can't be supported by referencing any of my (or as near as I can tell, anyone else's) posts in this thread.

As for your list, much of it is irrelevant, and much of it in error, from a proudly militaristic far-right-wing web site with no supporting citations.

Since I didn't mention any names, you have no reason to feel singled out. Are you trying to prove the idiom that "a kicked dog yelps?"

As for your statement that "...much of it is irrelevant, and much of it is in error..." I will only cede the latter point once you have corrected the information and I have learned that said corrections are, in fact, correct.

You always seem to impugn any source you find in disagreement with your own views. Ok, fine. I knew the Free Republic article would raise someone's ire. However, you post things from sources that many people, even some more liberal than yourself, have problems accepting. The New York Times is not a source I have great difficulty with, although I do feel they have a strong liberal agenda. That said, posting information from HRW is bold, even from you. Here is a little editorial you might enjoy:

QUOTE
After The New York Sun ran an editorial and two op-ed pieces taking Human Rights Watch to task for anti-Israel bias, the organization's executive director, Kenneth Roth, has finally found it in himself to denounce Hezbollah for placing troops and weapons near Lebanese civilians. And to acknowledge, for the first time, that the use of ambulances by Palestinian groups to transport weapons or suicide bombers is "a clear humanitarian violation." We're tempted to congratulate Mr. Roth. Too bad it had to be wrung out of him.

Call us optimists, but we still hold out hope that Mr. Roth will abandon his view, expressed in a letter to the editor printed in the adjacent column, that the Israeli government defending itself from Islamist terrorist aggression is engaged in "extremist interpretations of religious doctrine" like the terrorists themselves. Maybe in his next letter to us he'll finally concede, too, that, as widely reported, the Iranian military is in Lebanon. Maybe he'll concede that the fact that Hezbollah was not "in sight" is no evidence they were not there. Until then, Mr. Roth and his donors, staff, and board of directors should be aware that the American Jewish community recognizes with full clarity what Mr. Roth and Human Rights Watch are up to. It is unmistakable.

The three main religious movements of American Jewry — Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform — agree, for once. A spokesman for the Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox group, Rabbi Avi Shafran, called Mr. Roth's statements "loathsome" and likened him to Mel Gibson, the actor who, unlike Mr. Roth, at least had the decency to apologize for his outburst. The executive vice president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Rabbi Jerome Epstein, said the position of Mr. Roth and Human Rights Watch is "so biased and outrageous it is hard to take it seriously." The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, said Mr. Roth deployed "a classic anti-Semitic stereotype," and said Human Rights Watch is "irrelevant or immoral." A spokesman for the Union for Reform Judaism, Emily Grotta, said, "Abe Foxman has been speaking out about this recently and we agree with what he has been saying."


http://www.nysun.com/article/37473

Did you want to get into a battle over "who was there first", or were you just acting in your normal "I'm better than you" m.o. when you made your trite little statements?

Posted by: Nova Scotian 13-Aug-2006, 06:43 AM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 12-Aug-2006, 10:01 PM)
QUOTE (Emmet @ 12-Aug-2006, 08:08 AM)

I certainly hope you aren't referring to me, as those conclusions can't be supported by referencing any of my (or as near as I can tell, anyone else's) posts in this thread.

As for your list, much of it is irrelevant, and much of it in error, from a proudly militaristic far-right-wing web site with no supporting citations.

Since I didn't mention any names, you have no reason to feel singled out. Are you trying to prove the idiom that "a kicked dog yelps?"

As for your statement that "...much of it is irrelevant, and much of it is in error..." I will only cede the latter point once you have corrected the information and I have learned that said corrections are, in fact, correct.

You always seem to impugn any source you find in disagreement with your own views. Ok, fine. I knew the Free Republic article would raise someone's ire. However, you post things from sources that many people, even some more liberal than yourself, have problems accepting. The New York Times is not a source I have great difficulty with, although I do feel they have a strong liberal agenda. That said, posting information from HRW is bold, even from you. Here is a little editorial you might enjoy:

QUOTE
After The New York Sun ran an editorial and two op-ed pieces taking Human Rights Watch to task for anti-Israel bias, the organization's executive director, Kenneth Roth, has finally found it in himself to denounce Hezbollah for placing troops and weapons near Lebanese civilians. And to acknowledge, for the first time, that the use of ambulances by Palestinian groups to transport weapons or suicide bombers is "a clear humanitarian violation." We're tempted to congratulate Mr. Roth. Too bad it had to be wrung out of him.

Call us optimists, but we still hold out hope that Mr. Roth will abandon his view, expressed in a letter to the editor printed in the adjacent column, that the Israeli government defending itself from Islamist terrorist aggression is engaged in "extremist interpretations of religious doctrine" like the terrorists themselves. Maybe in his next letter to us he'll finally concede, too, that, as widely reported, the Iranian military is in Lebanon. Maybe he'll concede that the fact that Hezbollah was not "in sight" is no evidence they were not there. Until then, Mr. Roth and his donors, staff, and board of directors should be aware that the American Jewish community recognizes with full clarity what Mr. Roth and Human Rights Watch are up to. It is unmistakable.

The three main religious movements of American Jewry — Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform — agree, for once. A spokesman for the Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox group, Rabbi Avi Shafran, called Mr. Roth's statements "loathsome" and likened him to Mel Gibson, the actor who, unlike Mr. Roth, at least had the decency to apologize for his outburst. The executive vice president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Rabbi Jerome Epstein, said the position of Mr. Roth and Human Rights Watch is "so biased and outrageous it is hard to take it seriously." The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, said Mr. Roth deployed "a classic anti-Semitic stereotype," and said Human Rights Watch is "irrelevant or immoral." A spokesman for the Union for Reform Judaism, Emily Grotta, said, "Abe Foxman has been speaking out about this recently and we agree with what he has been saying."


http://www.nysun.com/article/37473

Did you want to get into a battle over "who was there first", or were you just acting in your normal "I'm better than you" m.o. when you made your trite little statements?

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif Way to go!

Posted by: Emmet 13-Aug-2006, 07:27 AM
QUOTE
Since I didn't mention any names, you have no reason to feel singled out. Are you trying to prove the idiom that "a kicked dog yelps?"


No; simply recognizing your proclivity to try to support your specious arguments with innuendo and ad hominem attacks.

QUOTE
As for your statement that "...much of it is irrelevant, and much of it is in error..." I will only cede the latter point once you have corrected the information and I have learned that said corrections are, in fact, correct.


Points 13, 14, and 16 display an interpretation of history which is either blatantly dishonest or shockingly ignorant of the facts. You're obviously computer literate; research them yourself. I've neither the time nor the inclination to educate or entertain fools.

QUOTE
You always seem to impugn any source you find in disagreement with your own views.


Refutation does not equate to impugning. However, I do impugn sources that are unequivocally stercus tauri.

QUOTE
you post things from sources that many people, even some more liberal than yourself, have problems accepting.


Somehow I seriously doubt that George Bush & his sycophantic Congress, Morton Klein (Zionist Organization of America), Abraham Foxman (Anti-Defamation League), Marc Stern (American Jewish Congress), or Alan Baker (Israel's ambassador to Canada), are either more Liberal than myself, or reliably unbiased on this issue.

QUOTE
The New York Times is not a source I have great difficulty with, although I do feel they have a strong liberal agenda.


Judith Miller.

QUOTE
That said, posting information from HRW is bold, even from you. Here is a little editorial you might enjoy:


Ah yes; whenever anyone utters a cross word about Zionism or questions the unrestrained barbaric behavior of Israel, simply label them anti-Semitic; that will certainly win the argument!

QUOTE
Did you want to get into a battle over "who was there first", or were you just acting in your normal "I'm better than you" m.o. when you made your trite little statements?


No, simply agreeing with others who have already pointed out that your post was largely irrelevant, added that it was also factually unreliable, and posted something else in the hopes of generating more intelligent topical debate rather than continue to focus on silly tangents.

Posted by: SCShamrock 13-Aug-2006, 12:26 PM
QUOTE
No; simply recognizing your proclivity to try to support your specious arguments with innuendo and ad hominem attacks.


And somehow supposing those might be directed at you. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! You are a living example of virtually every logical fallacy known. As for labelling anyone anti-semitic...I'm not interested in those labels as anti-semitism is nothing to me. Zionism, anti-semitism, or any other ism is and was not the issue. The issue was your boldness in using HRW as a source after impugning FR. Nice try, but I drank coffee this morning.

Silly tangent? The right to ownership of the land Israel occupies has been one of the main focuses of this thread. I know you wish to only damn Israel for having and using their overwhelming force, but whether or not Israel has a right to secure their continued sovereignty is a valid topic to discuss. One of the arguments from those condemning Israel is that they have no right to occupy the land in the first place. I would be glad to debate this with you or anyone else, and anyone can use any source they choose. I think it lends far more credibility to the discussion to examine the motives behind the enemies of Israel than to simply condemn them for bombing residences as you and others have.

Here, since you do not wish to refute anything from the Free Republic quote, I'll provide another snippet from a site you will find equally stercus tauri. From World Net Daily's Arab-American Editor and CEO, Joseph Farah:



QUOTE
The truth is that Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. The first time the name was used was in 70 A.D. when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple and declared the land of Israel would be no more. From then on, the Romans promised, it would be known as Palestine. The name was derived from the Philistines, a Goliathian people conquered by the Jews centuries earlier. It was a way for the Romans to add insult to injury. They also tried to change the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, but that had even less staying power. 

Palestine has never existed -- before or since -- as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland. 

There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.


Try attacking the substance this time, and not the source.

