How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 bombings in Israel   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ]
 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

bombings in Israel

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


125 posted 08-09-2006 04:46 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I'm not ready, yet, to treat Israel and Hazbollah the same, Mike, because I'm not ready, yet, to believe they are the same. When and if I do, I really won't much care who wins or loses.

I'm in complete agreement, Ron. Should it come to that point, I won't care, either. No, I am not there, either, but I assure you that if Israel is shown to conduct intentional indiscriminate bombings with no military objectives whatsoever on civilian targets - as Hazbollah is doing now - then I will consider them on the same level.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


126 posted 08-09-2006 06:05 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
but I assure you that if Israel is shown to conduct intentional indiscriminate bombings with no military objectives whatsoever on civilian targets - as Hazbollah is doing now - then I will consider them on the same level.


Hezbollah isn’t conducting indiscriminate bombings with no military objectives; they’re conducting indiscriminate bombings with a clear military objective – as are Israel.

quote:
In a security cabinet meeting headed by prime minister Olmert on July 27, Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon said that

"Everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist and is connected to Hizbollah" and therefore Israel should "[..] employ huge firepower before a ground force goes in. [..] Our great advantage vis-a-vis Hizbollah is our firepower, not in face-to-face combat. [..] In other words: a village from which rockets are fired at Israel will simply be destroyed by fire."

On 24 July Hossein Safiadeen, Hezbollah envoy to Iran, told a conference that included the Tehran-based representative of the Palestinian group Hamas and the ambassadors from Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Authority

"We are going to make Israel not safe for Israelis". He continued saying, "We will expand attacks. The people who came to Israel, (they) moved there to live, not to die. If we continue to attack, they will leave."


Source wikipedia – 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


127 posted 08-09-2006 10:25 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Also, if a criminal were to hold a child in front of him while shooting at policemen, I would not consider him an honorable fellow.

Nor would I, Mike. But how should we feel when the policeman fires right through the child to get at the criminal? Does pragmatism beget honor?

The criminal is culpable, to be sure. But I believe "there was no choice" is just a handy euphemism for hard choices, and ultimately everyone is personally responsible for their own actions. The criminal limited the cop's options, but he couldn't make the choice for him.

When one side is holding the child down and the other is shooting the child, it becomes a little difficult to feel righteous compassion for either side.

quote:
I asked in this thread before without a response (again). What should Israel do - or what would you do, as Israel, with Haz firing missiles from civilian areas? Not retaliate because there are civilians, thereby giving the terrorists an incredible advantage, or retaliate in the safest possible ways, complete with advance warnings to all towns that responses to missile attacks will be met  with enough force to neutralize the attacks?

I would retaliate with ground troops, Mike, capable of making the necessary distinction between enemy and innocent. That's something missiles can't do yet. It wouldn't be a panacea, something we learned all too well in Vietnam, and it sure wouldn't be as safe or "technologically superior" as lobbing explosives from afar, but I personally think it would be the right thing to do.

When forced to choose between giving up a military advantage or giving up a moral advantage, I'll opt for the former every time. It may sound hopelessly idealistic, but I honestly don't believe military advantages ever won a war.

quote:
The old "If you do what we do, you're as bad as we are" ploy won't work here. I feel sure that whoever came up with that phrase was on the criminal side and probably smiling when they said it.

Do you really prefer the alternative, Mike? I have a sinking feeling that whomever came up with "The end justifies the means" was no saint.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


128 posted 08-09-2006 10:58 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well, ron, I guess the right thing to do lies somewhere in between those two cliches. It makes me wonder of your thoughts on Hiroshima and Nagasaki but then that would be fodder for another thread.

At any rate, it appears Israel is going to follow your advice, which is excellent, btw. The ground troops are moving in. We will see how it goes...
rhia_5779
Senior Member
since 06-09-2006
Posts 1304
California


129 posted 08-10-2006 10:59 AM       View Profile for rhia_5779   Email rhia_5779   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rhia_5779

actually the media situation. was pretty bad in world war 11 also, actually it was worse
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


130 posted 08-10-2006 08:14 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

How was the media environment worse during WW2, rhia?  I wasn't born yet at the time, but from accounts of those who were, we didn't have daily news reports of body counts, along with graphic photos, of innocent dead German civilians being printed. Today we do, and today we have them being used as propaganda tools by the terrorists and their sympathizers in the media.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


131 posted 08-10-2006 09:40 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

I would retaliate with ground troops, Mike, capable of making the necessary distinction between enemy and innocent. That's something missiles can't do yet. It wouldn't be a panacea, something we learned all too well in Vietnam, and it sure wouldn't be as safe or "technologically superior" as lobbing explosives from afar, but I personally think it would be the right thing to do.



