bombings in Israel - pipTalk Forums

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

rhia_5779
Senior Member

since 2006-06-09

Posts 1334
California

0 posted 2006-07-16 01:32 PM

Israel is currently fighting two battles. One with the Hamas in Gaza, and another with the Hezbollah up in Beirut, Haifia and northern Israel. They think bombs might also reach Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

What do you guys think is gonna happen?

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

1 posted 2006-07-16 03:57 PM

LOL! I think no one has that crystal ball.

For my part, I admire the Israeli stance on this. I am not Jewish and have no interest in Jewish politics (and have done my share at screaming at their inconsideration and rudeness here in Florida!) but I do admire their actions here. With the obvious exception of lamenting the deaths associated with the events of the past week, I feel that taking the fight to the terrorists may bring benefits. Lookat the comments from the G8 summit today...

The leaders of the world's eight industrial powers issued a strong statement condemning Hezbollah militants but also urged Israel to exercise restraint in its military actions against Lebanon.

The statement said it was critical for Israel to "be mindful of the strategic and humanitarian consequences of its actions." It called on Israel "to exercise utmost restraint" by seeking to avoid casualties among innocent civilians and damage to civilian infrastructure.

Merkel, speaking to reporters, said: "We do not want to let terrorist forces and those who support them have the opportunity to create chaos in the Middle East. Therefore we place value on clearly identifying the cause and effect of events."

She said the leaders believe that "first of all, that the Israeli soldiers must be returned unharmed, that the attacks on Israel must stop and that then, of course, also the Israeli military action must be ended."

The U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1559 in September 2004, calling for the disarmament of all militias and strict respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence. Hezbollah, which operates in southern Lebanon, has refused to disarm, saying it is a resistance movement.

I think that's an amazing statement. They are not condemning the Israeli response to the kidnapping of its soldiers and instead are condemning ALL terrorist organizations creating havoc in the Middle East. This could be a very important step in the downfall of terrorist groups, urging governments and local populace to rise up against them. Who knows? At least it has been voiced - a first as far as my memory is concerned.

It's also another example of U.N. ineptitude in it's failure to enforce its regulations...so what's new? It also brings the weight to bear on the Lebanese government, who failed to adhere to the regulation. They are now paying for those sins and are faced with civil war.

Events in the Middle East have not changed for who knows how many years because no one has done anything. Perhaps this is a good first step. Saudi Arabia came out condemning Hazbollah and not Israel for this conflict. That's a good thing.

I also admire Bush for his support and non-interference of the situation. No doubt he will be chastized by many for not admonishing Israel.

As someone once said, "If the terrorist put down their guns, there will be peace. If Israel puts down its guns, there will be no Israel." The pressure they have always lived under from being surrounded by countries intent on destroying them has to be incredible, They do what they do to survive...and they do it well.

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

2 posted 2006-07-16 04:35 PM

I'm mixed on the whole situation.

I don't consider myself either "pro-Israel", "pro-Palestine", "pro-Lebanon", etc. My stance is simply that every one of these nations have the right to co-exist, and I find it unfortunate that some stress only Israel's right to exist unilaterally, which I feel every administration we've had since at least 1980 has, while lots of "peace activists" put all the blame on Israel and consider them the only aggressor in the region.

It is wrong what both those couple Palestinian soldiers did to that Israeli civilian, as with those Hezbollah militants and their actions. I also believe Israel's government overreacted terribly and as immoral as those individual kidnaps are, I believe that doesn't give Israel the right to invade and occupy entire nations in retaliation, and Lebanon's people especially are only put in more extreme danger because of this, along with Hezbollah.

I'm mixed on Bush's response as well. I believe it is wise for him not to vigorously interfere in the conflict, and believe he meant well in saying Israel has the right to defend itself and asking for restraint in their actions, but I also don't see this overreaction as an exercise of defending itself, but more of an offense, and wished he could voice more boldly that intervening campaigns of this capacity are wrong and not the way to go about resolving this conflict.

Some are actually scared this will escalate into World War III. That's not going to happen. I think a prisoner exchange will most likely happen, and some point out to the worst-case scenario that Israel will attack Syria and that will lead to a widespread Middle Eastern conflict, but I don't see that happening, because neither country wants a war.

One other thing that also must be understood is that the Israel cabinet has just been recently filled with many fresh faces, who are inexperienced in national defense, and it's easy to recognize they simply overreacted through their naivety.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

3 posted 2006-07-16 04:46 PM

I believe that doesn't give Israel the right to invade and occupy entire nations in retaliation,

Please specify the entire nations that they have invaded and occupied.

Alicat
Member Elite

since 1999-05-23

Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

4 posted 2006-07-16 04:49 PM

For some reason my mind keeps flipping back to the 50's when a fledgling Israel not only beat back a multinational force, but also took the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and the Sinai, among other seized territories. Hezbully et al really don't want to do this. The US is a staunch Ally of Israel and has been since the Nazi atrocities, which Islamic Fundamentalist call fiction. Seems that every nation aside from those know about what happened at those camps between 1936 and 1944.

The real tragedy is what the Fundamentalist and terrorists have done to once beautiful cities. Beirut and Tehran are prime examples. Those cities were called 'stars of the East' prior to 1976, and were reknown for their architecture, beauty and culture. Only a diehard grundge-industrialist would find the same beauty post 1983. If the Islamic Fundamentalists want to bring back the Golden Age of Islam, then why does it look like so much rust?

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

5 posted 2006-07-16 05:13 PM

Since 1967, Israel has occupied the Syrian Golan Heights, as well as the agricultural Lebanese land that is Shebaa Farms, which Israel captured once in 1967, then again in 1973 and has retained ever since. Syria still occupies Lebanon to some extent as well.

Also, in June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon and its capital Beirut. It withdrew from Beirut the following year, and partially withdrew from parts of southern Lebanon under Prime Minister Ehud Barak in May 2000, but continues to occupy portions of southern Lebanon to this day, using it strategically to combat Hezbollah militants from the 1990's to now.

So this conflict is quite complex, and though I believe all the people of Israel mean well and condemn these previous unfortunate acts, part of the issue here is that there's no acknowledgment of the destruction visited on Lebanon by Israel over the last 32 years, and until both this is recognzied, as well as the violent actions and crimes Hezbollah has committed, many Lebanese will simply not forgive and forget. And when Israel's government chooses to go bombing Beirut's airport multiple times, for instance, rather than approach the prisoner crisis open-mindedly, there's just not going to be a peaceful border without doing more that withdrawing from a crisis they take partial responsibility in.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

6 posted 2006-07-16 05:27 PM

By all means, Noah, lay partial responsibility on Israel. Secretly they wanted their soldiers to be kidnapped. Secretly they wanted the Six Day War. They enjoy being attacked without provocation.

Instead of facing it open-mindedly? You can't be serious. You say that part of the problem may be the lack of experience and naivety of the Israel cabinet? With all due respect, I contend that the same applies to you.

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

7 posted 2006-07-16 06:31 PM

With all due respect, where did I suggest or accuse Israel of secretly desiring their own soldiers' captures and blueprinting their own Six Day War? I didn't say either of those things.

You would be no better prepared than I would for living up to the tasks and qualifications of the Israeli cabinet, for not one of us here will ever truly fathom and understand the human magnitude of this conflict, with neither one of us having ever even visiting the region.

Kacey (Midnitesun) is the one here I believe who is closest in understanding the most human and psychologcal conflict in the region, as she lived at one point of her life in Palestine. If anything, I am very interested in hearing her thoughts here, as I believe she can add a greater depth to this discussion.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Alicat
Member Elite

since 1999-05-23

Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

8 posted 2006-07-16 06:59 PM

Gracious, if you want humanistic understanding, look no further than the Talmud, Koran, Septagent or Old Testament. Seriously. Some of those grudges and hatreds go back thousands of years.

Midnitesun

Member Empyrean

since 2001-05-18

Posts 28647
Gaia

9 posted 2006-07-16 09:37 PM

I only have a few minutes to spend here today, so I'll be brief. My heart breaks with every newscast, as I still have friends and extended family in the Middle East. In the West and in Europe and indeed, around this globe , we need to be supporting people like Uri Avnery, and all peace activists groups like Gush Shalom. Uri meets face-to-face regularly with peace-seeking Palestinians, as they work for solutions which are founded upon mutual respect and a desire to move beyond rockets, bullets, swords and stones. The media presents us with such a distorted image, and the hard-line Israelis, Palestinians and the Hezbollah of Lebanon stifle these peace activists with their penchant for constantly resorting to ancient traditional hostile tit-for-tat reactions. Someone has to find a way put the weapons down, come to the table in open honesty and make a committment to move forward, to LIVE side-by-side, to stop being so willing to DIE side-by-side.
I have friends who are suffering on both sides, who just want to get up in the morning and have breakfast, go to work or play, tend their crops or animals, care for their children as their chosen deity intended.
Until we all accept and respect each other's rights to survival and dignity, to pursue freedom and happiness without first taking it away from anyone else, there will forever be warfare. And it's global, not just the Middle Wast. Look around and count the 'hot spots' on planet Earth.
The Israelis have been targeted constantly for many years, and so have the Palestinians. It's way past time to find ways to co-exist. But of course, each one has a right and a duty to defend and protect their families.
It's a different mindset altogether than what we are seeing currently, that demands an end to all the fighting as a basis for mutual self-protection.

[This message has been edited by Midnitesun (07-16-2006 11:43 PM).]

Not A Poet
Member Elite

since 1999-11-03

Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA

10 posted 2006-07-16 09:59 PM

Not only have the terrorists crossed the border to kidnap Israeli soldiers, but both Hamas and Hesbollah regularly launch rocket over the border into Israel, usually to the tune of a hundred or so every day. I think the Israelis have done everything humanly possible to end that short of eliminating the source. They are undoubtedly just fed up with the whole bunch of crap and are atking whatever steps are necessary to protect their population.

If there were a terrorist group just over the border in Canada or Mexico sending rockets into the U.S. and their governments refused to do anything at all to put a stop to it, you can bet your ass that ours would.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

11 posted 2006-07-17 12:27 PM

Kacey, I symphasize with how you must feel, having close friends in the area who re in the middle of this fighting. That being said, I don't understand your comments very well.

Until we all accept and respect each other's rights to survival and dignity, to pursue freedom and happiness without first taking it away from anyone else, there will forever be warfare.

It's way past time to find ways to co-exist. But of course, each one has a right and a duty to defend and protect their families.

Those are certainly the right feelings to have but how do you explain them to terrorists? Do you really think groups like Hazbollah, who have made Israel their sworn enemies, or Iran, who has publicly stated that israel must be destroyed, is even remotely interested in any Israeli's right to survival and dignity? Do you feel they want ways to co-exist? Do you feel they are only interested in protecting their families, these people who train their children to be suicide bombers and feel pride when their children blow themselves up? It's not a question of both sides doing their part to have peace in the region. Have you heard of an Israeli suicide bomber? Heard of any camps in Israel where they openly display their training camps to kill their own children? Have you seen any instance of Israel attacking a country or occupying other land which was not a response of being attacked or declared war upon? Your call is to reason with those groups? Like we could have reasoned with the pilots that flew into the WTC? Like we can reason with Al-Qaida? How do you reason with someone whose only intent is to destroy you and your way of life?

The tragedy, of course, is the innocents, as it is in any war. I am sure that the majority of people prefer peace and would want to co-exist. Unfortunately they elect and harbor groups of hatred and, when those groups cross the line and are attacked, the innocents are also in harm's way...in the same way three thousand died on 9/11 because an extremist group wants the destruction of democratic countries and protested the role of the United States in the Middle East. Is that the fault of the fellow serving coffee on the 40th floor of Tower 1? Nope...but he is just as dead. You think Hazbollah sneaked into Israel to kidnap young soldiers as a way to defend and protect their families?

Stating the common, standard "Why can't we all get along?" and "Let's all love one another" comments sound nice but are not realistic and present no solution to what is happening - and has been happening for decades - there. It will stop when one of two conclusions are reached...(1) the terrorist organizations sworn to the destruction of Israel are wiped out or (2) Israel is destroyed. As I stated earlier, it is an optimistic thing that the G-8 has come out to finally openly criticize the terrorist organization and name Hazbollah as the instigators. That's a start that I pray will encourage the citizenry of the countries like Jordan and Syria to rise up and fight against these groups who are bringing destruction to their countries.

Find ways to co-exist, you say? That's easy. Stop attacking Israel and there will be peace. It's that simple....

XOx Uriah xOX
Senior Member

since 2006-02-11

Posts 1403
Virginia

12 posted 2006-07-17 08:51 AM

" Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael...
And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren." --- Genesis 16:11,12
Hmmm Based on this...everything seems to be in order.

Midnitesun

Member Empyrean

since 2001-05-18

Posts 28647
Gaia

13 posted 2006-07-17 12:34 PM

Stop attacking Israel. Of course, that's a no-brainer beginning point I wish would settle in on the brains of those who attack. And I also would ask the hardline Israelis who have fallen into the trap of retaliating every single time with greater force to stop and look at where they are heading. Believe me, after living and working side by side with Muslims, Christians, Jews, (and Bahai's) I am convinced most want to coexist peacefully, and the people I know there are working towards a very different agenda than the one the government operates under. It's this peace activist group I support, not the nationalistic flag wavers or radical fundamentalists of any religion. And believe me, I know about those incoming rockets, grenades, and snipers first hand, about what it means to hit the deck and hope you see tomorrow's sun shine. I don't expect the terrorists to suddenly start handing out olive branches. I do, however, expect the majority of humans to earnestly search for and find ways to end the violence. Lots of us work daily toward that goal, and we can only assume and pray that our efforts will eventually turn things around. I am an optomist, maybe a dreamer. But it's the only way my brain and heart can continue to get up each day and say HEY! let's see what we can do today to turn the tide, move AWAY from violence on all levels and embrace and encourage peaceful behaviors. I still believe we have it in our power to do that, though it is getting harder and harder each day to remain upbeat.
My efforts and energy will continue to be directed towards finding solutions that don't involve fighting, though I have to agree, there are times when we seem forced into it. I believe the Israeli government has stepped over the line this time though...perhaps, one of the same lines we Americans have stepped over more than once. So there you have it, my thoughts and comments, even if they seem illogical to you, they are a workable platform for peace for this human. I want all those who are fighting to put the weapons down and spend as much time working to build a peace platform as they are willing to spend on arming themselves to the teeth. The survival of humanity is dependent upon our learning to go beyond the constant cycles of threatening and retaliation. Maybe you first have to believe Peace is a possibility, not just a wild and crazy dream.
Thanks for listening to me.
Namaste, and Peace to all.

Marge Tindal

Member Empyrean

since 1999-11-06

Posts 42384
Florida's Foreverly Shores

14 posted 2006-07-17 01:51 PM

Balladeer~
I read, but usually don't enter into these discussions ... yet I just have to ask what you might have meant by -
quote:
I am not Jewish and have no interest in Jewish politics (and have done my share at screaming at their inconsideration and rudeness here in Florida!)
- is there a relevancy to what's going on over there now that we should be concerned with ?

Being here in Florida, or anywhere else in this world ... I just have NEVER,EVER found those of Jewish ethnicity to be either rude or inconsiderate~

I'm just curious as to what you might be trying to convey with those comments~

Not meaning to hijack a thread, but would like an explanation for what you stated~
Thanks~
~*Marge*~

~*The sound of a kiss is not as strong as that of a cannon, but it's echo endures much longer*~
Email - noles1@totcon.com

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

15 posted 2006-07-17 01:53 PM

Balladeer, I wish the solution would be that simple. Unfortunately, the nature of this conflict goes much deeper than that.

We must never forget the barbaric, violent acts of bigotry Nazi Germany committed on millions of innocent Jews during World War II, and see to it anti-Semitism shall not rear its ugly head again and reject Israel's right to exist.

But we also must recognize the right for their neighbors to exist as well. Just as much a part of the conflict is that Israel has intervened with their neighbors in the past, and I also sympathize with the Palestinians in that indeed much of their land has been stolen and remains occupied with new settlements only for themselves being built on, such as in Jayyus, in the Occupied West Bank, where they uprooted as many as 750 olive trees and has become what is known as "Nofei Tzofin".

The right for Israel to exist is a most important part of the solution, but just a piece of it. There can't be favoritism here; there needs to be some sort of two-state solution, which proposes one Palestinian state and one Israeli state side-by-side in peace and security. It's through this course of action where we'll see this diplomacy act as a two-way street; forcing Palestinians to end violent resistance to Israel’s policies, while also requiring that Israel return land it occupied in 1967 and end its policies of stolen land.

Indeed there are groups that don't want to recognize Israel and call for its destruction, which Hamas may be one of them. But it's important that we separate the parties from the people here, and recognize that in the heart of this conflict, Palestinians just didn't wake up one day and thought, "Hey, let's fire missiles at Jerusalem!" No, the crux of this conflict is rooted in land ownership.

Part of the reason tensions remain heavy in the region is that in 1967, more than 700,000 Christian and Muslim Palestinians were forcibly pushed off of their land by Israel, occupying Arab East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and began a program to evict Christian and Muslim Palestinians from their land to build Jewish-only settlements, which only makes life more difficult for their Muslim and Christian neighbors. To this day, about 380,000 Israeli citizens now live on these settlements on the West Bank.