Posted by: Emmet 13-Aug-2006, 12:40 PM
Culled from another thread, but highly germane to this topic:

QUOTE
IAnd finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.now there are some questionable things such as name one Muslim nation


What a terribly hateful and racist thing to say. However, the answer to your curiously phrased question is easy; Lebanon. At least, Lebanon prior to about four weeks ago.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15244878.htm

"Last year, Lebanon was the beacon of the Bush administration's vision of a new Middle East. There were free elections without Syrian influence, women's rights, a free press and free speech.
Today, much of this nation feels deserted by America as Israeli warplanes dropping American-made weapons destroy apartment blocks, bridges and roads. After four weeks of bombardment, the feeling is increasingly shared by Shiite and Sunni Muslims, Christians and Druze.
Israeli and American officials thought Israel's counterattack against Hezbollah would turn more Lebanese against the militant Shiite group, but members of the new independent government worry that the war will turn Lebanon into a bastion for extremism. With every civilian death, anger rises, among both the displaced poor living in parks and the well-off still eating pasta salads in cafes."


Democracy has been unequivocally demonstrated to be a failure, as their Western style government has failed to protect the country from this disaster, and the neighboring democratically elected government of Gaza has been kidnapped, assassinated, and bombed into rubble by Israel, and Hezbollah, which only a few weeks ago was a marginalized and increasingly irrelevant minority in Lebanon has now become the folk heroes of a bitterly humiliated and traumatized people, Quixotically defending the country against Israel. There is a distinct possibility that this war will transform Lebanon from the most (the only) progressive Arab democracy favorably inclined towards Israel, America, and the West in general, into another Iran with someone like Nesrallah as ayatollah. Does anyone really think that this will be a "win" for Lebanon, Israel, America, the Middle East, or the world in general?

Posted by: Nova Scotian 13-Aug-2006, 03:27 PM
And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.now there are some questionable things such as name one Muslim nation


This is a statement that can be fairly disputed. MOST of the nations over in the Middle East do have womens rights, freedom of speech, thought, religion, etc. Jordan is one example. But, ask a Christian who has had to live there. They'll tell you what it's like. However there are some in here who think that even those who have LIVED over there, who have been there, done that are liers. My mother and father inlaw BOTH grew up and HAVE seen and felt what it's like to live in a predominatly Muslim country. Let me just say this. Muslims have it easier living in this country, the USA, then Christians do living in the Middle East.

To name a muslim country that demonstrates the description above, Iran, Saudi Arabia are just 2 to name a few.

Posted by: Dogshirt 19-Aug-2006, 01:56 PM
It seems obvious now that Isreal can not be trusted to hold to a cease fire. Typical "Whiteman" behavior!


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: teashoci 23-Aug-2006, 12:41 PM
i can gaurantee that israel will cease to be the pooh stiring bully that they are when iran get the bomb.

Posted by: stoirmeil 23-Aug-2006, 01:23 PM
Well -- Israel agreed prior and aboveboard to a cease-fire to the extent that they did not perceive themselves under attack, and left the decision to their own discretion. That's why it was so shaky in the knees to begin with. If Iran "gets the bomb," which I assume you are not rooting for specifically, I wouldn't be so sure Israel would lie down and cower. Frankly, I have observed (and it grieves me, pure and simple, to tears) that Israel has a political suicidal streak that is the full complement to the inclinations of any Arab kid who straps on an explosive belt.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 23-Aug-2006, 02:44 PM
The Middle East conflict is difficult to solve, but it is among the simplest conflicts in history to understand.

The Arab and other Muslim enemies of Israel (for the easily confused, this does not mean every Arab or every Muslim) want Israel destroyed. That is why there is a Middle East conflict. Everything else is commentary.

Those who deny this and ascribe the conflict to other reasons, such as "Israeli occupation," "Jewish settlements," a "cycle of violence," "the Zionist lobby" and the like, do so despite the fact that Israel's enemies regularly announce the reason for the conflict. The Iranian regime, Hizbollah, Hamas and the Palestinians -- in their public opinion polls, in their anti-Semitic school curricula and media, in their election of Hamas, in their support for terror against Israeli civilians in pre-1967 borders -- as well as their Muslim supporters around the world, all want the Jewish state annihilated.

In 1947-48, the Arab states tried to destroy the tiny Jewish state formed by the United Nations partition plan. In 1967, Egypt, Syria and Jordan tried to destroy Israel in what became known as the Six-Day War. All of this took place before Israel occupied one millimeter of Palestinian land and before there was a single Jewish settler in the West Bank.

Two months after the Six-Day War of June 5-10, 1967, the Arab countries convened in Khartoum, Sudan, and announced on Sept. 1, 1967, their famous "Three NOs" to Israel: "No peace, No recognition, No negotiations."

Six years later, in 1973, Egypt invaded the Israeli-held Sinai Peninsula, a war that ended in a boost in Egyptian morale from its initially successful surprise attack. Though nearly all of the Sinai remained in Israel's hands, the boost in Egyptian self-confidence enabled Egypt's visionary president, Anwar Sadat, four years later (November 1977), to do the unimaginable for an Arab leader: He visited Israel and addressed its parliament in Jerusalem. As a result, in 1978, Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty in return for which Israel gave all of the oil-rich Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt.

Three years later, in 1981, Sadat was assassinated by Egyptian Muslims, a killing welcomed by most Arabs, including the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization). Why welcomed? Because Sadat had done the unforgivable -- recognized Israel and made peace with it.

The lesson that Palestinians should have learned from the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement was that if you make peace with Israel, you will not only get peace in return, you will also get all or nearly all of your land back. That is how much Israelis ache for peace.

Think about Israel for one moment: Israel is one of the most advanced countries on earth in terms of culture (most books published, translated from other languages and read per capita; most orchestras per capita, etc.); major advances in medicine; technological breakthroughs; and decency as a society, as exemplified by its treatment of its women, gays and even its large Arab minority (particularly remarkable in light of the widespread Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism and desire to annihilate Israel). This is hardly a picture of some bloodthirsty, land-grabbing society. And Jews, whatever their flaws, have never been known to be a violent people. If anything, the stereotypical Jew has been depicted as particularly docileAs a lifelong liberal critic of Israeli policies, the New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman wrote just two weeks ago: "The Palestinians could have a state on the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem tomorrow, if they and the Arab League clearly recognized Israel, normalized relations and renounced violence. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know Israel today."

Give Israel peace, and Israel will give you land.

Which is exactly what Israel agreed to do in the last year of the Clinton administration. It offered PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat about 97 percent of the West Bank and three percent of Israel's land in exchange for peace. Instead, Israel got its men, women and children routinely blown up and maimed by Palestinian terrorists after the Palestinians rejected the Israeli offer at Camp David. Even President Clinton, desirous of being the honest broker and yearning to be history's Middle East peacemaker, blamed the ensuing violence entirely on the Palestinians.

Israel's Camp David offer of a Palestinian state for Palestinian peace was rejected because most Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim supporters don't want a second state. They want Israel destroyed. They admit it. Only those who wish Israel's demise and the willfully naive do not.

If you don't believe this, ask almost anyone living in the Middle East why there is a Middle East War, preferably in Arabic. If you ask in English, they will assume you are either an academic, a Western news reporter, a diplomat or a "peace activist." And then, they will assume you are gullible and will tell you that it's because of "Israeli occupation" or "the Zionist lobby."

But they know it isn't. And it never was.



Posted by: teashoci 24-Aug-2006, 07:17 AM
I dont root for iran getting the boomb , but i can perceive that it is entirely plausible due to the middle east becoming dangerously unstable thanks to america and britain.
irans biggest adversaries afghanistans taliban and iraqs saddam hussain and co. are no longer in power thus allows iran to direct military activity and resources to countering israel.


Posted by: Nova Scotian 24-Aug-2006, 06:42 PM
QUOTE (teashoci @ 24-Aug-2006, 08:17 AM)
I dont root for iran getting the boomb , but i can perceive that it is entirely plausible due to the middle east becoming dangerously unstable thanks to america and britain.
irans biggest adversaries afghanistans taliban and iraqs saddam hussain and co. are no longer in power thus allows iran to direct military activity and resources to countering israel.

The Middle East has NEVER been stable since the beginning of time.

Posted by: teashoci 25-Aug-2006, 07:15 AM
in that context you could have said that about europe.

my argument concludes that the middle east has been thrown into chaos in the past three years.

Posted by: SCShamrock 10-Sep-2006, 02:31 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 19-Aug-2006, 02:56 PM)
It seems obvious now that Isreal can not be trusted to hold to a cease fire. Typical "Whiteman" behavior!


beer_mug.gif

So is prejudice then typical Injun behavior?

cheers.gif

Posted by: Dogshirt 10-Sep-2006, 04:51 PM
Prejudice no, EXPERIENCE YES!


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Dogshirt 10-Sep-2006, 05:18 PM
QUOTE
So is prejudice then typical Injun behavior?


And learn to spell!


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Randy 11-Sep-2006, 08:49 AM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9071731896689197790&hl=en-GB

Very interesting no matter what side you support.

If the link does not work let me know.

Posted by: stoirmeil 11-Sep-2006, 08:59 AM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 24-Aug-2006, 07:42 PM)

The Middle East has NEVER been stable since the beginning of time.

The beginning of TIME!!?? Let's not equate the beginning of time with the beginning of our feckless species, shall we?