Provisionally agree -- but, as I stated earlier (what am I Mike -- chopped liver?  I answered your question specifically) -- the FIRST action is to STOP.

Hizbullah (I prefer that to the many apparently accepted English translation spellings because it has a more sinister bullyish look don't you think?) has already said they would stop if Isreal would -- call them on it... try it.  With the provision that if the ceasefire is violated the groundtroops will be lacing up jackboots faster than Ann Coulter can misquote a source.

The worst that happens?  Hizbullah doesn't stop and keeps lobbing missiles -- which they're doing anyway -- in which event political opinion shifts to Isreal's favor --

Isreal says -- UN... please bring in the peacekeeping troops -- UN says -- we can't -- there's no peace there!

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


132 posted 08-11-2006 10:38 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
... the FIRST action is to STOP

No, the first action, LR, would have been to never start. However, having started ...

quote:
Hizbullah ... has already said they would stop if Isreal would -- call them on it... try it.

And Israel has already said that any ceasefire is conditional on the return of the two captured Israeli soldiers. Remember the reason behind the conflict? Hezbollah, I'm sure, would dearly love an early end to the conflict ... so they could continue with their original mission to trade captured Israelis for Samir Kuntar and other Lebanese prisoners held by Israel.

"No military operation will return them (Israeli soldiers). The prisoners will not be returned except through one way: indirect negotiations and a trade of prisoners." Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah

Of course Hezbollah is willing to stop, LR. An unconditional ceasefire is an unconditional victory for them.


rhia_5779
Senior Member
since 06-09-2006
Posts 1304
California


133 posted 08-11-2006 10:59 AM       View Profile for rhia_5779   Email rhia_5779   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rhia_5779

ok mayb not the media situation was worse as in not reporting. sorry i didnt mean that as much. we didnt listen to the media is what was going on. the media wrote about and said what was going on. but the americans and the vatican at least didnt listen . like now, the media isnt great, and the world follows it prettty well, then the media reporting was giving facts, yet they did not listen.

sorry i mean the above instead
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


134 posted 08-11-2006 12:47 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

That's a pretty broad and so far unsubstantiated statement to claim that "we" didn't listen to the media in WWII. What do you have to back it up?

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


135 posted 08-11-2006 05:23 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Of course Hezbollah is willing to stop, LR. An unconditional ceasefire is an unconditional victory for them.



There is virtually no scenario in which Hizbullah (see I'm still calling them evil Mike) loses.  But in the meantime -- it makes no sense to keep destroying the infrastructure of Lebanon and killing innocent civilians -- it is to no avail.  

The only purpose Isreal has right now is to try to inflict as much damage as possible and gain control over some real estate to negotiate with when the UN agreement comes out.  They aren't 'protecting' or defending anybody -- they're just creating the conditions for more Hizbullah sympathizers in the long run and a new civil war in Lebanon.  

Israel loses.  Or are you expecting an unconditional surrender Appomattox style?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


136 posted 08-11-2006 08:00 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The worst that happens?  Hizbullah doesn't stop and keeps lobbing missiles -- which they're doing anyway -- in which event political opinion shifts to Isreal's favor --

LR, any scenario that you can come up with which would cause public opinion to shift to Israel's (I prefer that spelling from an accuracy standpoint) is based on fantasy. There is absolutely no scenario or chain of events which is going to cause public opinion to favor Israel....and I think you know that.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


137 posted 08-11-2006 08:52 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Ok, so it's Hizbullah to be grammatically and politically correct.  They don't respect me, but I should respect them.  Ok.

If Hizbullah was as concerned about the Lebanese women, children and elderly as they claim to be, then why on earth haven't they relocated them to the vast amount of bunkers which Hizbullah created over the past several years with Iranian help?  I look at Israel and I see a country housing people in bomb shelters and bunkers at taxpayer expense.  So what is Hizbullah doing?