These actions violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which states, "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Obviously the problem runs more complex than this, but a simplistic, condensed version of the solution is to restore the West Bank Map to its 1967 borders, give back what was rightfully the Palestinians, let there be an oath that Palestinian militias and extremists will no longer attack Israel, and establish Israel and Palestine together as two separate, recognized states.

As for Lebanon, the issue is more complex there, but basically both Syria and Israel must recognize what is rightfully Lebanon's, while the Lebanese promise no further attacks on their own ways of life.

Some may think of this option as utopian. To me, it's no more utopian than the frequent exchanging of militaristic barbs over the span of decades, and, if anything, is far less utopian than war ping-pong. I myself would pick the dove's utopia over the hawk's utopia any day, for if we choose the hawk's utopia, inevitably will come the day where we'll no longer take a deep breath of fresh air, admire the lawn, notice all the pretty buildings, people sitting in the Waffle House having breakfast, kids playing hop-scotch in the schoolyard humming Louis Armstrong's "What A Wonderful World" and so forth.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

[This message has been edited by Mistletoe Angel (07-17-2006 02:51 PM).]

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

16 posted 2006-07-17 04:12 PM

Well, Marge, I'm not sure why that comment would get your knickers in knots

but you obviously don't live in South Florida, or else you don't have a lot of contact with the Jewish population. Case in point....I have a customer of 15 years who is Jewish, to the point that she has family living there, travels there at least twice a year and has two sons in the Israeli army, She is a nice lady and a good friend. One time a while back, she asked me "Why do so many people dislike us so much? so I had a conversation with her. I told her that, in a line of 20 people in a supermarket or bank, I could pick out the two Jews in less than a minute. They are louder, more aggressive, more animated, more forceful and more demanding. They have different goals and priorities in life than others. The terms Jewish American Princess and "My son's a doctor!" didn't appear out of nowhere. I told her that type of aggressiveness and behavior could be grating on other types of personalities. Are we talking all Jews? Of course not....but we ARE talking about a reasonable percentage of them. Guess what? She agreed with me completely. She said a lot of it is in the upbringing, in the way they had to grow up in an "us against the world" atmosphere, in knowing that they have been persecuted since the beginning of time and they had no one to depend on except themselves and their forcefulness and directness were their weapons, as was their desire for monetary success, which translates into safety and security. I could understand her perfectly.

How do I feel about the Jewish population and Israel? I think I admire them more than any other country on Earth. The challenges they have faced have been constant and overwhelming. They have not faltered. They have taken a worthless stretch of sand and made a successful country out of it. Look at their agriculture. They grow an abundance of crops by utilizing a method of production which uses every single drop of water, dripped on plants at regular intervals. Look at the surrounding countries. Where Israel has agriculture and production, the others have sand. Is it any wonder the others hate them? Israel has asked from help from no one. Yes, they certainly accept it from the U.S. but, if necessary, they would do without it and continue the same way. They are a people to be admired.

Having said that, I still don't want to be behind them in a movie line and, although I consider Streisand as possible the greatest female singer of my lifetime, I would have no desire to meet her for lunch. Her manner and aggressiveness would be too much for me. go figure...

Kacey, I would never call your thoughts and hopes illogical. There can be no reality without the dream of it beforehand. The terrorists will not change but, just maybe, the general population will find a way to overcome them and shut them down. That will be the only way. I admire everything you do and have done in the name of promoting peace and I pray for the safety of your friends in the area.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

17 posted 2006-07-17 04:31 PM

RIYADH (Reuters) - U.S. ally Saudi Arabia on Monday stepped up its criticism of Lebanese and Palestinian militants, saying their actions had allowed
Israel to wage war against their people.
"Some elements and groups have got loose and slipped into taking decisions on their own that Israel has exploited to wage a ferocious war against Lebanon and to imprison the entire Palestinian people," a cabinet statement said.

"Saudi Arabia stands together with the legitimate and reasonable-minded national forces in Lebanon and occupied Palestine to combat these dangers to the Arab and Muslim nation," it added.

Saudi Arabia last week criticized Hizbollah and its backer Iran saying "elements" in Lebanon and "those behind them" were responsible for an Israeli offensive on its northern neighbor to stop strikes by the Shi'ite guerrilla group.

The unusually frank comments have provoked heated debate in the Arab world, where sympathy toward resistance to perceived U.S.-Israeli hegemony in the region runs high.

It's a start....

rhia_5779
Senior Member

since 2006-06-09

Posts 1334
California

18 posted 2006-07-17 07:17 PM

Let me just comment , that the land that you say was stolen from the palestinians and is now Israel's, wasn't rightfully anyones. the palestinians have equal claim to that land as to the land that makes up the major part of Israel.
Just as Israel has claim to the lalnd. for both people had been living there for centuries, and for one the land was their homeland, for the other it was their hope, after World war || it was supposed to prevent that type of racism form reacurring, (i mean there were other reasons, but having a jewish state was supposed to help0. it has in the western world. we are still working on it in the rest of the world.

btw , im not saying that i agree of Israel pushing people out of the land they captured. just that no one group had a major claim on the land. they it worked out was pretty good.

personally i hope Israel wins this particular conflict. well i want that because my best friend is currently in Israel and staying in one of the cities that they think may get hit with bombs.

Marge Tindal

Member Empyrean

since 1999-11-06

Posts 42384
Florida's Foreverly Shores

19 posted 2006-07-18 10:50 AM

Bal~
quote:
Are we talking all Jews? Of course not....but we ARE talking about a reasonable percentage of them.
I guess I just find it inconceivable that a mere 249 miles north of your place of residence there exists a reasonable percentage of wonderful Jewish people who apparently aren't aware of your personal experiences.
They are a marvelous group of Jewish people that I've known and loved for many years~

I just had a feeling that your comments were somewhat prejudicially motivated and hoped that I had interpreted them incorrectly ... to have you confirm that I had not done so was a letdown~

Sorry to have interrupted the thread ... gotta go unknot my knickers~
Barbara might be coming for dinner~
Go figure~

~*The sound of a kiss is not as strong as that of a cannon, but it's echo endures much longer*~
Email - noles1@totcon.com

LeeJ
Member Patricius

since 2003-06-19

Posts 13296

20 posted 2006-07-18 02:25 PM

A cohort and I shared lunch yesterday.  She made a very interesting comment that I know a lot of you ladies will like.

She said
"I just wish women, all over the world, would get off their high horses and take control for once...stop allowing men to run them around and use them for mothers....women are a strong bunch...and if they'd all stick together and say, "this is it, no more wars!"   "It's time to stop watching the soap operas, spending hords of money on cloths...I think women would be much more conservative (no politics intended) confident and powerful, if they'd stop playing a man's game."  "Men are the ones who start these wars..."

something to ponder, yanno?

I ponder sometimes, b/c I've done it myself years ago, if women go through their lives playing dumb, so to speak, bowing to the natural instinct that we've been conditioned to believe we are the lesser, sex.  When I was younger, I was a tom boy, and the boys were intimidated by a gal smarter then them, not to mention, they surely didn't like it when a girl beat them at their masculine games...and so, unconsciously, I adopted a mask.

now, all you men, don't go throwing tomatoes and rotten fruit...throw money instead, prefably dollar bills cause they don't sting...

I'm sorry, didn't mean to get off the topic, but Margies comment simply proved my point.

These wars are to me, a waste of everything good, first and foremost, human life. Ridiculous...and sad...the lengths that men will go to, to win an argument...think about it...

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

21 posted 2006-07-18 09:27 PM

Well, Marge, we are 245 miles and a world apart. Last time I checked DeLand was not one of the top tourist hotspots in Florida but I can assure you Ft. Lauderdale and Miami Beach are. How many of your Jewish friends are you referring to? 10? 20? I can show you that many at any stoplight here. I don't know why you are taking my comments as prejucial. I was speaking differences, nothing more. I don't know what part of How do I feel about the Jewish population and Israel? I think I admire them more than any other country on Earth you didn't understand. At any rate, if I let you down, don;t worry. You're not the first and you won't be the last. Make Barbra sing for her supper

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

22 posted 2006-07-24 05:23 AM

I think Israel is a bully-just like their bedfellows, America, and their little brother, Britain.

Snatching land by building walls, keeping the poor contained, and squashing the opposition by murdering scores of civilians.

This terrorism didn't come out of nowhere-it came through desperation to maintain communities that didn't want to comply with Israel's and the West's idea of 'how to live.' The 1st democracy in Palestine shows just how the locals feel-Hamas was voted in. Hizbollah have just as much rights to democracy as the rest of the world...look at the struggle in Ireland. America gave funding and support to 'the fight for freedom' hosted by the I.R.A for years...yet Britain are America's greatest allies-pathetic (the IRA bombed civilians...that was their forte), now America and Britain are backing Isreal. Am I to support a side just because the most powerful tells me to? No chance...especially since it's ethically contradictory.

This war is all about resources, and Isreal plan to cover the resources, just like Laputa, in Gullivers Travels.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

23 posted 2006-07-24 12:05 PM

One of the advantages of free speech - everyone is entitled to voice their opinions. Some base them on facts and others not....but everyone is entitled

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

24 posted 2006-07-24 12:27 PM

Yes, and some base their opinions which translate into International Politics, on fear-mongering, media spin and extreme right-wing ideals.

It's all very well for us to sit in comfort, and 'decide' who's right or wrong, but the facts stand. "If you're not with us, you're against us" to quote the words of the biggest bully, G.W.Bush.

Marge Tindal

Member Empyrean

since 1999-11-06

Posts 42384
Florida's Foreverly Shores

25 posted 2006-07-24 01:12 PM

I believe that accurately quoting someone is really important - this link takes you to President George W. Bush's quoted statements, with the full context of the situation he was referring to at the time~

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/

WE being the coalition partners, not just President George W. Bush~

Alicat
Member Elite

since 1999-05-23

Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

26 posted 2006-07-24 01:24 PM

Proof again that history has no place in politics.

Just look back over the past 50 years and see who Israel attacked unprovoked. Compare that list to who has attacked Israel over the past 50 years.

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

27 posted 2006-07-24 02:18 PM

"history has no place in politics"???

What!?!

As I've said...spin.

In my view, Israel's gone in because the democracy formed in Lebanon, and in Palestine is not throwing up support for the actions of Israel and The West.

Building walls, and shooting children to sequester land and keep out the displaced is not democratic, it's totalitarian.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

28 posted 2006-07-24 04:59 PM

Interesting history books you read then. In mine, Israel pulled out of Lebanon completely when Lebanon became democratic, upon a condition set by the U.N. The other condition, that Hazbollah be dismantled by the Lebanese government, was not met...but I guess that's ok?

Shooting children? Perhaps then it would be better if they acted like Hazbollah and simply strapped explosives to them and sent them out to kill other children? Does that sound better to you then?

You come across as a person with strong prejudices against Israel and even the United States and the British, strong to the point where you would even side with terroristic groups whose aim is the extermination of a country and who would use suicide bombers, missile attacks in civilian communities and kidnappings to achieve their goals. May you never be the target of such a group...

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

29 posted 2006-07-24 05:33 PM

I have been the target. I lived in London when the IRA were on their terror mission, and I live in Barcelona, where ETO have planted bombs.

The bus that was blown up in Tavistock Square is the bus I used to take to Camden Market, where I had a stall. I have friends in Green Lanes, the muslim stronghold in London, and have experienced racism first-hand.

What I'm trying to say is, by creating an us and them, creates an unshakable tension. Israel is all about us and them, as is America and Britain.

People don't strap bombs to themselves for no reason-it's desperation borne from oppression. In light of what you've said to me, I suppose you were against the terrorism experienced in Britain and Spain from the IRA and ETO...or maybe, it wasn't important, as it didn't affect America?

Luckily for me, I've always chosen to live in a multi-cultural environment. I can see all sides, and understand most attitudes. What I can't understand is the complete lack of empathy, in this thread, and in general, for the people of Lebanon and Palestine, for it is a war against the people.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

30 posted 2006-07-24 06:11 PM

I, too, have chosen to live in multi-cultural atmospheres, kif kif. Three years in Europe, 7 in South America and, for the past 30 years, South Florida, possibly the most multi-cultural of them all!

You can believe it or not, but I DID feel compassion for Britain and Spain as I would for anyone attacked by terrorism. One does not have to be a national for that....one simply has to be human.

People don't strap bombs to themselves for no reason-it's desperation borne from oppression.

I'll agree with that statement when I see the leaders of these groups wearing sticks of dynamite....but you don't see that. They are NOT strapping bombs to themselves. They are strapping them to their children and followers who have been properly brainwashed into believing the virgins are waiting and they are dying for a cause. The leaders themselves aren't so ready to die for that same cause. They are sending peoeple to die for their own quest for power, nothing more. Surely you can see that.

What I can't understand is the complete lack of empathy, in this thread, and in general, for the people of Lebanon and Palestine, for it is a war against the people.

In this thread I will have to agree with you. We have not touched on the victims here but I can assure you, knowing most of the people here for quite some time, that we all feel sympathy for the victims and the casualties on both sides. When I watch the news at night and the scenes of destruction and the pictures of victims I feel a profound sadness for the victims of both sides. Regardless of what you may think, I contend that it is NOT a war against a people. It is a war against a terrorist group aimed at annihilation of a country. If the terrorists were all in a group in a particular section, I'm sure there would be no action taken on the rest of the populace. Unfortunately it's not that way and Hazbollah uses the general populace as shields. They have rocket inventories stored in mosques. They fire missiles from neighborhoods with schools nearby. These local "heroes" put in harm's way the same people they say they are there to protect. They are willing to let the country they profess to love crumble rather than cease their terroristic activities or go somewhere else. They are cowards. One of the facts of war is that innocents will suffer and they do on both sides. I feel as much sympathy for the Palestinian mother who loses a son or a home as I do for the Israeli mother. Most people just want to live in peace. If it were up to people, there would be no wars. Instead it's left to governments and terrorist groups to determine who will live and who will die. It's a lousy system but, since it's been that way for thousands of years, I don't see it changing anytime soon

I repeat the comment I made earlier...

If the terrorists give up their guns, there will be peace. If Israel gives up it's guns, there will be no Israel

That's a fact...

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

31 posted 2006-07-24 06:16 PM

kif kif, I do believe there's been sympathy and empathy expressed toward the Lebanese and Palestinians in this thread. I do agree that any culture that adopts an "us vs. them" mentality can generate misunderstandings and stigmatisms which can discriminate populaces, and that's precisely why I've chosen to be neutral in this discussion, believing that war is not the solution to any conflict like this, and that we desire ever so strongly much more for the children of tomorrow of every country more than what they're living through incessantly now, whether you're Israeli, Palestinian, Lebanese or Vanuatan.

I do also believe that "us vs. them" mentalities tend to generate favoritism, that is hear and listen out one's side of the story far more than the other's story. I yearn for the day when we all worldwide can engage in a co-exist mentality and see all different sides of the story equally shared and empathized with.

I believe all this violence is wrong, and I pray an immediate ceasefire can be achieved and this violent melee can stop, and hope to make any sort of diplomatic amends so that each of these communities can heal and strive again, and work from there in hope new governments and leaders can be elected that value the dream for peace and the needs of their children, rather than those who carry grudges on from one generation to the next in deep resentment.

That has been a prayer of mine for years, and my deepest prayer these past two weeks.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

rhia_5779
Senior Member

since 2006-06-09

Posts 1334
California

32 posted 2006-07-24 06:27 PM

actually they are dying for what they believe is their mission in life , they think that it is right to kill what they conisder infidels.

they wanna become martyrs. they die for what they believe in. i think israel has every right to exizt, but so does palestine. and lebanon.

they kill themselves for their goals, but it is also an argument that the american soldiers dying in iraq are doing the same thing just differnt goals and they arent suicide bombers but by enlisting they go to die!!

now don't get me wrong, i honor those who are in iraq that feel strongly enough about this to fight . but that doesnt change that they are dying over there. and innocent people are dying as cause of them trying to get to the resistance.

i dont think hezbollah is rite but i dont think that israel is rite to bomb the lebanese army that is pretty extreme.

and just to mention the israelis have sent out leaflets warning the lebanese to get out before the attack.

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

33 posted 2006-07-24 06:37 PM

Succinct reply, Balladeer, but can you understand that perhaps we (the people of the West) have been brainwashed to believe that there would be no Israel if they gave up their guns? You can't ask one side for an amnesty when the other continues to live by the sword.

Mistletoe, I'm not a believer in praying, but I get your compassion. I will venture that 'neutral' is no use, either to the Lebanese or Israeli people. It's time to stand up, and say exactly what you feel, otherwise, others will do it for you.

I'm not on the side of terrorists, but I can understand that life or death struggles creates ultra-extremism. I also understand that many youths are groomed within the confines of mosques over-taken by terrorist groups, just like our own armies are groomed within the confines of army training camps.

No side has the moral high ground...yet. I just think that this latest invasion gives Hizbollah and Hamas more reason to step up their game, and it will certainly bring more support for their cause.

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

34 posted 2006-07-24 06:48 PM

ps, excuse me Rhia, but...capitals for countries!!!

I've written a few things about this war. I'll not bore you all with reams of words, but here's some.

See Blood, We're All Blood.

The youth on all avenues,
are wanted to fight the good fight,
but rude strength is life,
and the saviours can't get through.
Where is all this theatre going?
Nothing's left to prove,
no-one's there to knife,
the youth have all died.

pps; Balladeer, you don't see leaders from any political group fighting on the front line.