Well -- quite apart from the natural resources question, the whole region is a crossroads to and from everywhere else, both by land and by sea. Problematic, in terms of letting it have autonomous control, especially now, when religious or ideological positions have polarized and heated up. However, I would like to point out that the region has remained quite stable for long periods under imperial domination -- this is well known by everyone, tacitly approved by some, and of course deeply resented by others. So it doesn't take much to project the widespread and frankly understandable perception throughout the region that America is attempting to take over where, say, Britain left off, except that Israel is the front man and the spread of democracy (whether it's welcome or even appropriate in any particular context) has replaced the more candidly framed search to control and expropriate resources. And control of those crossroads.

Posted by: stoirmeil 14-Sep-2006, 12:05 PM
OK -- this is a very timely example of what I meant in the George Galloway thread, about there being no monolith of Jewish opinion, with regard to treatement of Arabs. You can be very sure that not even all Israelis are taking this the same way:



Israeli Rightist Calls for Transfer of Arabs
Secular Groups Slam Remarks, Orthodox Silent

Steven I. Weiss | Fri. Sep 15, 2006


Effi Eitam, a leader of the joint Knesset faction aligned with Orthodox Zionists worldwide, drew swift condemnation this week from secular American Jewish organizations because of his call “to expel the great majority of the Arabs” from the West Bank and “sweep the Israeli Arabs from the political system.” But for the most part, his ideological allies in the United States have remained silent.

Eitam made the remarks in an interview Monday on Israeli Army Radio, during which he also reportedly described Arab Knesset members as “a fifth column, a league of traitors of the first rank.” The comments strongly resembled the platform of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, whose Kach Party commanded three seats in the Knesset before being barred as a racist movement.

The statements came as three Arab Knesset members traveled to Damascus to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad. In recent days, several Israeli Arab lawmakers also have voiced support for the efforts of Syria and Hezbollah to fight Israel, with one lawmaker praising efforts to abduct Israeli soldiers.

A reserve brigadier general and one of the army’s highest-ranking Orthodox officers ever, Eitam is the former head of the National Religious Party, the flagship of the worldwide religious Zionist movement embraced by the Modern Orthodox in America. His remarks have drawn a hailstorm of criticism in the past few days. The leader of the leftwing Meretz party, Yossi Beilin, calling upon the attorney general to prosecute Eitam for incitement to racism, a crime in Israel.

The Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Congress both released statements slamming Eitam. In contrast, none of the American Orthodox organizations in Eitam’s theological camp — the Rabbinical Zionists of America, the Rabbinical Council of America, the Orthodox Union — issued statements condemning his remarks or calling on the NRP to break from the joint faction that he leads.

In response to inquiries from the Forward, several Orthodox leaders in America did address Eitam’s remarks.

The president of the Religious Zionists of America, Rabbi Yosef Blau, told the Forward that “Effie Eitam has always been of an extreme position within the broad movement” of the Orthodox Zionist camp. Blau said that Eitam’s position “represents one pole… to the best of my personal understanding, this view of his is not the mainstream view, and not of most religious Zionists.” Blau also downplayed Eitam’s association with the NRP, asserting that Eitam had become a member of the party only through a political compromise with the National Union faction.

After leaving the army, Eitam became chairman of the NRP but left in 2005 over disengagement. He then crossed over to the more radical National Union. The alignment of the two factions in this year’s election put him near the top of a much larger vehicle with 11 seats in the Knesset.

Blau said that Eitam should not be judged by this one incident, since his remarks could have been the result of a heated outburst within the “context of a group of Arab Knesset members going to Syria, at a time when Syria has self-defined itself as an enemy of Israel.”

“I’m not prepared to say, ‘Throw this one out of the Knesset, throw that one out of the Knesset’ every time someone says something,” Blau said.

Rabbi Norman Lamm, the chancellor of Yeshiva University, also offered critcism, while cautioning against a rush to sanction Eitam.

“I can understand what drives General Eitam, but I do not at all concur with his conclusions,” said Lamm, who occupied the top spot on the NRP-aligned list in the most recent World Zionist elections.

“Israel prides itself as being the only true democracy in the Middle East, and that is an asset, as well as a moral obligation, that I would not want to forfeit,” Lamm said. “At the same time, I would not go to the other extreme, and charge him with racism, because what bothers him are national groups that are presumably disloyal to the state, not ethnic or religious groups. It is therefore wrong in my opinion to persecute and prosecute General Eitam — but it is important to dissociate ourselves from this dangerous policy.”

Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, a top Modern Orthodox pulpit rabbi, was more accepting of Eitam’s remarks.

“I think he points to a very serious problem for the State of Israel, and I don’t know what the solution to that problem is,” Lookstein said. The rabbi leads Kehilath Jeshurun, a posh congregation on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. “I think you have a very large percentage of the citizens of Israel who are not loyal to the state but rather to the sworn enemies of the state, but I don’t know how to solve that problem.”

Asked to respond to Eitam’s remarks, Lookstein said, “I don’t think it would be helpful for me to take a position on what Effie Eitam said.”

Rabbi Basil Herring of the Rabbinical Council of America said he could not provide a complete reply until he’d consulted his board. “What I can certainly tell you now,” he said, “is that we will not endorse those statements.”

The ADL and the AJCongress went much further in condemning the remarks. “Calls by public figures to ban minorities and expel them from their homes are abhorrent,” the ADL said in a statement released to the media. The organization added: “These are irresponsible statements advocating collective measures that the ADL totally rejects.”

The ADL also stated that “Eitam’s remarks do nothing to further Israel’s quest to live peacefully among its neighbors and are an insult to its loyal Arab Israeli citizens.”

A similar sentiment was voiced by the president of the AJCongress, Jack Rosen, in a statement that said: “If, God forbid, it were ever implemented, Eitam’s strategy would lead to Israel’s complete isolation and force it to sacrifice its democratic character.… Eitam’s proposal to sacrifice Israel’s democratic character to ensure Jewish security is the mirror image of the claim by Israeli Arab radicals that Israel must sacrifice its Jewish character to earn its democratic one. We do not share either view.”

The Jewish Daily Forward
e-newsletter

Fri. Sep 15, 2006


You should know that The Forward is the leading moderate-to-leftist Jewish Newspaper in America.

Posted by: SCShamrock 15-Sep-2006, 11:12 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 10-Sep-2006, 06:18 PM)

And learn to spell!


beer_mug.gif

Learn not to be such a jackass.

Posted by: Dogshirt 15-Sep-2006, 11:40 PM
QUOTE

Learn not to be such a jackass.



Yes Mr. Kettle?


beer_mug.gif


Posted by: stevenpd 16-Sep-2006, 08:30 AM
Gentlemen, let's keep the focus on the discussion.

Posted by: Dogshirt 16-Sep-2006, 09:48 AM
I belive I WAS with my initial post!


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: SCShamrock 24-Sep-2006, 12:05 AM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 16-Sep-2006, 10:48 AM)
I belive I WAS with my initial post!


beer_mug.gif

I don't know about your initial post, but the one in which you use your overt bigotry by claiming "typical white man behavior" was not. When you resort to these tactics, you should fully expect the concurrent "injun" comments, along with the ever-popular title of "Tonto", "Kemo Sabe", or any other pejorative slur that pops into the "white men's" heads. I, for one, will not kiss your ass as you incessantly drone about the mistreatment of "your people" by "my people." Neither of us were alive when those atrocities took place, and as such, neither of us has a right to claim either victor or victim status because of it. The examples of your obsession are numerous, as well as the sympathy from many of the resident bleeding hearts.

Posted by: stoirmeil 24-Sep-2006, 09:07 PM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 24-Sep-2006, 01:05 AM)
The examples of your obsession are numerous, as well as the sympathy from many of the resident bleeding hearts.

Well, I guess you told everybody. rolleyes.gif

Look -- you don't take license to do something you criticize somebody else for, because they did it first and now it's open season.

Posted by: SCShamrock 26-Sep-2006, 01:03 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 24-Sep-2006, 10:07 PM)


Look -- you don't take license to do something you criticize somebody else for, because they did it first and now it's open season.

Why not Lynn? In the 22 days after Dogshirt spewed his hateful and bigoted remark, you kept silent about it, along with everyone else until on Sept 10, I decided to confront him. By implication, his comments were acceptable, and as such, so are mine. Deal with it.

Oh yeah, and a good referee is impartial.

Posted by: stevenpd 26-Sep-2006, 03:14 PM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 14-Jul-2006, 04:42 PM)
QUOTE (Forbes)
President Bush refused to press Israel for a cease-fire in Mideast violence Friday, risking a wider breach with world leaders at a weekend summit already confronting crises with Iran and North Korea.

Flying here from Germany, Bush called the leaders of Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan to explore ways to end three days of furious fighting between Israel and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon. Turning aside complaints that Israel is using excessive force, Bush rejected a cease-fire plea from Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora.

"The president is not going to make military decisions for Israel," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. He said it was unlikely that either side would agree to a cease-fire now.

The eruption of Mideast violence moved prominently onto the agenda of the summit beginning Saturday.

In contrast with Bush's stand, Russian President Vladimir Putin said, "No hostage-takings are acceptable ... but neither is the use of full-scale force in response to these, even if unlawful, actions. We will demand that all sides involved in the conflict immediately stop the bloodshed."

The summit is expected to issue a Mideast declaration, and the United States tried to shape it to be critical of Hezbollah and supportive of Lebanon's fragile government.

French President Jacques Chirac accused Israel of going too far. "One could ask if today there is not a sort of will to destroy Lebanon, its equipment, its roads, its communications," said Chirac, who has tried to patch relations with the U.S. after disagreements over the Iraq war.


http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/07/14/ap2880266.html

I have a few of questions.

Over the last, er, um, bunch of years, has or has not the nation of Israel agreed to ceasefires at the request of the United States and the international community?

If you were Israeli, would you feel that continued ceasefires or the failure to act militarily increases or decreases your sovereignty? Is it capitulation?

Since it has become painfully obvious that the religious enemies of Israel have no intention of letting them live in peace, doesn't it stand to reason, especially after their pull out in Gaza, that Israel should at some point take a firm stance, rebuking their enemies?

Considering all the terrorism that has surfaced lo this last decade, doesn't Israel have every right to fight it along with every other nation that so chooses?


These questions may seem somewhat unrelated to the events currently taking place, but I feel they are very relevant to the state of things in the region.

This was the first post of the topic, shall we return to it? I see the discussion getting side-tracked.

Posted by: AlexZello 20-Feb-2008, 02:20 PM
What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think?

Posted by: AlexZello 22-Feb-2008, 06:32 AM
QUOTE (AlexZello @ 20-Feb-2008, 03:20 PM)
What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think? uh, here's the site in question: http://samsonblinded.org/blog

What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think? uh, here's the site in question: http://samsonblinded.org/blog

Posted by: stoirmeil 30-Dec-2008, 12:23 PM
Bumping up this thread in light of recent developments.

Wonder how this is going to play out if the entire lid blows off (let's say, serious Iranian involvement beyond the promise to reward or martyrize any Iranian who defends Palestinians by attacking Israeli interests) in the next week? Bush will either do nothing, and he's hardly in the position to do anything now anyway -- or he will try to do something as a last gasp, in the name of alliance, possibly without consulting Obama or the incoming cabinet, and make an unholy mess. Obama, on the other hand, can't very well take charge for another 3 weeks.

Meanwhile, civilians are totally trapped between Hamas, which actually needs to be blown to kingdom come if you could single them out, and the IDF, which seems altogether willing to blow them to kingdom come whether or not it can single them out. Threat of a ground invasion is really chilling.

I cannot bear the fact that there is virtually no medical infrastructure in Gaza left. As many as half of the "survivors" will be casualties within a week without treatment. This at least could be addressed internationally.

Posted by: Jillian 30-Dec-2008, 04:15 PM
QUOTE
I cannot bear the fact that there is virtually no medical infrastructure in Gaza left. As many as half of the "survivors" will be casualties within a week without treatment. This at least could be addressed internationally. - Stoirmeil-


I agree Stoirmeil. Caring for injured civilians should be addressed internationally. It is quite a mess.

Although it appears excessive, I guess if we (like Irael) were getting dinged here and there w/bombs on a regular basis, we'd finally just want to blast them to hell. It's a very sad and scary situation.

Jillian

Posted by: Nova Scotian 30-Dec-2008, 04:59 PM
A shame it is to see that Hamas is willing to sacrifice the innocient Palistians just for a cause. They know Israel doesn't tolerate even one Isreali killed.

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 30-Dec-2008, 10:26 PM
I highly recommend reading:
http://francona.blogspot.com/
I consider Rick to be one of the best Middle East experts in the country, and perhaps the best.

Posted by: MachinegunKelley 01-Jan-2009, 08:41 PM
The unfortunate truth is, a situation has been allowed to be created in which it is impossible to avoid great civilian loss. this is, also unfortunately, a great advantage to hamas (I will not dignify them with capitalizing their name). Terrorist groups always use the death of innocents to garner often reluctant support from other nations and humanitarian groups.

Isreals' retaliation is always calculated in the plans of hamas. the very fact that hamas is even acknowledged with ANY legitimacy what so ever results in more innocent death. Not only should we let and encourage Isreal to do what it needs to do, we should be out there helping them. Killing terrorists is in everyone's best interest.

I know that there are those out there that might say I am not looking at it from all sides. I would like to point out that if you feel that way, you are absolutely right. This is a fight that NEEDS a victor, some situations have no compromise and a clear definitive victory needs to be had by one side or the other. As an American I want the side that will benefit my country the most, and that is Israel for many, many reasons. Not to mention the way that Palestine and hamas both conduct themselves lends a clear view of who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.

Posted by: Dogshirt 01-Jan-2009, 10:10 PM
I suppose it all depends on who you consider the terrorists.


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 02-Jan-2009, 11:29 PM
We have lost a few sizeable posts here, when the site was down a little while ago.

Posted by: InRi 03-Jan-2009, 05:31 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 03-Jan-2009, 06:29 AM)
We have lost a few sizeable posts here, when the site was down a little while ago.

I'm missing one of mine too...
I'll try to reconstruct it. Basically I wrote:

Unfortunately the occurences in the Gaza stripe "only" the continue of a long lasting conflict in this region - that began with the foundation of the state Israel. The history should be known...
I think too we'll hear in the future about attacks in region furthermore too.
In the past time I read a lot about fanaticism (I have to thank Antwn for the hint) and I believe to realize what's the reason for such a permanent conflict.
All sharers of this conflict are fighting (in their own kind) fanatic. The Palestinians account Israel as their "natural" enemy, which they have to fight everywhere (some Palestinian groups effectes compromises with Israel) some groups fight with all means (terrorism included). On the other side is standing Israel which defend its right to exist with all means too.
QUOTE (MachinegunKelley @ 02-Jan-2009, 03:41 AM)
Killing terrorists is in everyone's best interest.

I think the answer to this problem can't be so simple. I agree that anybody should have deals with terrorists. But on the other hand even these terrorists are supported by a great part of the palestinian population - and the new blood is prepared for this fight. As is known Israel started to kill the terrorist leaders in the past time - the result always was a new wave of attacks and violence...
To kill terrorists only create martyrs but doesn't stop the terrorism and also the conflict - and by the way who should to kill? active terrorists only? the following generation too? all people they support the terrorists? - No, I think this can't be the answer - this hit a lot of innocence people again.
An able answer seems me to stop the fanaticism in this conflict (especially inside the palestinian population, but also in parts of the Israel government). Although I don't know how to do this, but I know to solve problems works only by cool heads but not by hot hearts. This should know (or realize) the leaders of both sharers and should accept help from outside finally.

Ingo

Posted by: Emmet 03-Jan-2009, 09:58 AM
GAZA GUERNICA

An occupying power is obliged to follow the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which protects the civilian population. The United Nations Security Council held in 1979 that the Fourth Convention does apply to the territories seized by Israel in 1967 (in violation of U.N. Resolution 242; Google "Al Nekbah"). Article 48 of the protocol is clear that Israel, as an occupying power, has obligations: "The Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives."

With their blockade of Gaza, the Israelis have created their own Warsaw Ghetto. 75% of Gazans are malnourished. 46% of all Gazan children suffer from acute anemia. About 45% of children in Gaza have iron deficiency from a lack of fruit and vegetables, and 18% have stunted growth. The U.N. special envoy for human rights, former Princeton University law professor Richard Falk (who is Jewish), has condemned the collective punishment of the 1.5 million Palestinians confined in Gaza as "a flagrant and massive violation of international humanitarian law as laid down in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention." and "a crime against humanity."

Hamas, the legitimate and democratically elected government in Palestine, has repeatedly proposed long-term truces with Israel and offered to negotiate a permanent end to hostilities, including explicitly recognizing the right of Israel to exist. During the last year, Hamas has upheld the truce although Israel refused to ease the blockade. It was Israel that, on Nov. 4, violated the truce and killed six Palestinians. It was only then that Hamas resumed lobbing their pathetic spitballs at Israel, killing no one.

Since 2005 Hamas has fired some 6,300 primitive, home-made rockets from Gaza at Israel, killing 10 people. In just the past seven days, using American made F-16 fighter bombers of the 4th largest air force in the world, Israel have reduced the Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated tracts of land in the world, to rubble and killed at least 435 defenseless Palestinians, who have no air force, no air defense artillery, no army, and no navy. This isn't war; it's wholesale murder.

Since September 29, 2000, a total of 1,062 Israelis and no fewer than 4,876 Palestinians have been killed in the conflict.

Since September 29, 2000, approximately 123 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians whereas 1,050 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis.

1 Israeli is being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 10,756 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel, without trial or legal recourse.

NONE OF THIS WOULD BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT YOU, THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER.

Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes. Indeed, Israel's GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. With a per capita income of about $ $15,800, Israel ranks as the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world; Israelis enjoy a higher per capita income than oil-rich Saudi Arabia.
For 1997, the U.S. gave Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion in foreign aid and $526 million from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totaling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money it borrowed to give to Israel (we're broke, remember? Our national debt: 10.5 trillion dollars!). It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. More than $1.5 billion in private U.S. funds go to Israel annually. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax-deductible contributions to a foreign government does not exist with any other country. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million. Nor do these figures include short and long-term commercial loans from U.S. banks, which have been as high as $1 billion annually in recent years. All past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress. Between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and never repaid. When grants, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together, our relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion in 1997 alone. All told; half of the money America spends abroad goes to Israel.
Since 1949 the U.S. has given Israel a total of $83.205 billion. The interest costs borne by U.S. tax payers on behalf of Israel are $49.937 billion, thus making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 $133.132 billion. This may mean that U.S. government has given more federal aid to the average Israeli citizen in a given year ($23,240) than it has given to the average American citizen.

WE; YOU AND I, ARE COMMITTING MASS MURDER AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
The lame excuse that we're doing it second-hand by proxy is a transparent sophistry that's entirely lost on the rest of the world, particularly the Muslim world.

The next time someone hijacks a jetliner and flies it into a building, spare me your self-righteous indignation and self pity; don't feign innocence and bleat "Why?".



"Nobody can reject or condemn the revolt of a people that has been suffering under military occupation for 45 years"
General Shlomo Gazit, former chief of Israeli military intelligence

Posted by: Patch 03-Jan-2009, 04:17 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 02-Jan-2009, 12:10 AM)
I suppose it all depends on who you consider the terrorists.


beer_mug.gif

That pretty well sums up the entire situation.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Antwn 03-Jan-2009, 05:55 PM
Hello Emmett - What are the sources for your information please? Are the casualty figures you mention from only one side for example? What are the sources of the financial figures you listed?

Additional questions:

Hamas, the legitimate and democratically elected government in Palestine, has repeatedly proposed long-term truces with Israel and offered to negotiate a permanent end to hostilities, including explicitly recognizing the right of Israel to exist. During the last year, Hamas has upheld the truce although Israel refused to ease the blockade.

A proposed truce? Then it was not signed by both parties? If so, then why is Israel obligated to abide by it? In what way does rocket fire into Israel, however ineffective, uphold this proposed truce? Was the right to rocket fire by Hamas included in the proposals?


Since 2005 Hamas has fired some 6,300 primitive, home-made rockets from Gaza at Israel, killing 10 people. In just the past seven days, using American made F-16 fighter bombers of the 4th largest air force in the world, Israel have reduced the Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated tracts of land in the world, to rubble and killed at least 435 defenseless Palestinians, who have no air force, no air defense artillery, no army, and no navy. This isn't war; it's wholesale murder.

According to a CNN report, Hamas had stored its munitions amongst innocent civilians, using them as human shields. Who colludes in this "wholesale murder" under such circumstances?

Yes, Israel has an effective military. Should they refrain from defending themselves until they suffer a casualty rate equal to the projected casualties caused by their retaliation. How would that be possible? Should America have refrained from entering WWII because it knew its military would cause casualties in excess of those lost at Pearl Harbor?

It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. More than $1.5 billion in private U.S. funds go to Israel annually. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax-deductible contributions to a foreign government does not exist with any other country.

In what way is donation to an Israeli charity a donation to the Israeli government?

1 Israeli is being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 10,756 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel, without trial or legal recourse.

Why? You left that part out. What's the reason? A comparison of prisoner populations is meaningless in and of itself. Was the Israeli tried with legal representation? Exactly how many Israelis have strapped bomb belts on and blown themselves up in Gaza strip shopping malls or on buses? How many Israelis have trained Israelis to do that?

The lame excuse that we're doing it second-hand by proxy is a transparent sophistry that's entirely lost on the rest of the world, particularly the Muslim world.
You are the official spokesperson for the rest of the world then? What's your source for the supposition that the rest of the world thinks we're committing crimes against humanity? I can see that much of the Muslim world might think so.

The next time someone hijacks a jetliner and flies it into a building, spare me your self-righteous indignation and self pity; don't feign innocence and bleat "Why?".

And why don't others have as much of a right to a diatribe as you do? Has some Grand Poobah given you celestial dispensation to be spared opinions you think are odious? This is a forum after all. If righteous indignation offends you, why have you permitted your own in this demand of yours?

Posted by: Emmet 04-Jan-2009, 04:13 PM
I see your point; if a 240 lb. man kidnaps, robs, rapes, and tortures a 12 year old girl, I can certainly see how, were she to have the temerity and ill manners to strike out and give him a fat lip, he would be entirely justified in beating her to death in self defense.

What Israel is doing is obscene, and America is a co-conspirator, enabler, and cheerleader.

Posted by: Antwn 04-Jan-2009, 06:15 PM
Well, you made a lengthy post with a myriad of claims you're unwilling to substantiate. Thanks for the effort.....I guess. At least we know where you stand. rolleyes.gif Your omniscience must preclude error and we should take your claims and statistics at face value, huh? How silly of me.

So what do you think Israel should do Emmett? Is there a solution amid the complaints?


Posted by: stoirmeil 04-Jan-2009, 10:10 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 04-Jan-2009, 05:13 PM)
I see your point; if a 240 lb. man kidnaps, robs, rapes, and tortures a 12 year old girl, I can certainly see how, were she to have the temerity and ill manners to strike out and give him a fat lip, he would be entirely justified in beating her to death in self defense.

What Israel is doing is obscene, and America is a co-conspirator, enabler, and cheerleader.

Oh, hell . . . sad.gif We all have to huddle under the umbrella of our national designations with rhetoric like this, Emmet. But I don't want to -- and you clearly don't want to either. You know at first hand there are many Americans who are not cheering -- you, for one -- and I can tell you there are plenty of Israelis who are tearing their hair out at what their government is doing in Gaza.

As to the analogy -- Hamas is a weasely sneak weighing much less than 240, but he's not anybody's innocent girl. Hamas is ripping the clothes off the girl and holding her in front of him to catch the abuse after he provokes the big guy. Shame to both of them if they can't figure a way to slug it out without her in the middle.

Posted by: Emmet 05-Jan-2009, 07:22 AM
QUOTE
Well, you made a lengthy post with a myriad of claims you're unwilling to substantiate. Thanks for the effort.....I guess. At least we know where you stand.  Your omniscience must preclude error and we should take your claims and statistics at face value, huh? How silly of me.


It's not my purpose in life to educate or entertain fools. Clearly you have access to Google; try using research to refute an argument rather than sarcasm.

QUOTE
So what do you think Israel should do Emmett? Is there a solution amid the complaints?


U.S.
1) Freeze all foreign aid to Israel pending their compliance with UN Resolution 242, et al.
2) Freeze all military aid to Israel pursuant to the US Arms Export Control Act and Foreign Assistance Act.
3) Stop running interference for Israel in the UN Security Council.
4) Collectively tell AIPAC to go to hell. Any elected US official, whether city councilman or President, should only pledge allegiance to one country; the United States.

Israel
1) Immediately cease fire and withdraw all IDF forces from Gaza.
2) Immediately lift the blockade of Gaza.
3) Recognize Hammas as the legitimate Palestinian government, and negotiate accordingly in good faith.
4) Immediately halt all Israeli construction on the West Bank.
5) Begin plans for withdrawal from all occupied territories pursuant to UN Resolution 242, et. al.
6) Reopen negotiations with all parties to the 2002 Beirut Summit in good faith.
7) Respect the territorial integrity of it's neighbors in all respects.

Palestine
1) Immediately cease fire.
2) Allow the IDF invasion force to withdraw in good order.
3) Reopen negotiations with all parties to the 2002 Beirut Summit in good faith.
4) Respect the territorial integrity of it's neighbors in all respects.


The Beruit Summit offered an end to endless war; in exchange for Israel withdrawing to their pre-1967 borders and allowing the formation of a viable Palestinian state, with the right of return and it's capitol in East Jerusalem, all Arab signatories would formally recognize Israel's right to exist, declare the Arab-Israeli conflict to be over and normalize relations with Israel. With their raison de guerre eliminated, terrorism would eventually peter out and die as recruiting dried up and all signatories enforced the peace from within their own borders. No; it wouldn't happen overnight, but as the Belfast Accord demonstrates, it can happen, even with such mortal enemies as the IRA and the UDA.
With essentially unlimited US financial support, the US blocking any action in the UN Security Council, nuclear weapons, and the 4th largest air force in the world, including the largest fleet of F-16's outside of the US, Israel has never needed peace. Only America can change that.

Posted by: InRi 05-Jan-2009, 07:45 AM
Dear combatants,
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 04-Jan-2009, 05:10 AM)
As to the analogy -- Hamas is a weasely sneak weighing much less than 240, but he's not anybody's innocent girl. Hamas is ripping the clothes off the girl and holding her in front of him to catch the abuse after he provokes the big guy. Shame to both of them if they can't figure a way to slug it out without her in the middle.

I agree.... but the "big guy" isn't soooo innocent too...
I want to stay in speaking by images:
For weeding a pest plant it isn't enough to cut the leaves only, it's needful to pull out the roots.
The things we have to see today in the Gaza Stripe (and not only there) are "only" the leaves of this pest plant.
So I tried to find out the roots. What I found are a lot of broken promises a lot of "interests" by countries they haven't to do there anything a lot of intransigence and a lot of fanticism (that means all involved parties).
It is too much to write all these into one post, therefore I'll set some links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein-McMahon_Correspondence
All involved parties was cheated in the past and put the blame on the other. Furthermore everyone who think that he have interests in this region is supporting one(or more) of the fighting parties (mostly out of the background)
In my opinion there are four principal points those can help to solve this conflict:
1) to stop the fanaticism in this conflict (both sides) it's essentially, that both parties begin to think by (cool) head
2) to stop all "background activities" of other parties (what they have to do there?)
3) to accept the fact that in this conflict don't exist a culprit.
4) to accept that a Israeli state is existing also a Palestine state.
I know, that is an idealized conception and I don't know how to fulfill it... May to show me someone a better way...

Ingo
P.S. I can hope only that my mistakes in English don't falsify what I mean...

Posted by: Emmet 05-Jan-2009, 07:54 AM
QUOTE
You know at first hand there are many Americans who are not cheering -- you, for one -- and I can tell you there are plenty of Israelis who are tearing their hair out at what their government is doing in Gaza.


And yet it still goes on, doesn't it?

QUOTE
As to the analogy -- Hamas is a weasely sneak weighing much less than 240, but he's not anybody's innocent girl. Hamas is ripping the clothes off the girl and holding her in front of him to catch the abuse after he provokes the big guy.


Hammas is armed with small arms and primitive home-made rockets little better than big fireworks; an Israeli is more likely to be killed in a car accident or hit by lightning. Israel possesses the largest and best equipped military in the Middle East, and is armed with nuclear weapons.