Could it be that Hizbullah tells these population groups that a building is safe, you should all go in there and hunker down, just so Hizbullah can launch rocket attacks into Israel then wait for the reprisal with cellphones and cameras at the ready?  Given their past history, such a scenario would not surprise me at all.

Which reminds me.  What were Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers doing in southern Lebanon?  Or was that purely an Israeli evidence plant for propoganda?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


138 posted 08-11-2006 09:44 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Cat,

In reading your last post I have to wonder if you've even read what I've written?  

Mike,

I can't remember the last time there was a Confederate incursion into Union territory.  I can't remember the last time we bombed London, even though English forces captured and burned Washington D.C.  I also can't remember the last time we bombed Mexico.  I know of but have no direct memory of the last time we bombed Japan and Germany -- but -- can't think of a time when we've done it since.

I don't remember launching nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union or China.  I can't think of any non-classified skirmishes with Fidel Castro.

The point is -- it's hard to imagine enemies as friends when they're enemies.  They do, after all, want to kill us.  But when arms are laid down the clock starts again.  

Define which public you're talking about when you say public -- because there's a whole lot of public in the world -- and right now most of it thinks IsrAel has pulled a major blunder and America as well for tacit endorsement.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


139 posted 08-11-2006 11:33 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

LR, I'm not playing dumb here (although I've bee told I do it well) but I have no idea what your examples refer to. We haven't bombed Mexico, London, the Soviet Union? Well, if Mexico were periodically bombing us, sending in suicide bombers, kidnapping our military...perhaps we would bomb their strongholds. As far as Japan is concerned, well you know what happened there. Truman said he realized that with the arrival of the kamikaze that we were fighting an enemy that would never surrender to defeat and, for that reason, unleashed what became Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In other words, faced with only that option, he went ahead. I see similarities with Israel's decision. Did that make him popular with the world? Does it make Israel? No, but that wasn't a concern. The end of the threat was the concern.

The public I refer to? Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Libya....the middle east. They are the ones that matter. They are the ones that live in Israel's neck of the woods. Wha  t Norweigans, Alaskans or Lilliputians think have little importance....and the Middle East is never going to favor Israel.

I do acknowledge that I wish Israel had not reacted as forcefully as they have. They did have, for a brief time, a glimmer of understanding from other countries which dissapated as their responce grew more forceful....but they were never going to have the other countries "on their side". They are Israel, the country that's not supposed to be there, the democracy in the middle of shiekdoms and dictators, the Jews in the middle of Moslems. You painted a scenario where the Lebanese could turn against Hazbollah...when have you ever seen any indication of that? Did they rise against them with the bombing of the marine barracks in the 80's? With all of the anti-Israel activities over the years? Are they against them now, even though their actions have initiated this level of destruction on their country?

As far as the US suffering for our inaction to get the Israelis to stop, well, blame it on Bush. That shouldn't be so hard for you If he had jumped in a the beginning and demanded them to stop, then we could have blamed him for interfering. Hazbollah has killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization in the world, with the exception of 9/11. Maybe George was not displeased to see another country go after them and, now that the damage has become excessive, he has stepped in to stop it or slow it down. We can blame him for that, too...why not?
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


140 posted 08-12-2006 02:03 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

I wonder, Mike, if over the years you've ever had any real success with that in a discussion? The "Oh, woe, everyone is against me (and Bush)" sarcasm, I mean. Since it makes absolutely no point at all, I have to assume you do it just because it feels good?

And, no, we certainly can't blame Bush for the current conflict. I mean, let's face it. If Bush had been in charge, Israel would have already lost sight of the goal in Lebanon and attacked another country entirely.

(Nope, sorry, I'm still not seeing the attraction sarcasm holds for you, Mike. It's too easy to be any fun. I don't know, maybe we should try dialog instead of diatribe? What do you think?)

LR, sorry, I got a bit side-tracked. I think you're wrong, but I'll have to explain why another time ...


kif kif
Member
since 06-01-2006
Posts 431
BCN


141 posted 08-12-2006 10:43 AM       View Profile for kif kif   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for kif kif

I think the answer was probably way back on page 1.