Not A Poet
Member Elite

since 1999-11-03

Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA

35 posted 2006-07-24 07:02 PM

It has been said, and rightfully so, that there will never be peace in the middle east until the Palestineans begin to love their children more than they hate Jews.

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

36 posted 2006-07-24 07:14 PM

I think that's the kind of comment that flames hatred, Not A Poet. Perhaps there would be peace in The Middle East if Israel and The West began to respect their different neighbours, and allowed 'others' to benefit from their resources.

As Rhia's pointed out, the suicide bombing is a tactic in war, just as the other side employs a front-line force with state of the art weaponry, Hamas and Hizbollah retaliate with what they have, which is loyalty. I can see that this loyalty is displaced, but that's not surprising, considering the living conditions in Lebanon and Palestine...living conditions brought on by Israel's and The West's greed for The whole of the Middle Eastern resources.

rhia_5779
Senior Member

since 2006-06-09

Posts 1334
California

37 posted 2006-07-24 08:09 PM

sorry about the capitals thing,

and yes if Israel set down their guns, there actually would be no Israel. the other countries need to also acknowledge their right to exist and put down their own violence.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

38 posted 2006-07-25 01:10 AM

.. but can you understand that perhaps we (the people of the West) have been brainwashed to believe that there would be no Israel if they gave up their guns?

Brainwashing? Like Iran publicly stating that their goal is the destruction of Israel? Like Hamas and Hazbollah stating the same? Yes, I can see where speeches like that would put thoughts in one's brain.

Actually you do see our leaders on the front lines.....not the Presidents or Congress but the generals are there. How many generals (or their equivalents) have been suicide bombers? I can assure you none. We don't send people to the front lines to die, although of course some do. They don't send suicide bombers to live. A tactic of war, you say? You almost sound like you approve. How can you look at organizations that deliberately kill their own people and feel that they are being persecuted? I cannot understand that at all.

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

39 posted 2006-07-25 02:11 AM

Of course I don't 'approve'. These personal comments are nothing but rhetoric. I'm saying that there's no good way to murder...suicide bombers are a weapon in war, just like the infantry.

Like I said, the onus is on "if you're not with us, you're against us" throughout this mess. To throw a cliche; two wrongs don't make a right.

Gladly, I don't see army generals as leaders...yet as we're on that level, we have the danger of despotism.

Marge Tindal

Member Empyrean

since 1999-11-06

Posts 42384
Florida's Foreverly Shores

40 posted 2006-07-25 07:46 AM

Again, I state that I believe it is imperative to quote correctly and keep it in context to the issue it relates to.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/
Accurately quoted, G.W. Bush said, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

Us being the COALITION PARTNERS working together to fight terrorism worldwide.

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

41 posted 2006-07-25 09:19 AM

Marge, if Bush wanted to fight terror worldwide, then why has virtually nothing been done in Africa? Plus, look at Eastern Europe. Children are still being snatched from villages, and trafficked within the sex industry. Bush, and the coalition are not interested in fighting terror, they're interested in securing the Middle Eastern land resources, in my view.

rhia_5779
Senior Member

since 2006-06-09

Posts 1334
California

42 posted 2006-07-25 01:33 PM

too true on that kif kif

Not A Poet
Member Elite

since 1999-11-03

Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA

43 posted 2006-07-25 04:15 PM

But when was the last time we were attacked by African fascists or eastern European for that matter. Let's first fight and erradicate it where it is doing or has sworn to do us harm. After that maybe we can worry about the rest.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

44 posted 2006-07-25 06:41 PM

Marge,

Thanks for the link, that quote has always bothered me somehow I think it’s the lack of a third option, the middle ground between black and white where truth and reason generally reside. I think that once that choice is removed the probability of conflict over resolution seems inevitable.

"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

I’m no expert on veiled threats but this looks suspiciously like one and threatening people isn’t generally a good way to elicit support – it just tends to wind people up or force them to make a choice they would never have otherwise made and that you may ultimately regret.

Polarised opinions between two factions is evident in the Israel question too – some take one side some the other both maintain their side is the right side and holds the moral high ground when the truth lies hidden somewhere between.

When you choose one side it’s hard to see both.

Grinch

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

45 posted 2006-07-25 07:49 PM

.suicide bombers are a weapon in war, just like the infantry.

I have no idea how you can possibly say that. How is a child strapped with explosives sent to blow up civilians at an outdoor market a weapon of war? Kamakazee pilots were weapons of war - soldiers who willingly gave their lives to destroy military targets like cruisers and battleships. Is a wedding a military target? How about a schoolbus? Is an outdoor cafe a good military target? This is nothing more than simple murder with no military gains whatsoever. It's sad to have to point out that sending women and children strapped with explosives to blow up other women and children is an unjustifiable action and yet you try to justify it by speaking of using all resources available and calling them weapons of war. You enter the conversation by criticizing America and then set up justifications for terroristic tactics. I'm afraid I do not understand your reasoning at all, sir.

Not A Poet
Member Elite

since 1999-11-03

Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA

46 posted 2006-07-25 09:56 PM

In fact, such activity is explicitly prohibited by the "Rules of War" as set out in multiple treaties signed by most of the civilized world over the last century, including all those that we have been involved in conflicts with during that time. The "terrorist organizations" are, of course, not a nation and hold themselves above those "rules."

rhia_5779
Senior Member

since 2006-06-09

Posts 1334
California

47 posted 2006-07-26 01:59 AM

actually the yes that could be considered a weapon of war, i mean its wrong but yes it could be considered that.
and actually those of the organizations who give their life to kill who they call infidels they are weapons of war.

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

48 posted 2006-07-26 02:24 AM

Balladeer, if we're going to go for tit-for-tat...

Not A Poet, "Rules Of War" seems a contradiction in terms. There are no good rules in war, except to call a cease-fire. If you put people up against a wall, they're going to feel that 'fight or flight'instinct, and that creates chaos.

On the topic of terrorism in Africa and Eastern Europe...has been going on for as long as this Middle-Eastern fight, and I consider the people caught up in it to be "us", and therefore "we" are and have been threatened.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

49 posted 2006-07-26 05:15 PM

quote:

Like Iran publicly stating that their goal is the destruction of Israel? Like Hamas and Hazbollah stating the same? Yes, I can see where speeches like that would put thoughts in one's brain.

Not delving into some of the thread tangent's here -- this comment is probably getting pretty close to the root of the situation -- and that's Iran... attempting to justify it's need to have a nuclear program.

Isreal and Lebanon/Hizbullah are surrogates -- always have been -- just like North and South Korea, North and South Vietnam -- this is a war between the U.S. and Iran folks. We've just gotten other people to bleed it out.

Midnitesun

Member Empyrean

since 2001-05-18

Posts 28647
Gaia

50 posted 2006-07-26 05:36 PM

Reb, you are much closer to the core of truth than most would care to admit.
But in the end, we all suffer, no matter the reasons or the agendas.
For Peace and any real change to happen, everyone must have an attitude/heart-change, to respect and allow co-existence, and so far, those who want such, are being ignored. We must continue to DIALOG and find solutions that go beyond retaliation every time someone spits at us.
There are hundreds of Israelis and Palestinians, and as many Lebanese, who are struggling to find a way to stop this cycle of violence, to find ways to hold hands, come to a liveable peace between all the people of the ME. We need to be actively supporting these people. THe US governement cannot broker this Peace. Neither can the UN apparently. It has to come from the locals, the grassroots organizers and activists, and yet...they are being ignored by the media, as if they didn't exist. SHAME on the media and the GOVERNMENTS of all countries, for ignoring the people whose lives are daily threatened, who live each moment in an unecessary state of warfare.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

51 posted 2006-07-29 04:30 PM

quote:
-- this is a war between the U.S. and Iran folks. We've just gotten other people to bleed it out.

There would be no bleeding right now L.R. if Israel was not attacked by the terrorists, most likey at the behest of Iran. It is Iran that has gotten other people to do its bleeding for them, not The U.S.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

52 posted 2006-07-29 07:20 PM

Right you are, Denise. It's fascinating, actually. Hezbollah attacks and kidnaps soldiers, Israel retaliates....and it's the damn U.S. of A. Countries protest burning American flags, we get grouped in with Iran as the troublemakers and no one bothers to stop and realize that we have nothing to do with this current situation. I suppose we shouldn't expect anything else...

Not A Poet
Member Elite

since 1999-11-03

Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA

53 posted 2006-07-29 07:32 PM

Ironic, isn't it?

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

54 posted 2006-07-30 08:39 AM

The USA transported sophistcated weaponry to Israel, for Israel, through Prestwick Airport in Scotland.

Israel is now bombing Lebanons power stations, and oil slicks are currently flooding into the Mediteranean Sea.

This war might not affect the USA, but it is effected by the USA.

I wouldn't say ironic...I'd say disproportionate.

[This message has been edited by kif kif (07-30-2006 09:39 AM).]

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

55 posted 2006-07-30 09:37 AM

Any response by Israel would be deemed disproportionate by some since the terrorists are not real men (or soldiers) and they hide behind the skirts of their women and the cradles of their babies for the specific purpose of accusing Israel of bombing innocent civilians. The blood of these innocents are not on the hands of Israel, but on the hands of the terrorists who use them as shields, not allowing them to leave after Israel dropped leaflets warning civilians to leave the area in advance of attacks. You don't see the terrorists even giving the Israeli citizens such warning before lobbing the hundreds of bombs that they already have into Israel. Why should they when their specific targets ARE the Israeli civilians?

And Hezbollah didn't merely kidnap two Israeli soldiers. It also killed a few during the initial attack and lobbed about eight bombs into Northern Israel as well before Israel responded. Funny how that gets downplayed in the reporting.

Nasrallah says he wants a temporary cease fire in order to get aid to the hurting people of Lebanon and out of the other side of his mouth he continues to threaten Israel and sends more sophisticated missiles deeper into Israel. On the other hand Israel has already opened up safe corridors (safe from Israeli attack anyway) for aid to get through to the Lebanonese civilians. That's not getting much media coverage either. A cease fire on Nasrallaha's terms would only enable Hezbollah to rearm itself. If Hezbollah wants a cessation of hostilities it should unconditionally surrender and agree to disarm as it was supposed to do six years ago. Remember, Hezbollah was and is the aggressor in this conflict. Israel is doing what it has to do to protect itself from future attacks.

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

56 posted 2006-07-30 09:52 AM

The media has been asking about safe corridors for weeks, it's only in the last few days that safe passage has been allowed.

When people have nothing, there's nowhere to go. We saw that with Katrina. Now we're talking ironically.

Of course, the reality is blurred through second-hand reportage, but the school that was bombed by Israel, in Lebanon was reported by locals to have no Hizbollah offices beside it. Now, the power stations are being targeted. Israel is going for Lebanons infrastructure, not terrorists, yet, as it's understood that Hizbollah are very much 'the people', I can see the skewed reasoning.

Can you really, from your heart, fully support the actions of the USA's support for Israel against the people of Lebanon? Imagine that your home was invaded and soldiers patrolled and prevented access to areas previously important to you. What if you were plunged into poorness, and your children were left to die, through no social care? Then, a freedom organization steps up, and creates hospitals, schools, and provides food and shelter. Can you see now? I'm not for the terrorists, I can just understand how support for retaliation through violence happens-it's desperation taken care of, and decanted into loyalty.

ps, Hizbollah have no sophisticated weaponry compared to Israel...and Israel have already said that the plan is to put back Lebanon 25 years. Like I said, disproportionate.

rhia_5779
Senior Member

since 2006-06-09

Posts 1334
California

57 posted 2006-07-30 12:24 PM

about the poverty thing, what about israel?

israel is giving leaflets telling them to get out.

and innocent people will die, sadly that is war.
in war there are no rules.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

58 posted 2006-07-30 06:43 PM

the USA's support for Israel against the people of Lebanon

Such a clever way to say that, kif kif, which is quite indicative of how biased your feelings are. That's fine - you are entitled to them - but you know as well as everyone else it is not Israel against the Lebanese people. It is against the terrorists who fire missles from Lebanon, the ones who assasinated and kidnapped Israeli soldiers, the ones who take refuge in civilian homes and schools, the ones who stockpile their rockets in mosques. I see no recrimination from you about such tactics, about putting the safety of the Lebanese people in jeopardy by hiding behind them. No, you prefer to claim it as an act of war against the civilians being used as shields with no fault lying with the terrorists at all. Israel has done what it could to warn the populace - by direct contact,by setting up safe passages, by sending in humanitarian aid. What they will NOT do is to allow Hezbollah to use civilian areas as "free spots" (if I stand here you can't touch me). As Kacey mentioned, the only solution will ultimately have to come from "grass roots" movement by the local populace. That should have happened in Lebanon years ago. It didn't and a price is being paid for it.

Heck, go ahead and blame the oil slicks on us, too....why not????

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

59 posted 2006-07-30 07:54 PM

Right you are, Michael.

4,000 bombs have fallen on Israel to date during this recent conflict, and every one fired with the intent to inflict death on innocent civilians. But Israel is the bad guy.

What I support, kif kif, is Israel's right to defend itself against Hezbollah, and to insure that they are no longer a threat.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

60 posted 2006-07-30 11:47 PM

quote:

There would be no bleeding right now L.R. if Israel was not attacked by the terrorists, most likey at the behest of Iran. It is Iran that has gotten other people to do its bleeding for them, not The U.S.

The limits of my agreement Denise would be the words 'most likely at the behest of Iran', with the exception that I would not even give room for doubt with the word likely and substitute 'most certainly'.

The rest is mere perspective.  How far does one want to trace the roots of hostility?

Why at the behest of Iran?  or better -- why now?

Because the U.S. was pushing for a statement from the G8 to condemn Iran's nuclear program and Russia was actually to the point of agreement.

Meanwhile, U.S. made armaments are being fired at Hizbullah and Iranian arms are being fired at Isreal.  You can discount the role of the U.S. all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt as much as gives you clear conscience -- or back to Caine and Able if you prefer.

What has been interesting though is that everyone has been surprised by the results -- Iran didn't expect this, Hizbullah didn't expect this, and Isreal didn't expect it -- needless to say George and Condy didn't expect it.

If you have any doubts as to whether or not Isreal is a minion of U.S. policy in the region merely read the headlines -- everyone wants the U.S. to call for a ceasefire (by Isreal).  The administration doesn't say it isn't their place to call for it -- they just say they aren't going to do it until they think it will 'hold' (by some form of agreement with Hizbullah).

Military action against Hizbullah has only strengthened their hand in the region -- it doesn't work against terrorism.

Sometimes moms and dads just can't stay together.  That is to say -- when one comes to a mature position one realizes there are problems that don't have solutions.  Certainly firing heavy arms into civilian populations and then blaming Hizbullah for using them as human shields is not only NOT putting out the fire -- but obviously throwing expensive gasoline refined from imported middle eastern crude on it.

Isreal has a right to protect itself -- but the missiles keep falling -- obviously not working is it?

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

61 posted 2006-07-31 08:13 AM

Rhia, Lebanon was plunged again into poverty back somewhere in the 70's (Civil war 1975-1990. Check Israel's involvement, before and after). Since then, Israel's maintained the barriers to ensure they remain in poverty. Leaflets are useless, in fact, nothing more than a threat to come, if the people have no means of going anywhere, and anywhere they do go will be as dangerous a passage as staying put. The cease-fire is a joke-there is no real cease-fire, as Israel's announced just a limited cease-fire from the air, on the ground, the artillery are hitting the hills of south Lebanon. Israel also reserves the right to target what they deem as dangerous positions-from the air. I believe Isreal are targetting as much as Lebanon as possible, before diplomacy takes over.

Balladeer, I believe you are as biased. Granted, I am totally against Israel's actions, because I believe them to be wrong (see my input within this thread), not because I have a special affinity with "the other side." I'm not on a side, because although I can understand retaliation, I don't support it, as I've already said. Maybe one day, when the fire of righteousness has died down a little for you, you might just see beyond your side.
ps, Denise, what of Israel's threat to it's surrounding territories? What about when Israel decides it no longer needs America? Or, more realistically perhaps, when America decides it no longer needs Israel? What then? Or will Israel be content as the gate-keeper forever?

[This message has been edited by kif kif (07-31-2006 08:57 AM).]

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

62 posted 2006-07-31 09:31 AM

You make very good points, LR. I think there is no doubt that Israel is an extension of the U.S in the mid-east. I'm not sure, however, that they would have ceased activities on a U.S. request. They are certainly their own country and they didn't ask U.S. permission to begin this attack. Could we have exerted enough pressure on them behind the scenes to back them off? Possibly....but why should we? What other solution could we offer? Israel has fulfilled their parts of bargains. They pulled out of Gaza, an act that angered many Israelis. They pulled out of Lebanon at the U.N. resolution requirement. What have they received in return? Periodic rocket attacks, suicide bombers and kidnappings? Should we offer negotiations? I think by now someone should have learned that there is no negotiating with terrorists whose ultimate goal is not peace. Who visisted the White House more than any other foreign figure in the world during Clinton's tenure? Arafat, known by the world to be a pure terrorist under his smooth veneer. How much good did that do?

Is Israel losing the battle? On the news this morning, it was reported the Hazbollah soldiers are dying in droves and it is a fact that Haz will not release to the news agencies because it would show weakness and hurt recruitments. Is it losing the PR battle? Of course, but that is a battle they never had a chance of winning. No one wins that battle in the mid-east. Just recall the furor over mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Grahb at a time terrorists were making videos of beheadings without admonition. Let Iraqi terrorists blow up marketplaces, weddings, etc with suicide bombers killing men, women and children all in the name of Allah and no mid-east news agency will even comment that there is something wrong there. In this conflict, as Denise pointed out, let Israel hit a building with civilians inside and the press goes crazy. Let 4000 rockets fall on civilain populations in Israel and nobody says a word. Let the terrorists use the local populace as human shields and no one says anything. Let a human shield die and Israel is condemned. The U.N. is shocked and dismayed at Israel's action but appear to not feel that same shock toward Hazbollah, the ones launching rockets into civilian populations that have no military signifigance whatsoever. The U.N. should certainly be concerned. This entire incident is showing beyond a doubt how ineffective and toothless they really are. They are demanding that the U.S. do something in an attempt to hide the fact that they themselves are too incapable. We are going to be responsible in all situations where we do something the U.N.doesn't like and in those where we don't do something the U.N. wants done....so U.N. opinion doesn't really matter.

Israel has a right to defend themselves...but? What is the proper ending of that sentence? They have tried all civilized channels. If you can finish that sentence with a reasonable course of action that doesn't involve violence please get in touch with the state Department immediately!

kif kif, my "righteous fire" does not die out easily when I believe the cause I support is just. Neither should yours.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

63 posted 2006-07-31 09:43 AM

what of Israel's threat to it's surrounding territories?

Would you care to elaborate, kif kif? Perhaps by explaining what threat they pose or by giving examples of what they have done in the past to justify labeling them as a threat? I'd be interested in seeing your rationale behind such a statement.

rhia_5779
Senior Member

since 2006-06-09

Posts 1334
California

64 posted 2006-07-31 12:55 PM

israel has reacted when they are in danger.

if israel did not fight back, bye bye israel.

most of the middle east openly wants the jews dead, and israel given to palestine.

kif kif, you get annoyed it seeem with us when we comment about that we think israel is in the right, you make a big deal about how israel is killing civilians, and you claim to not be on a side, but that you can see both. yet not once have you agreed that the hezbollah is bad too.

and the reason the middle east media responds that way, is because to put other stories in the news, would either get the writers killed, or they silently approve,\openly approve f it all.

also it makes NO diff. to the hezbollah how the western media \countries, or even the other mid east countries media calls what they are doing. they are a terrorist organization, so why would they care.

israel is a nation succeptible to any trade bans or diplomatic pressure put apon them. they have to listen to what they are saying, even if they dont do what they are saying

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

65 posted 2006-07-31 02:49 PM

Balladeer, it went Global with the Mandate System, 1922. Think Palestine being held for future Israel and you're there, continuing through the civil wars as a result. Britain and America are just protecting the rich resources to be had in The Middle-East. Incidentally, some areas beside Mesopotamia were not classed within the system until oil was discovered.

Rhia, everything you're saying in your above post is bigoted, presumptuous and quite frankly, fuelling the fear-mongering. how on earth could you possibly know how Hizbollah feels about the media? Have you asked? Personally, I think Hizbollah, just like any other terrorist organization, thrives on media coverage-just look at how the internet is employed to show videos, ect. Ps, I'm not annoyed, I'm quite shocked at the blinkered vision I see expressed, and I have never said that Hizbollah are right, just like I'd never say that the IRA were right. That doesn't prevent me being able to understand 'why' these extreme wrongs are done, and it certainly doesn't make me believe that Israel, America or Britain are right, either.

I'm saying is this struggle goes much deeper than the extremists we see rising up (extremists/freedom fighters/terrorists are a result of the problem, not the beginning)-they've risen because Israel, helped by firstly Britain and France, and now America, are determined to dominate the Middle-East, at least economically...and we all know what happens when economics dominate culture-diversity is destroyed.

[This message has been edited by kif kif (07-31-2006 03:43 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

66 posted 2006-07-31 05:12 PM

All military action by a nation-state must be exerted with a political aim Mike.  Israel's initial response to a non-military problem with an asymmetrical attack on a non-nation-state network has only the political aim of retaliation and the muscle flexing of a new PM who didn't want to appear weak (not to mention a military that was over-eager to exact revenge on the same Hizbullah fighters who expelled them from Lebanon six years ago).  Unfortunately retaliation against a network like Hizbullah or Al Quaeda only plays into their narrative that they are freedom fighters fighting the oppression of Israel and the great Satan.  A network is an ideology-- an idea.  You can't fire a gun at an idea and kill it.  You can only kill an idea with a better idea.  It's like trying to hit a ball of mercury with a hammer.

It's rarely a good idea to remove a natural predator without having some way to control pests.

Hizbullah exists because Iran wanted to Hijack the Palestinian movement.  This was problematic though because there is no large contingency of Shiites in the Palestinian population.  Hizbullah, then, as a social welfare organization was set up, armed, and funded to try to draw away followers from the PFLP, PLO, Hamas, etc.

If you'll recall back in the 90's when Hafez al Asaad occupied the entire nation of Lebanon (while we were driving Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait for doing the exact same thing) the Syrians held Hizbullah in check, not wanting the Iranians to gain control over their 'turf', literally rounding up members and shooting them if they got out of line -- natural predators.

Our European allies and we have put pressure on Syria to allow democracy to take hold in Lebanon and keep out of Lebanon's affairs -- thus removing the natural predator.  While doing this we (in the Western world) have done little to support Lebanon's capability to deal with an organization like Hizbullah.  It would have been a good idea to do so if we were going to insist on the withdrawal of Syria.

We supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq because we wanted him to buttress the forces of radical Islam in Iran not wanting the Shiites to take hold of the region.

Natural predators.

Now, our best allies in trying to bring stability to Iraq are a Shiite group with closer ties to Iran than to us.  They were supported financially and ideologically during the Saddam era by Iran.

In the meantime we, and Isreal, and ostensibly our other Western allies are now attempting to combat the despotic Hizbullah -- Iran's other hand.

So, we're trying to be friends with one hand, fighting the other hand, and pressuring the head to get rid of it's nuclear program.

Is this a coherent foreign policy?

Unfortunately, so many bad ideas have been implemented there are very few good ideas to deal with the immediate problem of rockets being launched against Isreal.  They set up Katushkas pull the trigger and then run.  It's shoot and scoot.  By the time Isreal can air-target a supposed launch site -- the trigger has been pulled and Hizbullah is gone.  This should sound familiar to anybody who was in Nam.  It's like playing Whakamole.

Latest reports indicate, unfortunately for Isreal, that Hizbullah is being outfitted with even longer range rockets  -- thus making the entirety of Lebanon a possible launch site.

quote:

They have tried all civilized channels.

Really? beginning an air campaign in response to a kidnapping is trying all civilized channels? We have kidnappings all the time in the USA. To my knowledge the FBI doesn't use F16s.

quote:

Let 4000 rockets fall on civilian populations in Israel and nobody says a word.

This is just an emotional overstatement. Hizbullah's actions have been uniformly condemned. If you want to know why people are shocked when Americans do something like torture prisoners or kill innocent civilians it's because we're supposed to be the good guys. We aren't supposed to do that. We expect the villain to do bad things -- not the Lone Ranger and Tonto.

It gets talked up because we do have control over our respective governments and therefore our military and police forces -- we can affect change in our own systems.

quote:

If you can finish that sentence with a reasonable course of action that doesn't involve violence please get in touch with the state Department immediately!

Why? Why contact the State Department -- you're not sure we have any control over Israel's actions -- right?

But, because of the present state of things about the only option is to bring Syria to the table and offer them something -- which is exactly what Condy sort of did today -- she actually made the statement 'Syria has responsibilities in Lebanon'. Which, sort of sounded like tough talk to whip the Syrians in shape right? But, no, Bashar al Asaad's ears probably perked up and he will no doubt be muttering under his breath -- 'at last!' because up until now he was getting no respect.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

67 posted 2006-07-31 05:56 PM

Israel's initial response to a non-military problem with an asymmetrical attack on a non-nation-state network has only the political aim of retaliation

What am I missing here? Why would kidnapping soldiers and firing occasional rockets be a non-military problem? I will certainly agree that Israel's actions involve retaliation but i think they also involve trying to end the problem and avoid future attacks. Too bad they haven't been following our attempts to do that in Iraq

Yes, there was universal condemnation of the Hazbollah rocket attacks....somewhere back on page 16 and then just for a minute. Compare that condemnation to the condemnation of Israel for theirs.

This entire incident got started because of bombings and the kidnapping of two soldiers...period. We can go back over the history of Hazbollah, go back 84 years to a treaty, as kif kif does, or throw as many stones in the pond as we wish but nothing will change that one fact. If the soldiers had not been kidnapped, there would be no bombing of Lebanon occuring at this time.

It's a strange world we live in when the bad guys becomes the good guys, when the murderers, kidnappers and bombers become the heroes...and yet that seems to be our world. Israel is attempting to eliminate the power of a group who is sworn to destroy them and Israel is wrong for doing so. They should simply take the periodic rocket fire, the occasional suicide bomber and not complain. The rights of the terrorist group to continue their warfare is more important than the rights of Israel to live in peace. Apparently there is no more bad and good, right and wrong - there is only public opinion and whoever can scream the loudest. Billy the kid and Al Capone are heroes once again.

Israel is at least smart enough to know they can win no public opinion war no matter what they do ( a lesson America has yet to learn)so they are not even trying to do so. They will continue no matter what and they will continue to be villified for doing so. That's also the world we live in.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

68 posted 2006-07-31 06:43 PM

quote:

It's a strange world we live in when the bad guys becomes the good guys, when the murderers, kidnappers and bombers become the heroes...and yet that seems to be our world. Israel is attempting to eliminate the power of a group who is sworn to destroy them and Israel is wrong for doing so.

To whom are the Hizbollah militants becoming heroes? Not to the moderate Muslim leaders who recognize them as a problem. Certainly not to the West. But to the rank and file Muslims who sympathize with those collaterally damaged. Israel isn't wrong for attempting to eliminate the power of Hizbullah -- but for the way they are going about it -- without regard for the innocent Lebanese who have every bit as much right to LIVE in peace.

quote:

Yes, there was universal condemnation of the Hazbollah rocket attacks....somewhere back on page 16 and then just for a minute. Compare that condemnation to the condemnation of Israel for theirs.

This kind of histrionic melodrama doesn't do anything for me. You know that. So, to whom do you write it? By whom is it to be condemned that you don't see it being condemned? How many times a day is it supposed to be condemned? What are you looking for?

It's been officially endorsed by Al Quada -- other than that -- I don't see much cheerleading going on anywhere.

Winning the war of ideas is the only win. Unless you're proposing genocide.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

69 posted 2006-07-31 07:03 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

70 posted 2006-08-01 12:57 PM

To whom are the Hizbollah militants becoming heroes?

Obviously you don't watch the same television I do, reb. I watch the one with the thousands of Muslims parading in the street praising Hazbollah. I watch the one where Israel (and the U.S) are being condemned. When you have  a fight between two and one is condemned what does that mean for the other one?

without regard for the innocent Lebanese who have every bit as much right to LIVE in peace.

You referring those innocent civilians that are being used as human shields? There would certainly be a lot less loss of innocent lives if they were not put in danger intentionally....but that is supposed to make it Israel's fault that they are? Tell Hazbollah that those civilians have a right to live.

How many times a day is it supposed to be condemned?  What are you looking for?

How many times? Once would be nice. Yesterday I watched the news of the middle east off and on for over six hours. I saw CONSTANT coverage of the destruction of the building where the Lebanese civilians died. I did not see one reference to any of the thousands of rocket attacks against Israel...but then that's par for the course. That's how Abu Grahb got so much coverage. That's how Muslims called for the death of a cartoonist. They pick and choose what they want to cover..

It's been officially endorsed by Al Quada -- other than that -- I don't see much cheerleading going on anywhere.

Once again I don't know which tv you are watching. Terrorist cheerleading and condemnation of Israel is going on in one hell of a lot of places.

Winning the war of ideas is the only win.

Do you seriously believe that Israel could win a war of ideas in the Middle East, no matter what they did? They would have to win over the hearts of the muslims who are screaming for their destruction. Do you see that happening...ever?

Sadly, I believe a form of genocide IS the only solution. As long as there are terrorist groups dedicated to the destruction of Israel there will not be peace. They will not be won over by nice words or enticements. They send their own children in as suicide bombers...that's how important the cause is to them. Only when one of the  two sides has been eliminated will there be peace...and I ain't holding my breath waiting for the day that happens.

By the way, if my words don't do anything for you, I can live with that.

I simply express my opinions and beliefs openly. They do nothing for some and something for others...good enough for me.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

71 posted 2006-08-01 01:05 AM

This is from the link you offered..

The international reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict have been mixed, with most leaders condemning both Hezbollah and Israel. This includes the Arab League, which is primarily condemning Israel.

You say not to the Muslim leaders? They are not part of the Arab League then? Some of the world blames Israel and Hebollah. The rest condemn Israel. Will the real good guy please stand up?

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

72 posted 2006-08-01 06:20 AM

So Balladeer, you've admitted "a form of genocide is the only solution". Now we're getting there. Is that why you don't want to look farther back in history? Because you might find that this has all been done before. That's the thing with nations at war, it copies the terror experienced, and reapplies it to the new enemy.

Combined with Alicat's "history has no place in politics". What can I say...but stop watching Fox News (and develop some compassion). To believe that this whole thing was started with a few kidnappings is ridiculous-the kidnappings were just an excuse to engage in fresh rocket-launches against Lebanon.

I agree with Local Rebel-it's ideas that need to be employed in a battle of ideas, not fire-power.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

73 posted 2006-08-01 12:02 PM

That's the thing with nations at war

That's the point, kif kif. This is not about nations at war. This is about one nation at war with terrorist groups, unless you want to claim Hazbollah as a country.

the kidnappings were just an excuse to engage in fresh rocket-launches against Lebanon.

Well, that statement sets a new record for incredible. Fresh rocket attacks? When were the old ones again? You are a student of history and yet seem to have a mental lapse at the fact that Israel voluntarily pulled OUT of Lebanon at U.N. request. They had also agreed to give Arafat almost everything he wanted, an offer he was too stupid to accept. You portray Israel as a nation just sitting there, looking for any excuse to attack it's neighboring countries and yet history will show you that it has always been Israel as the one attacked. History will back my comment on this - what in the world will you get to back yours?

Win the battle of ideas? Win the PR battle? Just how do you propose to do that? Are you so blind that you can't see pure evil when it's right in front of you? You are not going to deal with, or win over, the hearts and minds of terrorists who have sworn allegiances to destroy you. They are not open to bargains - your destruction is their only goal and they will kill themselves to make it happen. You are locked in a cage with a mad dog. Try to get out without killing the dog.

It's easy to shout compassion and come up with grandoise plans to end conflict without fighting. Let's see some suggested courses of action to back up those plans. You want to win a war of ideas? Please give me an idea how you would proceed. LR claims that Israel has the right to defend themselves but went about it in the wrong way, resulting in civilian deaths. When I pointed out civilians were being used as human shields, I received no response. What then would be the appropriate course of action? As far as I see it, Israel had three choices (1) forget the whole thing and accept as a fact of life there will continue to be random rocket launches, occasionaly suicide bombers blowing up weddings and restaurants, and kidnappings (2) launch an all-out assault with a "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" mentality (3) go after the terrorist organization, warning the populace in advance to clear out of the areas, set up safe avenues where the civilians could escape through and attack the areas known to be terrorist strongholds. Israel chose the third. What would your course of action be?

By the way, while you are touting compassion, see if you can get Hazbollah to buy a few bottles.....or is that just a trait we are supposed to feel?

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

74 posted 2006-08-01 06:19 PM

quote:

I watch the one with the thousands of Muslims parading in the street praising Hazbollah. I watch the one where Israel (and the U.S) are being condemned.

ok...

here's what I said;

quote:

To whom are the Hizbollah militants becoming heroes? Not to the moderate Muslim leaders who recognize them as a problem. Certainly not to the West. But to the rank and file Muslims who sympathize with those collaterally damaged.

So, apparently we're talking about the same people... the same people I'm talking about when I said previously this is only making Hizbullah stronger...

I'm not clear about your point of disagreement here Mike.

quote:

You referring those innocent civilians that are being used as human shields? There would certainly be a lot less loss of innocent lives if they were not put in danger intentionally....but that is supposed to make it Israel's fault that they are? Tell Hazbollah that those civilians have a right to live.

So, if someone uses you as a human shield anyone that deems it necessary is within their rights to kill you if need be? Really? How about a daughter that's a human shield? A lover? It just so happens Al Quada thinks you're fair game because you pay taxes that support the great beast -- do you agree or disagree?

I unequivocally tell Hizbollah that Lebanese civilians have a right to live and I've called them despots? What more do you want? You forget Mike. I'm not a pacifist. Never have been. I'm for efficacy. My father taught me when I was 12 that bait comes with a hook. A lesson not seemed to be learned by you or Israel. (or GW)

quote:

Once again I don't know which tv you are watching. Terrorist cheerleading and condemnation of Israel is going on in one hell of a lot of places.

At the rank and file level as previously pointed out not from leadership positions.

quote:

Do you seriously believe that Israel could win a war of ideas in the Middle East, no matter what they did? They would have to win over the hearts of the muslims who are screaming for their destruction. Do you see that happening...ever?

Your caviling about them screaming for the destruction of Israel previously and your contention here that that's what they will always do anyway is logically inconsistent. Are you surprised and upset that they condemn Israel or is it business as usual?

quote:

Sadly, I believe a form of genocide IS the only solution. As long as there are terrorist groups dedicated to the destruction of Israel there will not be peace. They will not be won over by nice words or enticements.

Yet, these are the very things that have allowed Hizbullah, an extremist Shiite organization, to establish a position of power in Lebanon -- a moderate Sufi/Sunni/Christian nation. Providing a social welfare infrastructure has gone a long way in instituting Hizbullah as a legitimate political party.

You mentioned yourself that we've come a long way on another thread regarding use of the term 'wet back'. It's taken generations -- but, I suspect that your grandfather's father wouldn't have conceived the present world possible.

But, at least one man had a dream.

That one-day all men might be judged by the content of their character -- and not the color of their skin.

No matter what 'kind' of genocide you propose -- you're just prolonging the process and creating a new generation of hate not to mention murdering thousands of innocents.

quote:

By the way, if my words don't do anything for you, I can live with that. I simply express my opinions and beliefs openly. They do nothing for some and something for others...good enough for me.

Your words are always welcome to me Mike. I'm a big fan of your poetry. Love to see you go toe to toe with Toe. But if you're trying to sway my opinion you know that overly dramatic unsubstantiated sweeping statements aren't going to do it.

quote:

You say not to the Muslim leaders? They are not part of the Arab League then? Some of the world blames Israel and Hebollah. The rest condemn Israel. Will the real good guy please stand up?

You are a writer Mike, and a reader... so you know what the word 'Primarily' means. They blame both parties -- but Israel more than Hizbullah -- this is a surprise to you from the Arab League? That they condemn Hizbullah even secondarily is a tremendous leap forward from 1966 wouldn't you say?

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

75 posted 2006-08-01 06:26 PM

I'll be back tomorrow, but for now, even Tony Blair's admitted today, in America, that a radical change of plan is needed "to fight those who are against us." He goes on to say that military action is not working.

For now, I've had enough of looking at the extremism coming off Balladeer, especially in light of Israels fresh attacks, just started. Incidentally, most bridges have been destroyed in Lebanon. People and aid are stuck, with only one mountain road passable, but for how long?

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

76 posted 2006-08-02 08:00 AM

So, if someone uses you as a human shield anyone that deems it necessary is within their rights to kill you if need be?

Israel isn't wrong for attempting to eliminate the power of Hizbullah -- but for the way they are going about it -- without regard for the innocent Lebanese who have every bit as much right to LIVE in peace.

Ok, reb. I see the condemnation for both sides but what's the actual thought here? It comes out like one of those Mensa test questions.

(1) Hazbollah is using civilians as human shields.

(2) When Israel responds to rocket attacks, civilians used as human shields die.

(3) Israel has the right to defend themselves

(4) Hazbollah launches rocket attacks from apartment rooftops and in the middle of civilian areas.

Conclusion being what? Israel should not retaliate when civilians are placed in danger - which means Israel should forget the whole thing because Haz is ALWAYS placing the local populace in danger? When the DO respond then do they merit your above-mentioned comment about them having no regard for human life?

Your caviling about them screaming for the destruction of Israel previously and your contention here that that's what they will always do anyway is logically inconsistent.

How DARE you call me a caviler!!! I'll be upset as soon as I look up what that means

Afraid I don't understand that comment. They HAVE always screamed for the destruction of Israel - Hazbollah, Hamas, Syria, Iran, Al_Qaida. They have invaded Israel, declared war on Israel and maintained a constant practice of rocket attacks and suicide bombers. Bin Laden stated that 9/11 was a result of the U.S. support of Israel. They have stated for many years that their ultimate goal is to wipe Israel off the map.
Why would it be logically inconsistent of me to claim they will always do that? I would consider it illogical that they wouldn't, based on their words and actions.

Yes, LR, I DO consider it a major step that the Arab League would censor Hazbollah in any way.

For you, or anyone who says, the war can only be won diplomatically off the battlefield, I ask "Show me how." Wearing flowers in your hair in San Francisco didn't work. How would you think the leaders of the terrorists groups could be reached in such a way that they would voluntarily cease all attacks and suicide bombings against Israel and agree to live side by side in peace?

You're an intelligent man, LR. In which direction would you lean toward?

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

77 posted 2006-08-02 12:24 PM

I think Israel is a bully-just like their bedfellows, America, and their little brother, Britain.

Snatching land by building walls, keeping the poor contained, and squashing the opposition by murdering scores of civilians.

This terrorism didn't come out of nowhere-it came through desperation to maintain communities that didn't want to comply with Israel's and the West's idea of 'how to live.'

This war is all about resources, and Isreal plan to cover the resources, just like Laputa, in Gullivers Travels.

"If you're not with us, you're against us" to quote the words of the biggest bully, G.W.Bush.

Building walls, and shooting children to sequester land and keep out the displaced is not democratic, it's totalitarian.

the suicide bombing is a tactic in war, just as the other side employs a front-line force with state of the art weaponry, Hamas and Hizbollah retaliate with what they have, which is loyalty.

Bush, and the coalition are not interested in fighting terror, they're interested in securing the Middle Eastern land resources, in my view.

Rhia, everything you're saying in your above post is bigoted, presumptuous and quite frankly, fuelling the fear-mongering

For now, I've had enough of looking at the extremism coming off Balladeer.
Well, kif kif, all I can say is that it's a good thing YOU don't resort to extremism. Who knows WHAT might come out!!!!

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

78 posted 2006-08-02 01:46 PM

I'm not resorting to extremism, Balladeer, I'm describing the extremism already happening. You're the one that thinks genocide is a solution, not me.

I'm impressed though, your cut and pasting of certain sentences in my whole input must have taken some time. Thanks! It's good how it stays in context.

Alicat
Member Elite

since 1999-05-23

Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

79 posted 2006-08-02 02:34 PM

No different than how you took a sarcastic comment from me stemming from your (at the time) ignoring of history to bolster political views and turned it into my personal stance.  And I really don't think Balladeer was nor ever has advocated genocide.  If you take that in context you will see he was merely listing possible solutions.  Just because a solution is abhorrent doesn't negate it; it's just an option most want to avoid.  Not to mention it would be anti-Semitic, since Semitic doesn't mean solely Jew or Israeli.

Semitic refers to a Afroasiatic classification of peoples who share common physical traits, as well as a common linguistic root.  Take an Egyptian, a Palestinian, a Lebanese, a Saudi, and an Israeli.  Now dress them in identical clothes, line them up, and play 'Who's the Jew'.  You'd have a 20% chance of picking the right one due to similiar physical characteristics, and I really doubt you'd pick the Israeli for looking like an Israeli when they're all dressed identically.

And that makes me chuckle a bit when I hear Arabs, a general term, accused of anti-semitism.  By the very definition of the term, that means they are against themselves.  Anti-Israeli would be semantically correct, but when have those who have used an Israeli ambulance as a truck bomb ever fretted over semantics.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

80 posted 2006-08-02 05:48 PM

Here's the problem Mike;

Katushka's can be set up to fire very quickly.  It's very easy to haul one to the top of a building, say, your building -- fire it... and leave.  By the time the site is identified as a 'strong hold' or 'launch site' Hizbullah is GONE!  But, you're still in the building because even though you've been warned to get out -- you have no way to go and no where to go -- because all of Lebanon is a target.

Like the stranded victims left to face Katrina the Lebanese have even fewer resources to evacuate a town and less infrastructure -- and -- gee whiz -- now all the bridges are bombed out!

But, let's just examine another scenario.  What if you're Hizbullah and you're fighting against an enemy that has F16's, Helicopters, Tanks, Guided Missiles, sophisticated recon drones -- and all you have is a 200 dollar Katushka and an AK47 --what do you do?  Especially if survival equals winning -- and if turning public opinion of the West against Israel is a BIG win?

You could round up fifty women and children -- put them in the basement of an apartment building -- not allow them to leave -- fire a Katushka from the top of that building and then sit back and wait.

In either scenario -- if an air strike is conducted from thousands of yards in the air where a pilot is forced to make a decision about what to bomb or not bomb without knowing what he's targeting Israel is acting with wanton disregard for innocent life for no military gain and taking a political hit in the process.  That's pure ignorance.

In the meantime Hizbullah is capable of hitting Israel with 100 missiles per day.  And they are.

So, if my choice is to be hit with 100 missiles per day anyway -- I choose not to take innocent lives, not to destroy the infrastructure that is vital to the demilitarization of Lebanon, and not to take the political hit with the moderate Arab leadership and the rest of the world.

I would, very simply -- STOP!  And call for Hizbullah to stop.

Remember - they're firing 100 of those things at me either way.  If I stop -- and they don't -- THEN who takes the political hit?

Furthermore -- you will see the light on the road to Damascus my friend.  As I mentioned earlier -- Syria is the key to unlocking the future here.  The bridge that has to be taken out is the main Supply Bridge of Syria.  Materiel has to pass from Iran -- through Syria -- to Hizbullah.

Syria is a secular Sunni nation.  They don't care much for the Shiites in Iran or Hizbullah as mentioned before -- but as we've frozen them out in the cold they've had little other recourse than to belly up to the Ayatollah.  They would much rather be enjoying the inclusion and respect given to Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

We have to disrupt that alliance.  Give Syria a stake.  Give the Lebanese a stake.  Bomb them with butter -- get them building schools, hospitals, universities -- because right now they have a generation that hates Israel more than it loves its own children.

When people are actively engaged in building things, building lives instead of taking them -- there isn't a lot of time for hate -- when bad actors appear -- we treat it as a police matter and a matter of diplomacy -- interweaving our economy with theirs to the point that it just doesn't seem practical to allow something like the Hizbullah militia to exist anymore.

As it stands right now -- this war has the potential to actually be LOST by Israel and a Shiite caliphate from Iran through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon can dominate the Middle East within a matter of months my friend.  And, if you think gas costs a lot now..... just wait.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

81 posted 2006-08-02 09:39 PM

Thanks for the comments, LR. I agree with much of what you say. There are still unanswered questions as I'm sure there will always be.

I would, very simply -- STOP!  And call for Hizbullah to stop.

Do you really think Haz would stop? If so, you are in one heck of a minority. Even Israel is aware enough to know that they won't. Just look at the past days. Israel agreed to stop air strikes for 48 hours as long as Hazbollah did not attack them during that time. It lasted barely over 4 hours before the Haz resumed attacks which canceled the air strike stoppage. Call for Hazbollah to stop? It would work about as much as calling for them not to begin...

Yes, of course, that is how the terrorists are orchestrating the destruction of their own civilians and using them and their deaths as propoganda tactics. Your suggestion then would be not to retaliate at all? Many of the rockets launchers and almost one third of the Hazbollah forces have been killed or captured. So there have been many times that the attack on firing positions has worked.  Can you come up with another solution that would render the same results?

I agree with your thoughts on Syria completely and  concur that they are indeed the key. Whether we are smart enough to treat them as such remains to be seen.

Your suggestion about building and flooding cities with projects and self-improvements is a valid one but I don't see it working in Lebanon. First of all, Hazbollah has already done it. They have taken millions from Iran and  endeared  themselves to the general populace enough to be elected to office. While doing so they have continued to fuel the fires of hatred against Israel in their rhetoric within the communities. Do you think that America or Israel going in there to compete with who can do the most for the Lebanese people would have much of a chance of success against the Iran-backed terrorists  who ARE Lebanese? They are not "bad actors" appearing on the scene. They are political office holders who control regions of the country....and their goal is the destruction of Israel. They are certainly not going allow Israel any chance to be  the "good guys", any more than they will allow us to be. Your ideas would be very sound for handling Lebanon AFTER Hazbollah is disbanded but, for as long as they are there, those same ideas would never have a chance to take root, I'm afraid.

Appreciate the input...

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

82 posted 2006-08-02 10:57 PM

quote:

They are not "bad actors" appearing on the scene. They are political office holders who control regions of the country....

Precisely the leverage required to pry them away from Iran and pressure them into stopping.  If Israel stops the campaign (not the really badly stated 48 hour suspension against anything they said they were only targeting anyway -- that equals no suspension), goes home -- puts a mega-patrol on their northern border and says -- ok UN... we're waiting for the international peace-keeping forces -- Hizbullah may or may not stop -- but, they aren't stopping now anyway.

If they don't stop -- where does that leave them with the Lebanese they've spent 20 years buttering up?

The only reason Hizbullah perpetrated these acts now is because of Iran's gambit for nuclear fuel refinement.  Prior to this -- they had backed away from being the terrorist organization that killed U.S. Marines (and what did the great Gipper do about that?)

quote:

In retaliation for the attacks, France launched an air strike in the Beqaa Valley against Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions. President Reagan assembled his national security team and planned to target the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon, which housed Iranian Revolutionary Guards believed to be training Hezbollah fighters. But Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger aborted the mission, reportedly because of his concerns that it would harm U.S. relations with other Arab nations.

Besides a few shellings, there was no serious retaliation for the Beirut bombing from the Americans. In December 1983, U.S. aircraft attacked Syrian targets in Lebanon, but this was in response to Syrian missile attacks on planes, not the barracks bombing.

The Marines were moved offshore where they could not be targeted. On February 7, 1984, the order was given for the Marines to begin withdrawal from Lebanon. This was completed on February 26; the rest of the MNF was withdrawn by April.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

83 posted 2006-08-03 01:39 AM

Reb, tell me you don't really want to go back to Reagan for "do nothing" tactics. That will just make me go back to Slick Willie and averything he didn't do concerning the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, etc etc etc....better to leave that avenue unchartered.

If they don't stop -- where does that leave them with the Lebanese they've spent 20 years buttering up?

That leaves the Lebanese they have been buttering up cheering them on for not stopping, not being intimidated, not buckling under the evil presence of the devil countries Israel and the US. One doesn't have to be clairvoyant to see that, I'm afraid. Any actions against Israel are considered heroic by the rank and file Lebanese who cheer them in parades while burning US and Israel flags.

As much as I would love to, I can't see any other course of action workable other than the one being employed now...and I agree that it is far from perfect. If the Lebanese government would work with the U.N. to rid themselves of Hazbollah that would be ideal but I don't see them doing it and I don't see the U.N. doing much of anything.

Time will tell....

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

84 posted 2006-08-03 04:14 AM

Alicat-"genocide" has no rightful place in any context...and Balladeer did say "sadly, I think a form of genocide is the only solution" , on page 3. Another thing...before you really fling mud, bringing up the word "anti-semitic" is not fair, but then again, that word is always used as soon as anybody dares to speak against Israel. Is it because I am black? Now we're being sarcastic...

Further, "not to mention genocide would be anti-semitic", yes, if we were talking about the 2nd World War, but we're not, we're talking about Israels attacks on Lebanon, and the fact that Balladeer deems it acceptable for Israel to commit genocide on the Lebanese people.

It reminds me of what happened to the Native American culture when the French arrived. Scalping became de riguer, as respect in war is to copy the most devastating tactics. Circular.

I'm not complaining about what Balladeer did to my words-I'd like to see his argument condensed by the "opposition"...then we'll see who the extremist sympathiser is.

Balladeer, do you actually listen to World news? (no, not just American...) Israel's prime minister admits he believes Hizbollah to be integrated amongst the people of Lebanon. That's why the bridges are bombed-to prevent anybody from fleeing, and to stop any aid that's been sent for the people. Israel is intent destroying the infrastructure of Lebanon, therefore, is intent on destroying Lebanon.

ps, the U.N is quite powerless compared to America. It's America that's supporting Israels attacks. If Rice demanded a cease-fire, then maybe we'd get somewhere.

[This message has been edited by kif kif (08-03-2006 04:59 AM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

85 posted 2006-08-03 05:53 AM

Three words;

Khadafi, Khadafi, Khadafi

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

86 posted 2006-08-03 07:40 AM

kif kif, you are good at taking facts and attaching your own conclusions to them. Yes, I actually listen to world news (when there are no re-runs of All in the Family on). You actually think there is any doubt that Hazbollah is integrated with the Lebanese people? That is certainly no news flash or secret to anyone. Bridges are bombed for the same reason the airport runways were and the port blockaded and the roads into Syria mangled - to prevent military aid and supplies from coming in to the terrorists.

the U.N is quite powerless compared to America

How can that be? Even the Iraqi terrorists are not powerless against America. You telling me a conglomeration of almost every country on Earth is no match to America. We appreciate the compliment but the U.N. is powerless only because they choose to be, which is their standard mode of existence.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told The Associated Press on Wednesday that his country would stop its offensive only after a robust international peacekeeping force was in place in southern Lebanon to protect Israel from border raids and rocket attack. ...another request which would force the U.N. to actually DO something.

You may continue to try to get as much mileage out of "genocide" as you wish. Everyone here knows what I meant by it and you are the only one to try to twist it into something to fit your own needs. So be it.

If Rice demanded a cease-fire, then maybe we'd get somewhere.

Well, if you are a member of Hazbollah, then you would be correct since they are the ones who would benefit.

Reb, you really need to do something for that cough!

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

87 posted 2006-08-03 07:56 AM

By saying that, Balladeer, you mean that. There is no other way to take it.

If Rice demanded a cease-fire, it's not just Hizbollah that would benefit, the people of Lebanon and the people in Lebanon would benefit, along with Israel...saving at least one of their faces.

As for America being powerful...in this Capitalist state, it was all about America. Oil could only be bought with dollars...now it's all changing, with euros being exchanged as the rate ascends. As for the yen...it seems the world may be catching up, quick, employ a war!

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

88 posted 2006-08-03 08:10 AM

Euros and sterling can certainly buy dollars and yen. The adminstration is all scared of China? Haven't heard that one before. Maybe because China has so many dollars and yen??

Germany, France, Italy, China, Russia, India and a few dozen other countries thrown in for good measure would not like to know they are so powerless against the U.S. of A. Why even have a UN then if America is the only actual powerhouse? Somehow I don't think they would agree with you, kif kif.

I'd love to continue but it's time to go chase those elusive dollars and yen, keeping an eye out for Chinese trying to take them from me. Have a good day...

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

89 posted 2006-08-03 08:13 AM

Aha...I see you edited your comment to eliminate the parts I referred to. Serves me right for not copying and pasting.

I'm a slow learner

Again, have a good day.

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

90 posted 2006-08-03 08:52 AM

There's nothing wrong with tidying up seconds after. This is a poetry site, dedicated to clarity, after all. If I began with history again, I might confuse you...again. What I meant was that OIL could only be bought with dollars, now it's all changed/changing, like I said.

You certainly are.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

91 posted 2006-08-03 03:50 PM

Ok, now that you have reduced yourself to inserting childish insults it appears we have come to the end of the road. See ya

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

92 posted 2006-08-03 04:45 PM

This thread has just become too heartaching to read, I believe.

I absolutely agree with Bush that we need to work toward achieving a "sustainable peace" in the region, not some sort of mere sloganeering peace but a dialogue of the whole issue at play here so we can seek a greater understanding of the nature of this conflict, and not have to continuously see that silent volcano from under the ocean burst again every generation.

However, I also believe that we just aren't ever going to get diplomats from these countries to even begin thinking of coming together until we call for a ceasefire of sorts. I absolutely understand there are radical militias in Hezbollah who would try and exploit events such as that, but all the same in my heart a ceasefire helps everyone far more than hurts, as it is exactly continuing violence and killing from both sides that will ultimately build and appease hatred and inevitable future terror, as well as further add to the complexity of the conflict, far more than any diplomatic act of ceasefire ever would.

Solving this conflict in whole will take generations to resolve, but I feel the very first step should be quite simple and there's just many who make it seem far more complicated than it really is.

I've chosen to stay quiet in this thread because I'm saddened to see verbal barbs being exchanged about as much or even more than ideas on how to work together to stop the violence. I believe both Local Rebel and Balladeer, kif kif and Denise, and others all are making wonderful points in this thread; where I believe LR and kif kif make genuine points that it's the violence that will only deepen ad prolong this historic conflict, and Balladeer and Denise make genuine points that Hezbollah has historically been an aggressor and there are militias who will try exploiting any diplomatic measure. Both sides here are right to some degree.

I can understand the frustration that is evident from both debating sides in this thread, I really can, but I am concerned as well from some exchanging of barbs that this is distracting this discussion somewhat in seeking common ground for an end to this tragic, humanitarian conflict.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

93 posted 2006-08-04 03:45 AM

I apologise for my verbal retaliation against Balladeer's "you come across as a terrorist sympathiser", I know I'm a sucker for taking the bait. This conversation's only refecting what's going on with the whole conflict, in my opinion.

Circular, like I've said. I have to say though, in my eyes, Balladeer is the terrorist sympathiser by advocating "a form of genocide."

I really can't comprehend that statement. Again, I apologise if I'm too passionate, but I love people, and I don't want to see whole cultures wiped out.

Life has always been scary, but that doesn't mean that we destroy all the scary things, because then we'd have no life, just emptiness.

rhia_5779
Senior Member

since 2006-06-09

Posts 1334
California

94 posted 2006-08-04 06:09 AM

how am i biased? if you dont want an entire culture to be wiped out, why are you against israel fighting back. they will disappear off the map if they dont fight, they fight and protect their own being hit by rockets by the day. if they disappear off the map im sure the hezbollah will rejoice.

if hezbollah successfully manages to bomb constistantly tel aviv and jeruslem, we will see israel come crashing down.

my best friend was in tel aviv, and is currently in netanya\outskirts of netanya(she told me and i forgot) she has been giving me reliable reports of whats going on. if i am biased, then only cause i dont want to see israel come crashing down, or anything happen to by best friend.

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

95 posted 2006-08-04 12:57 PM

I said you were biased because you said "If Israel put down their guns, there would be no Israel." That's a fear-mongering sound-byte, in my opinion.

I agree that the people of Israel have every right to live in peace, but their government has to be fair to it's neighbours before that's going to happen. Somebody's got to do the right thing first, instead of this tit for tat, on-going retaliation.

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

96 posted 2006-08-04 01:12 PM

kif kif, Balladeer is not, nor ever will be, a terrorist sympathizer. I question and disagree with him sharply on foreign policy ideology, but he believes in a peaceful end result for this world just as I do, and it's just in how we go about achieving that end result where our views differ. Believe me, I have participated in discussions in this forum for some time now, and I believe Balladeer to be a warm-hearted individual who truly means well, with a genuine sense of justice and sympathy for others like yourself.

None of us here are terrorist sympathizers, none of us want entire cultures wiped out. I have observed every testy exchange here closely, and that moment on Page 3 where you insist that he favors a genocide solution of sorts because it is the only option, he himself wasn't calling for that and was merely suggesting the cynical notion that this conflict is never going to be resolved in the near future, and like he said earlier in this thread in comment #11, he believes one of two conclusions is inevitable; either the terror organizations in the region are eradicated to ensure no further radical militia threats on ways of life, or that the militias succeed in wiping out Israel. I don't really agree with Balladeer there at all, but he shares a point that millions share nonetheless, and we have to recognize that argument persists.

I believe we all can say controversial things every now and then here, which could be misunderstood by others and generated heated discussion such as this. I hold strong convictions myself and sometimes my words feel heavy on others ears, and there are some comments you've made yourself that I don't agree with but recognize you hold strong convictions and don't want to generate an ego conflict here.

You can believe, and insist as you wish that Balladeer is a terrorist sympathizer in your eyes, but I would most strongly and absolutely disagree with you on that, as I believe a vast majority who have talked to and understand Balladeer to some extent would disagree with that as well.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

97 posted 2006-08-04 06:55 PM

I thank you, Noah.

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

98 posted 2006-08-04 09:45 PM

Love,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

99 posted 2006-08-05 11:20 AM

O K. Yet, put the boot on the other foot. If it was a cleric saying what Balladeer was saying...I thought that was the point of the discussion, to argue our opinions, breaking down the content to find some truth. Words are deeds, acting immediately.

I'd suggest looking a little closer to home when talking about 'convictions.'

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

100 posted 2006-08-05 02:46 PM

I agree, kif kif, I really do. I just don't want this thread moving in a direction where personal accusations and name-calling are made against one another here, as I myself would resent and feel hurt being called a terrorist sympathizer personally, just as I imagine anyone here would, and in any case I consider those labels hitting below the belt.

Let's please discuss the nature of this conflict without resorting to personal clashes, as that is completely unnecessary and can be hurtful as well.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

101 posted 2006-08-05 03:30 PM

Ok, I will give it just one more try to make it clear for anyone who has trouble understanding my comment.

Sadly, I believe a form of genocide IS the only solution. As long as there are terrorist groups dedicated to the destruction of Israel there will not be peace. - Balladeer

Balladeer is the terrorist sympathiser by advocating "a form of genocide.
I really can't comprehend that statement. Again, I apologise if I'm too passionate, but I love people, and I don't want to see whole cultures wiped out." - kif kif

The day you claim the fact that a terrorist group is either a country or a culture, your comment will make sense. I stand by what I said. As long as a terrorist group exists that continues to attack a country with the ultimate intent of wiping that country our of existance, and has shown themselves to be unmoveable by attempts of peaceful negotiotion, that group need to be eliminated before there can be peace. If anyone cares to brand me a mass murderer or someone with utter disregard for human life on the basis of that statement, they can be my guest. That is exactly what I stated in the above emboldened comment and I stand by it.

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

102 posted 2006-08-05 04:30 PM

Yes, Balladeer, and that's how I interpreted your initial comment, as well as relating it to your response on Comment #11 in this thread, where you said one of two conclusions will be met.

Like I said before, I don't agree with that argument you relate to, but it is an important and popular argument nonetheless. Also popular is the understanding that only diplomacy will resolve this conflict, and this is not a solution military forces will resolve, which I relate more to that understanding.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Not A Poet
Member Elite

since 1999-11-03

Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA

103 posted 2006-08-05 04:46 PM

But where might we find such a diplomat? Diplomacy has consistently failed to resolve this particular conflict for the past 30 years. It seems rather pollyannaish to believe it might suddenly work when the avowed goal of the terrorists is still the extermination of Isreal.

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

104 posted 2006-08-05 05:52 PM

I can understand how it is a utopian mind-setting to believe that one act of diplomacy will resolve generations of intense conflict, and as I said before, this conflict will truly take generations to truly mend.

But we need to establish more of a mindset that allows both populations to "live side-by-side" rather than resort to further "die side-by-side" notions. It's violence just like this, where you have Hezbollah militants firing 220 rockets every day across random Israeli communities on one side, and unfortunate bombings like the one in Qana last week on the other side, that's only going to encourage further generations to hate one another, and allow this cycle of bloodshed to continue oscillating.

New York Times: August 6, 2006

I am glad a ceasefire is closer than ever, as I believe though it's not going to immediately generate any "sustainable peace" that Bush and everyone is desiring here, it's diplomacy that's going to bring the parties bac to the table, not fighting fire with fire.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Alicat
Member Elite

since 1999-05-23

Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

105 posted 2006-08-05 06:58 PM

Six years ago or so there was another ceasefire. Israel met their conditions of the agreement by withdrawing from claimed territory. Hezb'Allah, Hamas and similar groups did not, and took the cease-fire as a time to rearm, retrain, entrench, then start over when Iran gave the nod. Nor did the rocket and suicide attacks cease, since Hezbully took the legal stance that since they are not a country but a resistance group/political party, they don't have to abide by any UN resolution. Which was semantically correct in a legalistic sense due to the very soft wording of the prior resolutions and ceasefires issued by Annan's UN.

And yes, Iran is in this too. Hezbully is one of the renamed sections of the Iranian Islamic Revolution's military branch. Hezbully gets their orders and money from Iran, their weapons from Syria and orchestrated a plan of which Goebbels would be proud.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

106 posted 2006-08-05 07:30 PM

quote:
None of us here are terrorist sympathizers

I feel some sympathy, not towards their methods but towards the reasons they’re fighting – does that make me a terrorist sympathizer?

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

107 posted 2006-08-05 08:07 PM

How does one understand any group of people that he doesn't have any sympathy for? He doesn't, because he forgets that they are fellow humans just the same as himself.

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

108 posted 2006-08-06 12:02 PM

No Grinch, because you're not a terrorist sympahizer; you're a sympathizer of the terrorized.

I can understand how there are some who grow up all their early lives, surrounded by violence and sights of shrapnel, hopelessly trying to get by that they feel there's no alternative but to challenge those antagonistic forces in preserving all that's left of theirs. I am understanding of that.

Unfortunately, there are those who fail to infuse that righteous anger, that righteous affliction, into a positive social force that says, "Never again!" and instead retalliate with gunfire and violent resentment, and I cannot ever sympathize with those hurtful devices, excuses and tactics.

I believe there is a difference between the terrorized and terrorists. I believe both are human like everyone, and there are important stories behind even the most ruthless of the latter that should be lended an ear to, but all the same I also believe we must be absolutely cautious in how we go about reaching out and hearing them out, for there are opportunists and swindlers among the bunch who themselves don't really have an urge to listen.

In any case, we need to make an effort to be broader-minded, yet stern and disciplined as well in considering this hotspot of conflict. We need to further reach out to and accomodate those who have been terrorized so that our youth and future generations aren't raised by hate, yet also firmly reiterate once and for all that these vindictive acts of terrorism are nothing but a re-channeling of all that violent hostility that was cursed upon that individual, which is immoral in every sense of the word and something that cannot be tolerated.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

109 posted 2006-08-06 05:36 AM

A solution I can see is for Israel to give back that bit of land to the south, taken from Lebanon (1960's? I'll clarify later, for now, Shebaa Farms, overlooking Golan Heights. Israel says it was part of Syria, but a little vague research points that Syria agrees with Lebanon...agreed last November), and/or recognise Hizbollah as a Political branch of the Lebanese Government. No World Power has spoken to Hizbollah, apart from the French discussions with Lebanon's government, so it's second-hand. Rice, not the U.N, needs to sit down with a representative of Hizbollah.(She went to the land, but didn't dig any roots) When a group is invited onto the World's political stage, behaviours are usually modified. We've got to understand that these people are fighting for what they percieve as their rights-we need to listen for what they want (not what the fear-mongering media are telling us), then perhaps some compromise could be met (or not.) At the moment, it's blind fire.

Britain had to allow Sinn Fein to secure a cease-fire...with many compromises, mostly felt by the I.R.A. Yet, I can still remember the first time Gerry Adam's voice was broadcasted, there was a big run-up to it on the BBC, and the recognition promted a new faith in The Peace Process. Of couse, things are still troublesome...Britain still holds N.Ireland, but the likes of Adams doesn't want to upset his new global apple-cart, so the violent extremists are kept down.

I don't think being radical is bad, it's violence that's bad.

Mistletoe, I agree with much of what you're saying. Keeping in mind that international 'terrorists' are the youth-children brain-washed by corrupt clerics who give their speeches in English, so the good elders don't understand. There are groups that take over Mosques, bullying the community. In Britain, the Police(up until 9/11) used to say "it's your problem", thinking they were being racially helpful, but in fact, the system has alienated whole communities from each other, leaving them in fear to sort it out themselves, yet who live alongside each other. The point is communication, and protection. If the world-wide youth are not spoken to, and made to be involved with the whole community, there's a gap there for the hate to move in. (Like your tag-line.)

[This message has been edited by kif kif (08-06-2006 07:21 AM).]

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

110 posted 2006-08-06 08:05 PM

Noah,

quote:
I also believe we must be absolutely cautious in how we go about reaching out and hearing them out, for there are opportunists and swindlers among the bunch who themselves don't really have an urge to listen.

Do they need to listen to be heard and if you don’t listen to them all without pre-judging them how do you sort the opportunists and swindlers from the rest of the bunch?

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

111 posted 2006-08-06 09:38 PM

Good question Grinch.

(Despite my dislike for namecallings such as "opportunists" and "swindlers" that treat people like deeds instead of like people.)

[This message has been edited by Essorant (08-06-2006 10:44 PM).]

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

112 posted 2006-08-07 03:44 AM

Yes. A swindle only happens when one party has more information than the other. Listen first, Talk later. I think what Essorant says about "treating people as deeds" is quite perceptive of what goes on in war. Get that sorted, and treat people as people, just like our loved ones...it's lumping people as objects within a State that dehumanises them.

Alicat
Member Elite

since 1999-05-23

Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

113 posted 2006-08-07 01:26 PM

On top of the millenia old tit-for-tat, eye-for-eye mentality prevalent among both warring parties, we now have Reuters, that much respected and cited news agency doctoring photos.  For some reason all the doctored photos show Israeli strikes in Lebanon, but none showing Hezbollah strikes in Israel.  And a few photos were staged by Hezbollah for more anti-Israeli propoganda.

I'm trying not to be cynical and jaded, so I'll pose the question of why this discrepancy?  Who is the target audience?  What is the political motivation of a supposedly neutral news agency?

And no, I'm not talking about using selective photos to put across a message, though they've shown consideral bias when they have.  This is about falsifying photos using photo editing software and then allowing newspapers and broadcasts to use said photos.  Yeah, they fired the person who was caught editing photos, but there's been no retraction, no apology and the damage has already been done.  Some of those doctored photos were quickly used by anti-Israeli protestors to rationalize the eradication of Israel.

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

114 posted 2006-08-07 02:44 PM

Look, what I'm trying to say here is that, by all means, we need to become broader-minded in understanding what the effects of violence and hardship can produce on each subsequent generation, and understand that, along with their populaces being governed by some who choose propagandizing a "die side-by-side" camapign rather than rule with peaceful pursuits and working to improve the social needs of their people, how it is influencing young people to become brainwashed into tomorrow's "terrorists".

That is one main reason why I wholeheartedly condemn war generally speaking, no matter who commits to it; it only turns younger generations into cynics at earlier ages when they always grow up in physical environments where it feels as though there's nothing beyond the shrapnel, where one can't recall seeing any sort of cloud besides clouds formed from gunpowder and bomb smoke, where there's something more thicker than love. War is the ultimate cancer of mankind, afflicting not only we individuals, but reversing and harming the social welfare and health of each community, as well as the cancer that paralyzes any youthful idealism and hope and washes it away into a martyrdom cynicism.

What I was meaning by that earlier "swindlers" and "opportunists" response is that the most ruthless of individuals volunteering in terrorism campaigns are these children of yesterday who have become dangerously cynical from previous hardships that they feel there is no alternative to what they're doing, that it's excessively difficult to reach them because their minds have become largely closed to new ideas after much hardship. It doesn't mean that those who commit themselves to terrorist regimes have become the opposite of human, it's just though it's important that we hold an idealistic hope and optimism to heart that we can teach and influence younger generations about the moral value of peace and non-violence and to resist radical regimes by electing leaders that value the social needs of their citizens rather than those who teach retaliation, we need to be a little pragmatic as well and recognize there are still threats out there, and we must stand firm and condemn such threats.

Sometimes, because I speak out against war all the time, I'm mistaken as a "radical pacifist". There are more than one type of pacifist though, and I consider myself what's called a "pragmatist pacifist"; a pacifist who condemns war and believe no matter what it should ALWAYS be a LAST resort, but also believes that some sorts of coercive force are justified sometimes, such as dismantling factories that produce chemical weapons and other things that are well-documented to be potential threats on populaces, and targeting specific individuals that lead terror groups through secret operations and such. I also don't believe (except in terms of nuclear weapons and proliferation where I believe we have absolutely no excuse for having them in the world) in absolute disarmament, but just arms reductions, where the money from those reductions would go towards improving the social needs of the state and the citizens, while making sure we still have an active military, and that strategic sites like nuclear power plants, ports and large cities are actively secure. So I take anti-war understanding seriously, but also understand defense is important too and both are moral issues.

The final word I have here is, I believe there's good in everyone, and in heart, despite our differences, we have more in common than we do difference, even in the most martyred and cynica of spirits. So deep down I believe we can reach what we refer to as our "enemies" in some way, and that it's important that we do so too, as there's always a way to do so without appeasing, or "sucking up" to them. But we just have to be careful in how we do so as well. I'm not discouraging us from attempting to do so, but we have to be serious and firm when we do so, to show that though we can reason, we cannot allow terror to go on as well.

The ultimate test is in educating the next generations of believing in living side-by-side, and getting representatives that share this philosophy elected into their governments at all levels, where I believe in simplistic terms that's the key at resolving this conflict over the next few generations. It will absolutely be quite difficult, and hopeless and utopian to many as well, but it's the best way I believe, for violence only enfranchises the next crop of cynics who hopelessly find their ways into these radical militia groups.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

115 posted 2006-08-08 08:08 AM

The ultimate test is in educating the next generations of believing in living side-by-side, and getting representatives that share this philosophy elected into their governments at all levels, where I believe in simplistic terms that's the key at resolving this conflict over the next few generations.

Noah, I couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately I find that one of the main points of destroying terrorist groups. I was watching news yesterday and a fellow was being interviewed who had been a terrorist, left the organization, and had written a book entitled "Why I left the Jihad" or something like that. This person had participated in terrorist activities, had planted bombs himself and been very active in the organization. He stated that, from almost the moment of birth, youngsters were indoctrinated against Jews and all things non-Muslim. There was constant graffiti on the walls of the schools and mosques, calling for the destruction of their enemies. It was taught in classes - it was preached in services. Just like Hitler attempted with his Youth Corps. so do the terrorist groups attempt to create future members by indoctrination from an early age. When you speak of educating the next generations, that is exzctly what THEY are doing and that is why they must be removed from power and the groups disbanded in order to give the future generations a chance to choose for themselves.

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

116 posted 2006-08-08 03:27 PM

Graffiti like this?]

Have you been watching the newscasts that talk of Israel destroying the social infrastructure of Lebanon, and those that claim that Israel has killed more children (for the time) in this attack than any other? (ch4 News, Britain.)

Alicat
Member Elite

since 1999-05-23

Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

117 posted 2006-08-08 04:55 PM

Kif, though I respect your views and would fight to the death to protect them, I can't help but feel you, like me, see what we want to see. Balladeer gives mention to anti-Israeli graffiti and I think of the few photos I've seen, and the many speeches I've heard of such. You however see the Israeli barrier to prevent those destined for shopping malls and daycare centers with explosives strapped to their chests, or even to the most revered global custom: a funeral, as was done in Bahgdad. But then, you've remarked previously that intentionally targetting civilians trying to get on with their lives is a valid military option, even though said military hides behind masks and civilians and does not wear a standarized uniform when engaged. Unless you count the masks they all wear. If fighting for the Glory of Allah is so virtuous, then why do they hide like cowards behind pieces of cloth? But I digress.

I already know the retort: Israel delibrately targets civilians. Prove it. Why were no men present in the bombed building housing women and children that was identified as a Hezbollah hideout? Naturally, you don't think those poor souls were placed there intentionally for the purpose of international condemnation, but that Israel knew those people were there and hit it anyhow, just because they could.

Did the Muslim London bombers exercise valid military options when they targetted your fellow Britains?

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

118 posted 2006-08-08 06:19 PM

quote:
Did the Muslim London bombers exercise valid military options when they targetted your fellow Britains?

Based on the history of military operations – yes.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

119 posted 2006-08-08 07:29 PM

The Islamo fascists use Israel's (and the West's) civility and sense of morality against them, specifically in regard to civilian deaths. While they deliberately kill civilians, it being their main intent, they use the media to sway public opinion by capitalizing on the unintended civilian war time deaths in response to their hostile actions.

We could never have defeated Germany or Japan in this current media environment. And unless we stop allowing the terrorists and terrorist sympathizers to frame the issues, we will lose the war against terrorism, in my opinion.

Israel summed it up well today. It's not about land, it's about terrorism.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

120 posted 2006-08-08 09:50 PM

I've asked the question before in this thread with no plausible response so I'll try once again - where is the outrage concerning the Hazbollahs using civilians as shields? Where is the condemnation of cowards firing missiles from the rooftops of civilian homes or in the center of civilian neighborhoods, then running away and, when retaliation comes and civilians die, they scream "Look at what Israel is doing!!!" Obviously it must work because that's what they do and we get people here saying "look at what Israel is doing!". Is using and sacrificing innocent civilians, then, another method of "using available resources" in the same way using children to blow themselves up was so described? For the life of me, I cannot understand how people can simply ignore these actions and speak only of the evil Israelis when condemnation time comes.

All terrorists have the same agendas, be they in Iraq, Lebanon or wherever - the agenda is their own personal power and gain. Just as the Iraqi "freedom fighters" claim to be fighting for the good of Iraq by blowing up innocent Iraqi men, women and children, so do the Hazbollah claim to be fighting for Lebanon by using Lebanese as human shields and bringing destruction down on the country by their own actions. These groups could care less about their countries. Their own actions bear that out.

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

121 posted 2006-08-09 03:36 AM

So, what of the funeral in South Lebanon that was bombed yesterday? The difference for me is, Israel makes out they're fighting 'terrorists', but in reality, they're crippling the social infrastructure of Lebanon. Mostly civilians have been killed in Lebanon, not soldiers, and not terrorists. Plus, to disallow transportation around and out of Lebanon is another breach of human rights. Israel is committing war crimes, and nobody's doing anything about them. Soon, the whole of the Middle-East will REALLY rise up, and get together against Israel, just like 'us' in the West are 'supporting' Israel, the countries in the East will fully support each other. Then we'll see a war that none of us can chat safely about. Before that happens, I think everybody needs to be heard, listened to, and respected. Incidentally, there were no Hizbollah at that funeral , it was mostly children that were being buried (killed in the previous days bombings from Israel).

Go ahead, keep thinking you're right, that murdering people with bombs is ok, and you'll forever have potential war. It doesn't make sense to me...on one hand, you condemn suicide bombers, yet on the other, you support air-strikes on primary schools.

ps, Alicat, I see the barriers just like the Berlin wall...keeping the 'desirables' safe from the bitterness of poverty.

As for the question of why there were no men in the building bombed by Israeli's...schools are normally filled with women and children, and in war, the menfolk are dragged out of society first, to fight, and be killed (it's not just Hizbollah, the Lebanese Army is employed). Think of some African and Eastern-European villages, full of children with no adults to look after them, because they're all dead.

pps, it's proved that Israeli intelligence is not spot-on. They can just say that Hizbollah are there, and bomb anyway.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

122 posted 2006-08-09 07:36 AM

I've asked the question before in this thread with no plausible response so I'll try once again - where is the outrage concerning the Hazbollahs using civilians as shields?

Still no response, I see. The outrage must only go one way. I see descriptions of Israel bombings but I saw nothing of the missile attack on a school two days ago - oh, yes, that was an Israeli school and the missiles came from Lebanon. I see no mention of Hazbollah rocket attacks indiscrimately dropped on cities with no regard for where they landed. That must not be as worthy of comment.

The Israeli representative said it best at the U.N. yesterday. After listening to the exchange of rhetoric between Middle Eastern countries discussing the conflict and the proposed terms of a cease-fire, he said, "There seems to be one word missing entirely in this discussion - Hazbollah." He was right. The name of the cause of the present conflict had never even been mentioned.

Guess it's not only here.....

Ron

Administrator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

123 posted 2006-08-09 10:18 AM

quote:
I saw nothing of the missile attack on a school two days ago ...

Uh, then how do you know it happened?

Mike, by trying to compare Israel and Hazbollah as you are, you are effectively telling us you believe they are the same. Only then would it make sense to treat them the same.

When I see a child killed by a drunk driver, I express my outrage differently than when I see a child succumb to leukemia. That doesn't mean I see one as less tragic than the other, it simply means I don't see them as the same things. I suspect, buried somewhere behind the facade of reason, I probably harbor a small hope that if I yell and scream loudly enough people will stop drinking and driving and killing other people. Yea, I should probably denounce leukemia just as vehemently, but somehow that seems less urgent and far less likely to be affected by any efforts on my part. We already know, after all, that cancer sucks, and we already have people trying to rid us of it. My outrage, I guess, is probably muted by my sense of personal futility. Screaming and yelling at cancer doesn't seem to help much.

Of course, screaming and yelling at drunks doesn't seem to help much, either. But I ain't going to stop, any more than I'm ever going to stop denouncing any nation that fights terrorism by becoming terrorists, or that resorts to atrocity in order to end atrocity. Looking back through history, not just at the Middle East but at every war ever chronicled, I fully expect to become very hoarse.

Unlike Noah, I'm not a pacifist. Some fights, I believe, need to be fought. However, I also believe that when we can defeat an enemy only by becoming the enemy, the war has already been lost. You can't protect the High Road by leaving it, and frankly, you can't claim to be standing guard when you're knee-deep in the muddy ditches.

If you're not willing to be held to a higher standard, then you can't be fighting for a higher standard.

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.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

124 posted 2006-08-09 02:02 PM

Well stated, Ron, and I agree with your main points. I am not, however, attempting to link Israel and Hazbollah as the same animal, any more than I would try to connect criminals and policemen, even though both might be shooting at each other. 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. My complaint is with, not only some people here, but with many who are condemning Israel's actions while basically giving Hazbollah as free pass, or at least, silence. They doctor photographs, invent news stories, and completely ignore the fact that the terrorist actions were the cause and Israel's the effect. Does the actions of Israel in retaliation make them the same terrorists as the terrorists they are fighting? One will have to judge for themselves. I get no pleasure out of seeing the destruction in Lebanon and I certainly do not by seeing civilian deaths. I hate to hear of the death of a child. A child doesn't care who is at fault - they just die. As far as the simple logistics of the Israel plan, I think they are being quite efficient. They know they have to take over the areas where missiles are fired from to stop it. They know they have to knock out the airports, seaports and roads into Lebanon to prevent the terrorists from being rearmed. Does the general populace of Lebanon suffer from this? Yes, they do. Has  this same populace condemned Hazbollah actions in the past? When they saw terrorist attacks in the form of missile strikes, suicide bombers, etc in the past did anyone say, "This is wrong. You are attacking a country has not attacked us. This is murder"? No, they didn't. What was their response? They elected them into the government. When directed by the U.N. to disband Hazbollah four years ago, did they? No, they didn't. Now they all claim to be victims. They are victims of their own inaction....their own acceptance of a terrorist regime.

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?

How do I know the rocket attack on the school happened? It was on the news, complete with pictures. You won;t find it mentioned here, though, from those condemning Israel for their actions. Nor will you find anything about Haz firing thousands of rockets into Israeli towns.

Israel has not become terrorists by going after terrorists. They are attempting to eliminate an ongoing threat to their country and they recognize that force appears to be the only way, unfortunately. 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.

I'm just saying that people should see both sides and not just jump on here to lambaste Israel and the U.S. I can understand Israel's position and reactions. I can understand the frustrations of the common Lebabese citizenry, seeing their country torn up by the process. I can understand the Arab community banding together to denounce Israel's   full-blown reaction. There is no need to try to understan Hazbollah, becaus they are just in it for the power. What I don't understand is why Hazbollah is the elephant in the room. No one can ignore the fact that it's there but no one will mention it. If I were Lebanese I would DESPISE  Hazbollah for bringing all of this destruction down on their country. I would despise them for using citizens as human shieds, for firing their rockets from household rooftops and they running away, leaving the citizens there to suffer the retaliation. Do they? Doesn't appear so. I find that sad, also.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

125 posted 2006-08-09 04:46 PM

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 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

126 posted 2006-08-09 06:05 PM

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 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

127 posted 2006-08-09 10:25 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

128 posted 2006-08-09 10:58 PM

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 2006-06-09

Posts 1334
California

129 posted 2006-08-10 10:59 AM

actually the media situation. was pretty bad in world war 11 also, actually it was worse

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

130 posted 2006-08-10 08:14 PM

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 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

131 posted 2006-08-10 09:40 PM

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 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

132 posted 2006-08-11 10:38 AM

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 2006-06-09

Posts 1334
California

133 posted 2006-08-11 10:59 AM

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 1999-11-03

Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA

134 posted 2006-08-11 12:47 PM

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 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

135 posted 2006-08-11 05:23 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

136 posted 2006-08-11 08:00 PM

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 1999-05-23

Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

137 posted 2006-08-11 08:52 PM

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 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

138 posted 2006-08-11 09:44 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

139 posted 2006-08-11 11:33 PM

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 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

140 posted 2006-08-12 02:03 AM

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 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

141 posted 2006-08-12 10:43 AM

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

Yeah, sarcasm's dead easy, just like retaliation.

Alicat
Member Elite

since 1999-05-23

Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

142 posted 2006-08-12 02:34 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

143 posted 2006-08-12 08:12 PM

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 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

144 posted 2006-08-13 12:20 PM

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 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

145 posted 2006-08-13 12:43 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

146 posted 2006-08-13 01:00 AM

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 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

147 posted 2006-08-13 03:04 AM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

148 posted 2006-08-13 08:57 AM

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 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

149 posted 2006-08-13 09:14 PM

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.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

150 posted 2006-08-13 09:22 PM

Depends what you call a military problem, Reb. If the police fight street gangs is it a law enforcement problem?

It is a military problem for the side that depends on their military instead of suicide bombers and kidnappings.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

151 posted 2006-08-13 10:27 PM

I have a toolbox that has all different kinds of tools in it Mike. I can't imagine that I would ever acheive satisfactory results if I just used my hammer for everything.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

152 posted 2006-08-13 11:04 PM

No, by all means, talk to the nail. Offer it incentitives, compromises, offer to meet it half-way if only it will drive itself into the board. See what happens.

You speak of negotiations, peace talks and compromises with a group in which all of that has been tried. You seem to close your eyes to evertything that has been tried in the past, including Israel pulling our of Lebanon years ago and only wanting to be left alone. You don;t acknowledge that Hazbollah has acknowledged that it has one mission - the defeat of Israel. You say, "Just stop fighting". Say it to Hazbollah. You speak as if no attempts have been made by Israel for peace.

Maybe they don't want to die with their hammer in their hand......

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

153 posted 2006-08-14 12:06 PM

If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.

So, a few hours before the ceasefire -- for all of Israel's hammering -- the nails still fired 250 rockets today.

Obviously -- you can't hit a ball of mercury with a hammer.

Revenge feels good Mike. I meet at least one person every day who should, in my opinion, be slapped.

Anybody who's had more than one kid though -- knows that there are times when they fight and they're both wrong.

And of course -- we're always, always regaled with -- "he started it".

Ron

Administrator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

154 posted 2006-08-14 02:14 AM

quote:
Obviously -- you can't hit a ball of mercury with a hammer.

You can if your hammer is big enough, Reb.

While I agree completely with you, LR, that Israel can't possibly win, that alone shouldn't be enough to keep them at home. Sometimes, you have to get in the ring even when there's no chance of winning. Not out of pride, but rather because you know if you don't get in the ring, the sucker is going to hit you anyway. If you can force him to put his gloves up to block, that's at least a few seconds where he can't use them to hit you again.

It's been said that retaliation to terrorism just adds fuel to the fire. That might be true, but it's only relevant if there was some hope the fire would go out without more fuel.

I'm not sure a diplomatic solution to the Middle East is even possible. I do know, however, that diplomacy never works without the threat of real pain. Agreeing to give people what they want is rarely enough. There also has to be at least the implied agreement to withhold what they fear. Diplomacy is really tough if they have nothing they fear.

Hezbollah can't be beaten with guns and explosives. Neither can Al-Qaeda. The most that conventional warfare can do is make them hesitant to lead with their chins. That's not, however, a trivial goal.

You're certainly right, Reb, that you can't get good results using nothing but a hammer. But the results aren't going to be any better if you refuse to ever use your hammer. When someone slips across your border and abducts your people, sorry, but a glue gun ain't gonna cut it. And while the hammer probably won't get your people returned, it should at least give them pause when they think about coming back for more hostages. 'Cause you KNOW that thought is going to occur to them soon enough.

The only thing more dangerous in today's world than terrorists, I think, is cocky terrorists.

(If I mixed just one more metaphor in this post, I think I would have to choke.)

Not A Poet
Member Elite

since 1999-11-03

Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA

155 posted 2006-08-14 09:22 AM

I don't know Ron. I pretty much liked everything you said there. Hezbollah needs to know that there are consequences.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

156 posted 2006-08-14 12:34 PM

LOL! Metaphors seem to be the language of the day, Ron, and you have fashioned them into a very logical response which gets to the heart of the matter.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

157 posted 2006-08-14 11:03 PM

quote:

You can if your hammer is big enough, Reb.

Not really. It just breaks up and scatters -- and that big hammer just kills roughly 900 innocent civilians who were put up as bait anyway -- compared to the roughly 60 Hizbullah militants who were permanently downgraded......

quote:

Sometimes, you have to get in the ring even when there's no chance of winning. Not out of pride, but rather because you know if you don't get in the ring, the sucker is going to hit you anyway. If you can force him to put his gloves up to block, that's at least a few seconds where he can't use them to hit you again.

Results don't bear out that scenario Ron.  Hizbullah maintained its' ability to launch Katushkas (katyushas?  I keep seeing it spelled both ways by equally credible sources) up until the bitter end.  So it's like a blind man punching at you anyway -- they aren't all that accurate.

If someone shoots at you from a crowd -- and you can't identify the culprit -- it makes little sense to start firing into the crowd and mowing down innocent bystanders the culprit doesn't care about anyway.  You've taught him nothing -- except that you can be coaxed into acting without thinking.

The kidnappings were a job for Mossad to handle discretely and definitively.  Blowing things up is equally as likely to get a hostage's head removed as anything. They could have more effectively responded to the shellings by a border rush -- and holding -- until Hizbullah either did something really stupid -- or the international community could bring pressure on the Lebanese government to put down its' mad dog.

quote:

It's been said that retaliation to terrorism just adds fuel to the fire. That might be true, but it's only relevant if there was some hope the fire would go out without more fuel.

If there's no hope then why are we waiting? We have the biggest hammer around. So does Israel. But, my fuel pump died on my truck the other day when I was out about 250 miles -- without fuel -- fires go out. Even with fuel -- they go out if you can't get the fuel to the fire.

quote:

Hezbollah can't be beaten with guns and explosives. Neither can Al-Qaeda. The most that conventional warfare can do is make them hesitant to lead with their chins. That's not, however, a trivial goal.

That would make sense if the terrorists weren't suicidal in their attacks -- if they actually cared about surviving. But we know this isn't true. A martyr is a martyr is a martyr. Virgins in heaven are virgins in heaven. If they are willing and eager to strap bombs on their own children to blow up the enemy -- what sense does this statement make Ron?

quote:

You're certainly right, Reb, that you can't get good results using nothing but a hammer. But the results aren't going to be any better if you refuse to ever use your hammer.

I would think the lack of results in Iraq alone would be enough to illustrate that using your hammer just to prove you can doesn't impress anybody -- especially when you keep missing the nail and hitting your thumb.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

158 posted 2006-08-14 11:17 PM

quote:

You speak of negotiations, peace talks and compromises with a group in which all of that has been tried. You seem to close your eyes to evertything that has been tried in the past, including Israel pulling our of Lebanon years ago and only wanting to be left alone. You don;t acknowledge that Hazbollah has acknowledged that it has one mission - the defeat of Israel. You say, "Just stop fighting". Say it to Hazbollah. You speak as if no attempts have been made by Israel for peace.

These aren't things that I've said Mike. You're trying to put me in a position where I have to defend Hizbullah -- but I'm not going to do that.

What I said -- very plainly -- was Israel should stop -- and then it's up to Hizbullah to either stop or not . -- You see -- that's what we have right now and if Hizbullah doesn't then -- world opinion shifts behind Israel and Israel would have the impetus it needed to take out it's measuring tape and coping saw and carefully begin cutting away at pieces of Hizbullah until the world community can get forces in place to begin policing the region.

I speak as if Israel made a huge military and political blunder -- because it should have gone into this conflict as David but instead tried to be Goliath.

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

159 posted 2006-08-15 05:56 AM

Bravo. Local Rebel's just simply explained what I would think if I was clever enough.

It's not about defending Hizbollah,(ie;it's not 'being on their side') or any other 'terror' organisation when I talk of Israel's actions, it's about finding a solution to the mass murder that retaliation in war brings. As the similie suggests, it's ridiculous to fire indiscriminitely into a crowd that hides one potential killer-showing indeed that 'you' can be coaxed into a destructive reaction...not how to win friends, and influence people.

I'm not a Christian, but I have to admire the way Christianity spread throughout the tribal world-no more Evil Forests, no more animal sacrificing, or casting out of children. Christianity promised a benevolent universe, their style was all about safety, and care. The Christians that pilgrimaged in places like Africa didn't go in fighting...that came later, as business was begun, and intertwined with faith.

What I'm trying to say has already been said; lead by example.

Ron

Administrator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

160 posted 2006-08-15 12:33 PM

I think you're making two rather big, erroneous assumptions, Reb ...

quote:
Not really. It just breaks up and scatters -- and that big hammer just kills roughly 900 innocent civilians who were put up as bait anyway -- compared to the roughly 60 Hizbullah militants who were permanently downgraded......

quote:
If someone shoots at you from a crowd -- and you can't identify the culprit -- it makes little sense to start firing into the crowd and mowing down innocent bystanders the culprit doesn't care about anyway.

These two comments typify what I think is Big Mistake #1. If someone shoots at you from within a crowd, and you know the shooter was hired by the very people in that crowd, there are no innocent civilians.

Innocent Civilian is a Western distinction, and even we only recognize the distinction when it can be used to enflame our sense of outrage. Yes, there are innocents in war, but they are far more rare than we usually pretend. Any American, for example, that pays taxes, that are then used to buy guns and missiles, is no more innocent than the soldier who later uses the guns and missiles. When you support war, even tacitly, you don't get to yell foul when you become a victim of war.

I really don't know the extent of the truth, but clearly Israel and many others believe that Hezbollah could not exist in its current form without the support of the Lebanese people. When you let a viper live under your house, you assume responsibility for what the viper does to your neighbor. Either you help your neighbor root out the deadly viper, or you accept what is likely going to happen to your home.

Personally, I don't think anyone should ever have to die in war. However, the distinction between soldier and civilian is a tenuous one, at best, and the search for an innocent civilian is no less difficult than a search for an innocent soldier. War pretty much sucks for everyone. I certainly agree the innocent should be protected. I'm just not sure we'll ever get everyone to agree on who the innocent are.

quote:
Results don't bear out that scenario Ron. Hizbullah maintained its' ability to launch Katushkas ... up until the bitter end.

Yea, but your results are premature, Reb. Hezbollah's abilities to respond certainly weren't diminished the first day of fighting, either, but one day was too soon to reach any conclusions. It's still too soon.

quote:
The kidnappings were a job for Mossad to handle discretely and definitively. Blowing things up is equally as likely to get a hostage's head removed as anything.

Actually, I agree, Reb, with the reminder that 'discretely' and 'definitively' don't sit on the same teeter-totter all that well. But I also recognize it wasn't my call. Maybe it's been handled discretely any number of times in the past, with too little effect, and the decision was made to try a more definitive and less discrete tact? I don't know (and assuming discrete was indeed discrete, I probably can't know).

As for the safely of the hostages, I think it's a mistake to assume the Israel goal was anything so direct and obvious. When a mountain lion kills a calf, you don't put on your hunting jacket in hopes of getting the calf back again. And you sure don't do it in hopes the lion will sue for a quick cease-fire.

quote:
They could have more effectively responded to the shellings by a border rush -- and holding -- until Hizbullah either did something really stupid -- or the international community could bring pressure on the Lebanese government to put down its' mad dog.

Big Mistake #2. I think, Reb, you're placing far too much importance on international opinion, indeed, to the point where you've suggested in previous posts that it should be artificially manipulated. It's nice when your peers agree with what you're doing, but I think it's far more important to do what you believe is right.

Non-military sanctions are historically something of a joke. I can't think of any instance in the past fifty years where they've worked? And, clearly, an international military response is just a matter of using someone else's hammer. That makes sense if you're Kuwait, but perhaps not if you're Israel.

I think international opinion is an important barometer. When everyone is convinced you're wrong, it's usually a good time to reevaluate. But when push comes to shove, you have to do what you believe is right. And at no time should you needlessly rely on international opinion for your continued survival.

quote:
If there's no hope then why are we waiting? We have the biggest hammer around. So does Israel. But, my fuel pump died on my truck the other day when I was out about 250 miles -- without fuel -- fires go out. Even with fuel -- they go out if you can't get the fuel to the fire.

We're waiting, I think, because some hammers are too big to use safely, especially on projects right outside your own door. Should that door be in serious jeopardy, however, and the smaller hammers incapable of protecting it, I suspect it would be foolish to assume the big hammers won't ever be used.

Your truck may have died, Reb, but the sun kept right on shining, its fires self-sustaining and in need of nothing it doesn't already have. It's not eternal, but ten million years certainly feels that way to me. Rather than wait for it to extinguish, I think I'll continue to use sun block.

Analogies aside, I think it should be clear to everyone that ignoring terrorism isn't a suitable answer to terrorism. It's not going to just go away if we play nice.

quote:
That would make sense if the terrorists weren't suicidal in their attacks -- if they actually cared about surviving. But we know this isn't true. A martyr is a martyr is a martyr.

Don't believe everything your enemy tells you, Reb.

The thing about a suicidal attack is that it will never be repeated by the same person. And you don't really know what the next person will do until they do it. Ironically, if you're going to run and hide because that next person might be as suicidal as the last person, they don't have to actually be suicidal to win. They just have to convince you they are.

I believe there are people on both sides of the fence who are willing to die. I think there are very few who are eager to die, especially to no avail. They want to convince us they don't care about their own survival? Fine. That's only going to end when we convince them we don't care either.

Oh, and for the record, Hezbollah hasn't used suicide as a weapon since 1999, Reb.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

161 posted 2006-08-15 05:21 PM

If you want some more time Ron to take a Mulligan I have no objections.

rhia_5779
Senior Member

since 2006-06-09

Posts 1334
California

162 posted 2006-08-16 12:25 PM

thankfully, there is peace while it may be uneasy peace it is peace. a ceasefire is currently taking place rite now.

and to answer the question what do i hav to back it up.

our country knew about the holacaust in post worldwar 2 before we attacked we knew what was going on. did we do anything to stop thousands from getting massacred then? No. we went into that war to get japan back for pearl harbor. then germany and italy declared war on us. we expected a fight from japan but not for italy and germany to rush to their sides and declare war on us and force us to fight with them.

it took us till pearl harbor to fight a war that we should have fought way before then.

the vatican knew all about the holocaust and they did nothing!!!!! zero that i know about before the war of really during.

Alicat
Member Elite

since 1999-05-23

Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

163 posted 2006-08-19 09:13 AM

Lebanese officials stated there was a group seeking to undermine Lebanon.  There were inferring Israel, but I have to disagree.

Hizbollah spent years stockpiling weapons and building bunkers.  Instigates conflict with Israel.  Uses public and private buildings as staging grounds for attacks, then scurries away while the shells destroy the homes, schools and hospitals.  Then airs the damage on their private television station.  And then when a cease-fire is mandated, Hizbollah is there to give cash assistance to any who apply.  You give your name and circumstance, then they contact you to collect your money.  $12,000 USD.  Which is equivalent to $18,506,041 Lebanese Pound as of today.  Hizbollah apparantly has a very large supply of US hundred dollar bills for disbursal, and so quickly after the cease-fire.  They were handing out those $12,000 USD bundles the same day the cease-fire went into affect.  And when elections roll around again there, guess what people will remember.  Will they remember Hizbollah starting the conflict which destroyed so many homes and ended so many lives, or will they remember Hizbollah that gave everyone that lost a home $18.5 million LP?

Very shrewd and calculating that, and I have to give it to Hizbollah for their exhaustive planning and stockpiles.  Not just of munitions and flags, but also US currency.  One thing tickles my memory though.  Counterfeiting is a major industry in that part of the world and was one of Saddam's main exports outside of crude oil.  I obviously can't say definatively that the heavily plastic wrapped c-notes I saw Hizbollah breaking open to count and wrap in 120 count bundles was counterfeit.  It looked just like the bundles that come out of the US Mints.  I'm sure the FBI wouldn't mind having a few bills for analysis.

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

164 posted 2006-08-19 01:19 PM

erm, excuse me for butting in on your rhetorical sensationalism Alicat, but you cannot say Hizbollah started the war-what, when? A few months ago, or 28 years ago? Plus, to say that *Hizbollah instigates conflict-*it is the occupation of Lebanon by Israel that instigates conflict. *From one bold statement to the next...

Ron

Administrator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

165 posted 2006-08-19 02:03 PM

Kif, you can either go back to the actual instigation of this particular conflict (which was the kidnapping of two men) or, if you really want to follow a chain of instigations, go all the way back to the beginning. However, stopping at an arbitrary point in the long chain, at an event that suits your purposes, is just a little bit too transparent.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

166 posted 2006-08-19 06:21 PM

Israel WAS NOT occupying Lebanon when they were attacked by Hezbollah, kif kif.

Hezbollah, unprovoked by Israel, kidnapped two soldiers, after killing eight soldiers, and then dropped eight bombs on Northern Israel. THAT was the instigation in the current conflict.

The events are too recent to get away with rewriting history.

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

167 posted 2006-08-20 05:02 AM

I don't think so, Denise. Do some research.

Ron-it's ridiculous to suggest that this was all started with the kidnapping of a few Israeli soldiers. It's you that's stopping at an arbitrary point to suit your purposes, not me.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

168 posted 2006-08-20 05:34 AM

You don't think so, kif kif? Well, then why don't you share with us your version of reality? And by all means, don't let facts get in your way.

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

169 posted 2006-08-20 05:44 AM

Like I said-do some research. I'm not going to repeat myself forever.

rhia_5779
Senior Member

since 2006-06-09

Posts 1334
California

170 posted 2006-08-20 06:25 AM

the current conflict that is tempararily at cease fire rite now, was started by the kidnappings.

the entire conflict of the hezbollah hating israel and israel defending itself and being on the offense and all that was started years ago.

it was not a new topic for a conflict . it was a newer conflict same issues and a couple more

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

171 posted 2006-08-20 08:12 AM

I'm very familiar with the history of Israel and its surrounding neighbors. I believe that you are the one who needs to do some research, kif, kif. Back up your claims with facts.

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

172 posted 2006-08-20 03:24 PM

About my last post-I thought this was an exchange of ideas. It's not a fair exchange if I'm taking the time to proof-read and organise my words into a comprehensible package, only to be replied to with poor spelling, shoddy grammar and wildly sweeping rhetoric.

ok-ok-I'll be back with a time-line over the next few days, but in all fairness, I should expect the same from those who contest what I'm saying-otherwise, I'll have to think you're being one-sided.

ps; if you look back in this thread, I think you'll find I already have backed myself up with facts. Shebaa Farms? Or, what about The Mandate System?

Ron

Administrator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

173 posted 2006-08-20 04:34 PM

quote:
About my last post-I thought this was an exchange of ideas. It's not a fair exchange if I'm taking the time to proof-read and organise my words into a comprehensible package, only to be replied to with poor spelling, shoddy grammar and wildly sweeping rhetoric.

KK, if we stopped to correct you every time you used a hyphen when you clearly intended to use a dash, I suspect you'd start to feel like we were trying to side-step issues we can't properly address. Redirection is a commonly attempted ploy in the Alley, but you'll find we don't let people get it away with it too often.

Feel free, by all means, to ignore any post that doesn't meet your criteria for acceptability. I assure you, many of us do.

"Use dashes sparingly--only for those occasions when you wish to show special emphasis. They can help you communicate effectively in certain situations, but you don’t want to clutter your prose with too many of them." From Punctuation Made Simple (linked above)

Alicat
Member Elite

since 1999-05-23

Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

174 posted 2006-08-20 04:49 PM

Wildly sweeping rhetoric? I offered a very brief synopsis of current events, along with what Hizbollah is currently doing to financially aid those who lost their houses and businesses in the conflict which Hizbollah instigated. You apparantly don't believe that Hizbollah was giving out bundles of $12,000 USD, equivalent to $18.5 million Lebanese Pounds, to anyone who applied, nor that Hizbollah just might have planned this out all for political gain. I would not be surprised at all if they gained a majority in the Lebanese Parliment, though Shia Muslims are a minority in Lebanon. Or were at least, as I'm not certain how many have joined that flavor of Islam prevalent in Iran and Syria.

Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. (old saying. I'm not calling you a pig.)

Be well my fellow Scot.

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

175 posted 2006-08-20 05:13 PM

It's the 'instigates conflict' I think is rhetoric. It implies that Israel were just sitting in Israel, doing nothing, and that's not the case. I'm not up to scratch to debate what you're saying about Hizbollah having access to US dollars, but it wouldn't surprise me with all the US money exchanging hands throughout the Middle East.

(Thanks, you too, Alicat.)

Ron, I'm glad you clarified the hyphen dash problem, iT lesens the posebility of me comunacatin like this.

kif kif
Member

since 2006-06-01

Posts 439
BCN

176 posted 2006-08-23 11:19 AM

About my views on the conflict, there's information here and here

Look for the Iraeli researcher Dr. Asher Kaufman's discovery of papers from the French mandate (wikipedia link), from 1920 to 1941 that shows French officials in the 1930's had accidentally put Shebaa Farms in Syria...but the mistake was never fixed. By the time his paper was published, the UN had already decided that Shebaa Farms belonged to Syria. Hence the discrepancy with Israel pulling out of Lebanon. They haven't.

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.