Israel's blockade of Gaza is explicitly defined as a crime against humanity by the Geneva Conventions and the UN Special Envoy. Israels repeated shelling, air strikes, and incursions into Gaza were in violation of the truce to which they were signatories. Both constitute acts of war. Hammas responded with the only weapons at hand. What would you do in their place, if 75% of your population was starving, and your children suffering malnutrition, stunted growth, and measurable hearing loss from months of the incessant sonic booms of Israeli overflights? Who's provoking who?

Gaza is the most densely populated penal colony in the world; with more than 10,000 captives per square mile. Hammas isn't necessarily hiding behind civilians; with a population of 1.5 million, it's essentially unavoidable. Considering Gaza's overcrowded environment, it is beggars belief that anyone can argue with a straight face that Israel's attack is focused exclusively on military targets; an attack upon an enemy which has no air defense artillery, no air force, no army, no armor, and no navy.

I believe that the facts uphold the analogy.

Posted by: stoirmeil 05-Jan-2009, 02:04 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 05-Jan-2009, 08:54 AM)

Hammas is armed with small arms and primitive home-made rockets little better than big fireworks; an Israeli is more likely to be killed in a car accident or hit by lightning. Israel possesses the largest and best equipped military in the Middle East, and is armed with nuclear weapons.

Israel's blockade of Gaza is explicitly defined as a crime against humanity by the Geneva Conventions and the UN Special Envoy. Israels repeated shelling, air strikes, and incursions into Gaza were in violation of the truce to which they were signatories. Both constitute acts of war. Hammas responded with the only weapons at hand. What would you do in their place, if 75% of your population was starving, and your children suffering malnutrition, stunted growth, and measurable hearing loss from months of the incessant sonic booms of Israeli overflights? Who's provoking who?

Gaza is the most densely populated penal colony in the world; with more than 10,000 captives per square mile. Hammas isn't necessarily hiding behind civilians; with a population of 1.5 million, it's essentially unavoidable. Considering Gaza's overcrowded environment, it is beggars belief that anyone can argue with a straight face that Israel's attack is focused exclusively on military targets; an attack upon an enemy which has no air defense artillery, no air force, no army, no armor, and no navy.

I believe that the facts uphold the analogy.

I am aware of all the reasons you cite, and I agree with them. I am especially grieved and disgusted with conditions of deprivation among the civilian population; I've made myself clear on this a number of times, and I deplore the blockade of food and medical supplies and services in particular. You might as well add the badly wounded to the death toll right now, in fact. (No, Ingo, I am not defending Israel's historic or present approach to "solving" this problem, or saying the 240-lb guy is right to carry on this way.)

But whether lobbing puny fireworks at Sderot is to be considered initiatory provocation or retaliation for more general and bigger ongoing offenses, Hammas is historically aware that it is going to provoke payback in the full proportion that Israel is armed to strike with, every damned time; it is also aware that it is, as you describe, thoroughly embedded among the most densely populated settlement since New York's Lower East Side of 1922, and that it is and always will be impossible to calculate strikes with such finesse that there won't be terrible collateral damage to civilian property, as well as totally unacceptable civilian casualties. Hammas is cynically exposing the Palestinian people of Gaza to this clearly no-win, no-hope scenario. Hammas, as the "elected government" of this group of people, is apparently willing to let its civilians suffer this pounding.

But then -- who is sorting out what defines a militant and who is an uninvolved civilian? Are they clearly distinguished or distinguishable? (Did we go through enough of this in Southeast Asia to know there is a very permeable boundary in those definitions sometimes? The Palestinian people -- or it it just their militants? -- have been playing for Davy and Goliath publicity since little kids were throwing rocks at tanks in the 80s, and it seems the big thug Israel never gets the message that he's being snookered again.) You say Hammas is not necessarily hiding behind civilians -- I say if it is unavoidably embedded among densely packed civilians and indistinguishable from them (yes, poor militants, they can't even afford uniforms and military kit so you can tell them from the innocent shopkeepers who have no inventory), then it IS, most necessarily, hiding among them as soon as it lobs those crappy fireworks, knowing exactly what to expect within 12 to 24 hours. And perhaps exploiting it, too. I wonder what they do while they wait -- help the people hunker down as best they can? Or line up photographers for all those shots of bleeding kids in the rubble?

You know insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Posted by: InRi 05-Jan-2009, 04:43 PM
QUOTE (stormeil @ 05-Jan-2009, 09:04 PM)
You know insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

True words, stormeil!
But there is an open question. How to stop this insanity? Both parties don't seem interested to stop that by themselves. The thousands of (potentially) victims in the civil population are irrelevant for both. What's to do?
I want to speak in images again: If two boys come to blows with cudgels I would take them the cudgels away, grab them by the scruff of the neck, sit them dowm and sandbag them to speak together until they reach a practical result.
QUOTE (Emmet @ 05-Jan-2009, 02:22 PM)
Israel
1) Immediately cease fire and withdraw all IDF forces from Gaza.
2) Immediately lift the blockade of Gaza.
3) Recognize Hammas as the legitimate Palestinian government, and negotiate accordingly in good faith.
4) Immediately halt all Israeli construction on the West Bank.
5) Begin plans for withdrawal from all occupied territories pursuant to UN Resolution 242, et. al.
6) Reopen negotiations with all parties to the 2002 Beirut Summit in good faith.
7) Respect the territorial integrity of it's neighbors in all respects.
Palestine
1) Immediately cease fire.
2) Allow the IDF invasion force to withdraw in good order.
3) Reopen negotiations with all parties to the 2002 Beirut Summit in good faith.
4) Respect the territorial integrity of it's neighbors in all respects.

As a matter of principle this is a good thing but the boys have their cudgels yet.
Is it able to take them away the cudgels - or does somebody earn a good Dollar by selling the cudgels? I just drop this remark...
But on that condition get these points:
QUOTE (Emmet @ 05-Jan-2009, 02:22 PM)
U.S.
1) Freeze all foreign aid to Israel pending their compliance with UN Resolution 242, et al.
2) Freeze all military aid to Israel pursuant to the US Arms Export Control Act and Foreign Assistance Act.
3) Stop running interference for Israel in the UN Security Council.
4) Collectively tell AIPAC to go to hell. Any elected US official, whether city councilman or President, should only pledge allegiance to one country; the United States.
very fast a great importance for both parties.
But I want to take still a step forward! Why not to demilitarize both parties? So long as there is something to slug somebody they'll do it. Both demonstrated this in the past often enough. Unfortunatly I fear this could be a game without a result too.

Do I expect too much?

Ingo

Posted by: Emmet 05-Jan-2009, 05:17 PM
So it's really the Palestinians own fault. Knowing full well the unmitigated savagery of the Israelis and the outright contempt in which they hold Arab lives in general and Palestinian lives in particular, they should have played along in the sham of Middle East democracy and dutifully elected that Quisling Abbas and the corrupt Fatah regime as Israel and the United States ordered them to, meekly accepting their subjugation and prostrating themselves before their conqueror like good slaves.

If you were Palestinian, is this really what you would do?

Posted by: stoirmeil 05-Jan-2009, 06:02 PM
Uh huh -- go try to demilitarize Israel, Ingo. I'll hold your coat while you do. dry.gif

Look -- it seems to me there are no shades of grey in the way you reason this, Emmet. The "don't blame the victim" model is too blunt an instrument to characterize this problem of how to make the Palestinian side of the conflict bear its own weight. There is deep culpability on both sides, and if it only were a playground scrap with big grownups to take away the cudgels, both boys would need to be disarmed and reprimanded equally and severely. But you do not have a clean and simple "hulking bully vs. scrappy underdog" here -- that's also an easy model to loft up, based solely on disparity of armaments. As to unmitigated savagery and contempt for life -- how many Israelis have detonated themselves in the middle of Arab markets? Perhaps you hold Israel honor-bound to regard Palestinian lives as sacred when they do not hold their own lives sacred. Or maybe you would say suicide bombing is a different way to hold life sacred -- a martyr's sacrifice. Maybe blowing yourself up with your victims is more immediate and less cowardly than long-range missiles? Or this dance of starving, bleeding death in Gaza is infinitely preferable to all concerned than a "quisling" sellout that might buy less than perfect autonomy but gets you some room to breathe, the ear of the powers, and your kids well fed and not growing up deaf from repeated blast injuries? All questions. I'm not saying I have the answers -- I just wonder sometimes why you are so sure that you do. I tell you what I don't think it is -- it's not good old American-style, heroic, ringing "Give me liberty or give me death!" (In fact I'm not sure even Patrick Henry was that. Hindsight has such great lighting effects.) But what these people are being dragged through by their own intransigent, all-or-nothing heroes comprises at least 50% of the abuse. So -- is it "all their fault?" No. I never said so.

Posted by: Antwn 05-Jan-2009, 08:11 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 05-Jan-2009, 08:22 AM)
It's not my purpose in life to educate or entertain fools. Clearly you have access to Google; try using research to refute an argument rather than sarcasm.


A request that you authenticate your claims by providing the sources for your statistics is hardly unreasonable nor is it foolish. This was the first sentence in my initial response to you. If you make assertions its beholden upon you to substantiate their veracity not your readers. I wasn't asking for a lengthy bibliography, just a few websites where you derived your statistics. That you refuse to provide any makes me incredulous as to their authenticity. I'm sure you don't care to what degree I believe you, since you haven't bothered to respond to any of my questions, yet at the same time call me a fool and challenge me to refute you! If you don't bother to substantiate yourself, don't bother to respond to questions about your initial post I already asked, why should I research YOUR claims and offer a refutation? It would be fruitless effort since apparantly I haven't met your personal criteria for worthiness of response. Fine, suits me. Your superciliousness is appreciated by me as much as my facetiousness is appreciated by you. Now, if you'll pardon me I have to go commit a "crime against humanity" by paying my income tax.

Posted by: stoirmeil 05-Jan-2009, 09:12 PM
QUOTE (Antwn @ 05-Jan-2009, 09:11 PM)
Now, if you'll pardon me I have to go commit a "crime against humanity" by paying my income tax.

If you look in the upper right hand corner of the form, after dousing the document with lemon juice and holding it under the light of a three-quarter moon, you will see a very small box that lets you designate what your taxes are to be used for. Most people don't know this.

Posted by: InRi 06-Jan-2009, 06:23 AM
Hi stoirmeil,
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 06-Jan-2009, 01:02 AM)
Uh huh -- go try to demilitarize Israel, Ingo.  I'll hold your coat while you do.  dry.gif

I'll do my very best.... but joking apart now...
That's an idea only. But I'm realist enough to know that this never will work. Too much is invested into this machinery of war than you can stop that again. Middle East is an enormous powder keg and who takes the responsibilty for detonate it...
I want to ask again: What's to do if the rationality fails and all the other things aren't practicable?
Deliberately I don't ask about blame or innocence - the only that count in my opinion is to stop this insanity - however to do it.
A couple of years ago one of my friends said; "The only ability to solve this conflict is: to build a wall around Middle East to put a lid at the top and to wait 20 or 30 years."
To this day I don't know if this was a joke or a real (even tough devilish sarcastic) ability to solve it really...
Sometimes I think: This could be true, but on the other hand - what's about the civilians...
No, dear friends, I don't see a solve in this time....

Ingo

Posted by: Emmet 06-Jan-2009, 11:58 AM
QUOTE
Uh huh -- go try to demilitarize Israel, Ingo. I'll hold your coat while you do.


It would be interesting to see how long Israel's offensive lasts without an endless supply of American weapons, ammunition, spare parts, and cash.

Posted by: Emmet 06-Jan-2009, 12:06 PM
QUOTE
Clearly you have access to Google; try using research to refute an argument rather than sarcasm.
QUOTE
why should I research YOUR claims and offer a refutation?


Yeah; I didn't think so...it's so much easier just to be snarky.

Posted by: stoirmeil 06-Jan-2009, 01:01 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 06-Jan-2009, 12:58 PM)

It would be interesting to see how long Israel's offensive lasts without an endless supply of American weapons, ammunition, spare parts, and cash.

It would be. I can't even say it would be a completely insane idea, except for the inevitable massing and attack of the surrounding barracudas, like in 1948. (I don't think the Brits have yet lived down they way they pulled out and left the Israelis bareass naked to overwhelming Arab hostility.) But the fact is, the only thing in the Middle East with a real European sensibility, that the west feels like it can understand and deal comfortably with, is Israel, and it will be as long as the ruling element there is old-school Ashkenazic leadership with its 1000-year European intellectual and social history (which doesn't look like changing any time soon, in spite of the wrangles Israel has had internally with its Ashkenazic-Sephardic power imbalances). There is a reason why the alembic that produced modern Zionism was Vienna, not Jerusalem. This American (and European -- admit it even though Sarkozy won't) sense of familiarity with a more essentially Western nation in the Middle East is a much deeper cause for the tolerance of atrocious behaviour, I believe, than the thing that people usually cite Israelis as thinking: "After the Holocaust, the world owes us." If the 20th century experience in Europe and later in Palestine/Israel turned a bunch of passive, overbred intellectuals into virtually uncontrollable attack animals under pressure -- again, I don't excuse, but I attempt to explain -- you can't say the west hasn't assessed them very shrewdly as a strategic stabilizing factor in the region, including their attack propensities, in spite of all the hand-wringing and protests when they run to excess. On the international policy level, nobody on this side of the Levant is inclined to take Israel's toys away; and nobody on the other side, on any level, is capable of it.

Posted by: Emmet 06-Jan-2009, 03:33 PM
The Middle East has been in a constant state of war for 42 years; in what way is Israel " a strategic stabilizing factor in the region"?

Posted by: stoirmeil 06-Jan-2009, 04:58 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 06-Jan-2009, 04:33 PM)
The Middle East has been in a constant state of war for 42 years; in what way is Israel " a strategic stabilizing factor in the region"?

That may be a little absolute in its expectations: if it isn't peace it's an all-out failure. (It also seems to imply that if Israel were NOT there, the Middle East would be a cooperative community garden of peace with no internecine conflict to speak of, which I very much doubt -- but maybe that's not what you intended, and I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth.) A stabilizing factor doesn't always succeed in preventing conflict, and I'm not sure unadulterated peace is its main purpose or its measuring stick for success in any case -- a strong regional ally is primarily a deterrant against loss of control, and is most effective if that ally is supplied and politically backed by some larger power. In this case, whatever skirmish Israel gets involved in, even if it seems to be solely in their own interest, is understood to be in the larger strategic interest as well. To the extent Israel is performing within the interests of its western allies, the hand-wringing is more symbolic; when not, and the situation gets too hot and morally indefensible (="looks bad"), the concern for the balance is more real.

I'm still not sure, honestly, which the present situation is -- there is still too much protest (from Bush in extremis, but what the hell can you expect?) that Israel really is just defending itself with this brutalization of Gaza, for it to seem like a genuine object of American concern -- and that, of course, leads into a confounding rat's nest of partisan positions pro and con. I'm not saying anything about morally or from a humanitarian perspective. That kind of brutality is never defensible in those terms, but the indefensibility of "collateral damage" or the failure to uphold human rights in general have never seemed like the strongest criteria in international oversight.

I think Israel is seen from both sides as a front line against Arab nation uncooperativeness, and most lately Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, as well as being a western strategic pied-a-terre -- supported from the west, and bitterly resented by some if not most factions in the east. That seems like a strategic linchpin. And again, as a deterrant -- the thing about prevention is you never can tell how bad something WOULD have been, when it never happened. But you still don't remove the deterrant.

There has been a lot of discussion on the whole western perspective regarding eastern/arab/muslim culture and how it is conceived of and represented in the distribution of postcolonial power; I tend to see this stuff mostly in literary criticism, but it is also of political interest. The classic, from the 80s, is probably Edward Said's "Orientalism." There is a lot to think about, concerning why there needs to be a perennial representative of western interests with some clout in the region.

Posted by: Antwn 06-Jan-2009, 08:35 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 06-Jan-2009, 01:06 PM)
QUOTE
Clearly you have access to Google; try using research to refute an argument rather than sarcasm.


Yeah; I didn't think so...it's so much easier just to be snarky.

Sorry Emmett, you're right. Its easier to be sarcastic than provide arguments of my own and the sincerity and passion with which you hold your own views deserved more respect than I provided. Please accept my apologies.

Posted by: Emmet 07-Jan-2009, 07:00 AM
QUOTE
Sorry Emmett, you're right. Its easier to be sarcastic than provide arguments of my own and the sincerity and passion with which you hold your own views deserved more respect than I provided. Please accept my apologies.


Apology accepted.
Earlier, you had asked if I had a solution to propose, and I responded with:

QUOTE

U.S.
1) Freeze all foreign aid to Israel pending their compliance with UN Resolution 242, et al.
2) Freeze all military aid to Israel pursuant to the US Arms Export Control Act and Foreign Assistance Act.
3) Stop running interference for Israel in the UN Security Council.
4) Collectively tell AIPAC to go to hell. Any elected US official, whether city councilman or President, should only pledge allegiance to one country; the United States.

Israel
1) Immediately cease fire and withdraw all IDF forces from Gaza.
2) Immediately lift the blockade of Gaza.
3) Recognize Hammas as the legitimate Palestinian government, and negotiate accordingly in good faith.
4) Immediately halt all Israeli construction on the West Bank.
5) Begin plans for withdrawal from all occupied territories pursuant to UN Resolution 242, et. al.
6) Reopen negotiations with all parties to the 2002 Beirut Summit in good faith.
7) Respect the territorial integrity of it's neighbors in all respects.

Palestine
1) Immediately cease fire.
2) Allow the IDF invasion force to withdraw in good order.
3) Reopen negotiations with all parties to the 2002 Beirut Summit in good faith.
4) Respect the territorial integrity of it's neighbors in all respects.


The Beirut Summit offered an end to endless war; in exchange for Israel withdrawing to their pre-1967 borders and allowing the formation of a viable Palestinian state, with the right of return and it's capitol in East Jerusalem, all Arab signatories would formally recognize Israel's right to exist, declare the Arab-Israeli conflict to be over and normalize relations with Israel. With their raison de guerre eliminated, terrorism would eventually peter out and die as recruiting dried up and all signatories enforced the peace from within their own borders. No; it wouldn't happen overnight, but as the Belfast Accord demonstrates, it can happen, even with such mortal enemies as the IRA and the UDA.
With essentially unlimited US financial support, the US blocking any action in the UN Security Council, nuclear weapons, and the 4th largest air force in the world, including the largest fleet of F-16's outside of the US, Israel has never needed peace. Only America can change that.


I'd be interested in hearing your critique, and/or alternative suggestions.

Posted by: Emmet 07-Jan-2009, 07:51 AM
I'm not at all clear on how our unconditional support of Israeli militarism in any way serves America's national interest.

As a deterrent against "against loss of control", isn't that what we pay Saudi Arabia for? Who can forget that touching moment of George Bush and Prince Abdullah gently holding hands on that romantic garden walk?

As a deterrent against "Arab nation uncooperativeness", U.S. support of Israel's wars led directly to the oil embargoes of 1967 and 1973 and the formation of OPEC, not only for economic reasons but to collectively exert political power as well. Besides, that's why we support puppet pseudo-democracies like Egypt.

As a deterrent againt "Islamic fundamentalist terrorism", our unconditional support of Israeli militarism, particularly as it's applied to the Palestinians, is the most frequently cited casus belli of both al-Qaeda and Iran, and prior to Israel's latest atrocity in Gaza, 75% of the children there said that they wanted to grow up to be martyrs; not hard to understand if you grow up starving in a refugee camp that gets periodically shelled. You can bloody well guess what the percentage among the survivors is be today.

Case in point. Lebanon was a stable, Western-style democracy which "the west feet like it can understand and deal comfortably with"; so much so that Western banks felt comfortable to set up shop there and as a European tourist destination it possessed sufficient "real European sensibility" to be referred to as the Riviera of the Middle East. Israel's utter destruction of Lebanon in 1982 and their brutally repressive occupation of southern Lebanon thereafter (sufficiently barbarous that Ronald Reagan, not exactly a bleeding-heart shrinking violet, suspended arms sales to Israel), resulted in the formation and rise to power of Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. On April 18, 1983 the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed, killing over 60 people, mostly embassy staff members and U.S. Marines and Sailors. On October 23, 1983, the Marines billeted at the Beirut Airport were bombed, killing 243 Americans.

Some deterrent.

Posted by: Antwn 07-Jan-2009, 03:50 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 07-Jan-2009, 08:00 AM)
I'd be interested in hearing your critique, and/or alternative suggestions.

I hope I can explain this well Emmett, and you're probably not going to like it, but here is my attempt at any rate. I'm more political pragmatist than idealogue. I don't think there's a paucity of ideas but there's conflicting motivations for their implementation. For example, I'm in favor of an independent Palestinian state, but I'm not sure to what degree that would end violence long term nor am I confident that either party truly wants it because they both have vested interests in the status quo, however violent, unsettling and disasterous it is - at least until circumstances become untenable enough to inspire the sacrifices needed for a permanent shift in power structures.

An organization in power seeks to maintain it. Hamas began as a terrorist organization and over time has morphed into a social service community support organization, providing hospitals and social support for people in Gaza, and as you've pointed out, is the legitimately elected governing body for the Palestinian territories. This evolution has succeeded in garshing them widespread local support, which as a strategy has been studied by Al Quaeda for possible adoption, according to a CIA analyst interviewed by 60 Minutes, because it dilutes characteristic terrorist bad guy designations and multidimentionalises their organization into legitimate and illegitimate elements. On the surface this positioning may appear sincerely altruistic, legitimate and responsible, and perhaps there's an element which is, yet this strategy has a darker side in which they have profited financially and militarity as the focal point in a greater Muslim struggle throughout the Islamic diaspora and have fed off their image as the martyred victimized poster child of a endless struggling cause, which not only justifies violence but continuity. Continued conflict is thus in their interest. They've profited financially and militarily much more by positioning themselves this way than they otherwise would if a Palestinian state were established. They maintain sympathies as an oppressed people and as exemplifications of a larger perception of Islamic victimhood. A Palestinian state would de-legitimize violent struggle and they would either have to conjure another justification for it or take the more mundane role of a state governance. Further, they'd devolve into just another political party which could be easily replaced by election instead of front line infantry in the struggle against oppressive Zionism.

Israel also has a vested interest. Gaza is much easier to control as a territory. As part of a internationally recognized independent state Gaza and the West Bank could not remain so easily under the Israeli yoke. Israel knows this and could not engage in war with a soverign state as easily and maintain international support. Thus they would lose an advantage they now have in maintaining control, suppression, limit growth and maintain the alienation of the Palestinian people as regime outsiders as opposed to the advantages of self determination and the more fruitfull potentials full sovereignty would provide.

A free, independent self governing Palestinian state is the best next step to my mind because it would dampen the fire of zealotry in both the Palistinian people and the greater Muslim world surrounding this cause, lessen the justification for violence by Hamas, and further complicate Israel's position by forcing it to deal with a new entity it cannot legitimately squash at will so easily, not that Israel is above declaring war on another state, but that choice would be more complicated in the case of an independent Palestine, and so would maintaining legitimate support from the west for such an action. Israel could not raise the spectre of imminent destruction as easily, not from Hamas anyway, but would have to turn its sights to other hostile states.

If implemented however this solution is no guarantee. There could still be the legitimacy of Israel to question, and the fact that historically Palestine has included what is now Israel, a territory which will perpetually be that which was usurped, there's always a future justification for conflict, always another struggle.

So despite a plethora of existing and potential ideas to resolve this crisis, what I would call more potent underlying motivations need to be addressed. Sacrifice is required by both sides, including a paradigm shift from endless tit for tat retribution, but more importantly a fundemental alteration of how each side perceives itself and the surrender of nefarious gains each side aquires in status quo maintanence. This choice is further complicated by what Israel faces from the greater Muslim world, for the situation in the middle east is a focal point in microcasm for Muslim perception of and desires from the western world and the situation there has tendrils that stretch through alliances as well as Muslim migration to Europe and the US. The ramifications of policy decisions thus have far reaching effects which inspire many cooks desiring to spice the soup in ways which would be advantageous to them.

Posted by: stoirmeil 08-Jan-2009, 06:46 PM
QUOTE (Emmet @ 07-Jan-2009, 08:51 AM)
Lebanon was a stable, Western-style democracy which "the west feel like it can understand and deal comfortably with"; so much so that Western banks felt comfortable to set up shop there and as a European tourist destination it possessed sufficient "real European sensibility" to be referred to as the Riviera of the Middle East. Israel's utter destruction of Lebanon in 1982 and their brutally repressive occupation of southern Lebanon thereafter (sufficiently barbarous that Ronald Reagan, not exactly a bleeding-heart shrinking violet, suspended arms sales to Israel), resulted in the formation and rise to power of Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.

Which gives you an idea how deep the "Western feel" ran in Lebanon, when it came to world interests -- that cultural approximation of Western sensibility is paper thin in a place like Lebanon. It is not western -- suits and beaches, and even the survival of elite people there speaking French, do not make a europeanized ally. There are deep and long-lasting cultural criteria that preclude real western identity and inclusion taking hold in the Middle East, far predating the modern rise of European nation states. The religion of Islam itself is not even all of it, though it's a large part.

And of course Al-q'aeda and Iran are going to cite Israel's massive overkill retaliations as the primary reason for the constant conflict. I am not saying there is NO reason in it -- but I am convinced it is neither the only nor even the primary reason. It's very pragmatic: If you can only throw "fireworks" at the vastly mightier enemy you can also get the world to look on and see the inevitable return volley and loudly take the side of the underdog, a powerful benefit; in fact you can depend on it. Let's imagine the press or info services stopped repetitively blowing up the news -- might the cycle of provocation and exaggerated retaliation just begin to decelerate for lack of attention? Does that mean it should be covered up? No, of course not -- it has to be observed so that it does not escalate into unchecked genocide. (I imagine you think it already is unchecked genocide. What do you call genocide perpetrated cooperatively by a people's leaders and its enemies together?) But unchecked, saturation reportage also provides a broad incentive for the calculating and cynical sacrifice of "the people" by the militants themselves -- people who actually believe Hamas is protecting and providing for them. So, how much better if you can actually train little kids to find it desirable and an honor to be so used, and get even their mothers to endorse it? Then make sure the world hears about it hourly, at least. There is a parallel here, too: ramping down inflated reportage and the pursuant, dependable outrage when the provocateurs get what they are cruising for is unthinkable -- at least as unthinkable as demilitarizing Israel. Both of them are using their biggest guns to maintain the dynamic, and both Hamas and the Israeli government and military are keeping the people of Gaza under fire.

I may be wrong -- in fact, I'd prefer to be -- but it is beginning to sound like you relish the idea of Israel being eliminated, Emmet. If you think that's the key to establishing and maintaining peace in the region, I have to disagree, and we can agree to disagree. If you have some other reason, I'd be interested in hearing what it is.

Meanwhile the President elect is wondering if he really should have taken this job . . . Hilary is thinking about taking over from Condoleeza, and how much use Bill is going to be this time.

Posted by: stoirmeil 08-Jan-2009, 06:53 PM
QUOTE (Antwn @ 07-Jan-2009, 04:50 PM)
On the surface this positioning may appear sincerely altruistic, legitimate and responsible, and perhaps there's an element which is, yet this strategy has a darker side in which they have profited financially and militarity as the focal point in a greater Muslim struggle throughout the Islamic diaspora and have fed off their image as the martyred victimized poster child of a endless struggling cause, which not only justifies violence but continuity. Continued conflict is thus in their interest. They've profited financially and militarily much more by positioning themselves this way than they otherwise would if a Palestinian state were established. They maintain sympathies as an oppressed people and as exemplifications of a larger perception of Islamic victimhood.

That's what I was trying to say. And those sympathies thrive much better on an all-or-nothing, non-nuanced analysis of motivations on both sides.

Posted by: InRi 09-Jan-2009, 10:26 AM
user posted image
...possessed by the devil

I found this tody. I think this describes the situation perfectly!

Ingo

Posted by: Antwn 09-Jan-2009, 12:35 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 08-Jan-2009, 07:53 PM)
That's what I was trying to say. And those sympathies thrive much better on an all-or-nothing, non-nuanced analysis of motivations on both sides.

Yes! And that way of thinking is pervasive not only in geo-politics but is the first approach to any human social problem. Its also the type of thinking most religions depend on. Given how dysfunctional it is as an analytical method, one wonders how far humanity would progress by giving it up. Yeah, dream on Antwn.....

Powered by Invision Power Board (https://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (https://www.invisionpower.com)