Yeah, sarcasm's dead easy, just like retaliation.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


142 posted 08-12-2006 02:34 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

I have read what you've written, LR.  I've also slept since then.  Thing is, I've seen many variants of how that political party/resistance group calls themselves, from Hizbollah to Hezb'Allah.  Yes, I have called them Hezbully, and would again: it's what they are to the Lebanese and Israeli Jews, Christians, Muslims, Secular, and Others.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


143 posted 08-12-2006 08:12 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

hmmm...that's interesting, Ron. Funny how people can see things differently. You see it as sarcasm and I see it as more like tongue-in-cheek and I have no problem receiving that type of interraction from someone else. I assure you that sarcasm would be completely different but, if you see it as serious sarcasm, then I would certainly apologize to both you and LR. I assume you are referring to the last lines of my comment and not the other 95% of it.

As far as success with the "bash Bush" argument? Of course...people make it so obvious it's not easy to hide.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


144 posted 08-13-2006 12:20 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

By all means -- take as much time as you need Ron.  Always interested in your analysis.

quote:

Hazbollah has killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization in the world, with the exception of 9/11.

not playing dumb here (although I've bee told I do it well) but I have no idea what your examples refer to



(no data available on civilian casualties -- US Military personnel battle deaths)

England killed 4435 -- Revolutionary War
England killed 2260 -- War of 1812
Indian wars killed 800 to 1000 depending on source
Mexico killed 1733 in the Mexican War
Confederates killed 140,414 American Civil War
Spanish killed 385 -- Spanish American War
Philippines killed 1000+ -- Philippine War
Germany and Allies killed 53,402 WWI
Axis powers killed 291,557 in WWII

I don't really need to go through all the rest -- because that is the point Mike.  In wars people die.  But we find ways to make friends out of enemies and find ways to co-exist with sworn enemies like the Soviet Union, China, and Castro's Cuba.  

I still see a few Confederate battle flags around even up here -- and still hear some regional bickering and grumblings about the 'south's gonna do it again'.  But is anybody in Cleveland really worried that a regiment from Georgia is going to take the city next week?  We know Texans can't eat Chili made in New York City -- but, are they going to nuke the big Apple over it?

quote:

As far as the US suffering for our inaction to get the Israelis to stop, well, blame it on Bush. That shouldn't be so hard for you  If he had jumped in a the beginning and demanded them to stop, then we could have blamed him for interfering.



Ok... so what you're saying here, behind the woe is me sarcasm,  is that it doesn't matter what people think -- as long as we have the big stick and willing and ready to use it.  It doesn't really matter to you whether or not we are moral in our treatment of humans who aren't Americans (or Israelis).

What you continue to not 'get' (and you are by no means alone) is that you indeed DO need to be concerned about what people think -- because guns don't fire themselves.  You claim to be sincerely interested in national security to the point that you will give up YOUR personal liberties to ensure it -- and you like the 'revenge' angle of violence -- but you aren't willing to address the root causes.

What happened in Japan Mike? At the end of WWII we didn't take Hirohito out and put him in front of a firing squad -- even though Japan committed atrocities and war crimes.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


145 posted 08-13-2006 12:43 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

They are Israel, the country that's not supposed to be there, the democracy in the middle of shiekdoms and dictators, the Jews in the middle of Moslems.



And what kind of government has Lebanon?  They are at war with a political party in democratic Lebanon -- a party that Lebanese people vote for -- because?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


146 posted 08-13-2006 01:00 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Hazbollah has killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization in the world, with the exception of 9/11.

Your rebuttal listed countries at war with the US during the time of declared wars....not terrorist organizations. Which war were we fighting when the marine barracks was bombed?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


147 posted 08-13-2006 03:04 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I think that's the point. Is this a declared war?

If not, doesn't it follow that something is seriously wrong here?

I think it was Orwell who said that sometimes the hardest thing to see is what is right in front of you.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


148 posted 08-13-2006 08:57 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Good question, Brad. It's a declared war in the sense that the terrorist groups have declared war on all democratic countries and declared by the White House as a war on terror. It is NOT a declared war as far as country fighting country,  army fighting army. It is not a war in the conventional sense and yet more Americans have died in it domestically than any other conventional war in history and it is just as important as any other.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


149 posted 08-13-2006 09:14 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

It is NOT a declared war as far as country fighting country,  army fighting army



So then you agree that this was not a military problem.
rhia_5779 will be notified of replies
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> bombings in Israel   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors