Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Apprently these groups' main goal being to destroy all Jews isn't a good enough reason for Israel to defend itself after being attacked between their borders by said people.

It is more than enough reason for Israel to defend itself.

However, it is not a good reason for Israel to start indiscriminately killing civilians.

And if you say that shooting civilians "can't be helped", try harder.

Surely, no one is na

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no qualms about Israel defending itself, what I do have qualms about is the manner in which it goes about defending itself. These kinds of tactics only draw more supporters to Hezbollah and bring more enemies against Israel. This is why, as Edric said, in the long run the Israelis will lose. And chatfsh, if your theory of war is, essentially, "Shit happens in war, get over it," then we can brush of WWII and the Holocaust as just another war, right?

Hey, Hitler was a kooky guy, he invaded countries and killed millions of people, but y'know, shit happens, right? ::)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is more than enough reason for Israel to defend itself.

However, it is not a good reason for Israel to start indiscriminately killing civilians.

And if you say that shooting civilians "can't be helped", try harder.

Israel isn't targetting civilians. See, that's what makes them different -- they're the one of the few (if not the only) that holds morality in the region. Hell, if they didn't care about the civilians the capibility exists in their arsenal to fuel bomb enemy cities.

Further proof by the fact they told civilians to evacuate southern Lebannon. Tell me if you see a Arab nation doing that next time they decide to indiscrimiately invade someone else.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of reforming the political structure of Israel in such a way as to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim population and starve Hamas and Hezbollah of recruits.

Impossible. The fact that after the state of Israel was formed there was an immediate six-player opposition invading the land. The surrounding nations aren't hateful of Israel (or the west for the majority) for rational reasons -- rather extremism (and note this is the few that controls the many) leading to invasion.

If you want anymore proof, look at September 11th. Bin Laden's purpose was to attack the US government, not the people. But by his standards because America is a democratic state the people *themselves* are the government -- leading to civilian loss. You, among others, Edric, are aware that this isn't true in the current republican democratic states.

No, I fully understand that Israelis are willing to fight to the death, but I don't want them to die. I don't want to see another Masada, I want to see peace. And I strongly believe that the current policies of Israel are irresponsible in the short run and suicidal in the long run.

The short-term policies of Israel are not to get destroyed. This current conflict is a step in the opposite direction of what they normally do: Exist, get invaded by some idealogical-driven nemesis, retaliate, and return to existing.

It's not the foriegn policy of Israel that's the issue, it's the pure idiocy of the belief system and how it's percieved in the Middle East that's the issue.

I have no qualms about Israel defending itself, what I do have qualms about is the manner in which it goes about defending itself. These kinds of tactics only draw more supporters to Hezbollah and bring more enemies against Israel. This is why, as Edric said, in the long run the Israelis will lose. And chatfsh, if your theory of war is, essentially, "Shit happens in war, get over it," then we can brush of WWII and the Holocaust as just another war, right?

Hey, Hitler was a kooky guy, he invaded countries and killed millions of people, but y'know, shit happens, right? ::)

The manner, which before was what? Defending itself when attacked. Pretty simple.

And what do you purpose they do? These Arab/Islamic states hold extreme religious beliefs that cannot be rationalized with -- as previously stated, note the War of Independece, where the PROSPECT of Israel's existance brought a Arab coalition at their doorstep.

And she's not saying "shit happens, that's it," she's simpy stating the reality: Civilians (typically) die in conflicts.

But the manner by which Israel is achieving their goals is a notable and moral-driven one. They're not the extremists. The IDF is attacking targets they believe to be of military importance, and before you get your shit in a bundle like you have been, Clemenza, realize they're not bombing school buses, using women and children as shields, or shooting up schools.

What she's saying is mistakes are bound to be happen. And at least they're mistakes, and not intentionally let's-bomb-the-dash-out-of-the-population-for-no-purpose, like the enemies Israel has to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely, GhostHunter, all defensive offenses can't be lumped under "they attack, so we defend". Would it be just being defensive if Israel glassed Beirut? Since you know, Hezbollah militants are hiding there? No. It would be a massacre. Same goes in what is happening now. What the IDF is doing now should be put under the "Sloppy defensive job, killing much more civilians than should be killed in this conflict." I mean, telling village people to flee, but then bombing the roads and rocketing escaping cars?

What I honestly think, though? I'm thinking dash it. How does this concern me? In no goddamn way, that's how. It'll turn into a humanitarian crisis, the UN will do nothing since it essentially a useless organisation except for delivering aid, and even if it tries to impose sanctions or take action against Israel for the reckless destruction, the USA will use the veto. I'm departing this argument as I've said all that I want to say, but let me say this one last thing, about the outcry over using German troops in the potential peacekeeping operation:

The UN and first world countries are way too dashing scared of America and Israel. They need to toughen up and make things go their way, and not be a considerate person to the UN. All these people protesting involving German troops in the peacekeeping operation because it could bring back memories of the Holocaust? Tough shit, asshole. The Holocaust happened 60 years ago and those involved in it ARE not still going to be soldiering. Oh boo dashing hoo, a German might be forced to train his gun on an Israeli in the peacekeeping operation, so what? It doesn't make a difference who the hell they are. This is NOT WWII, Germans do not hate Jews now. Good God, keeping a country from being involved in a peacekeeping operation just because of the past, when that country was led by a crazy, tyrannical dictator? Screw that. If Germany wants to help in the peacekeeping operation and wants to send troops/is asked by the UN to send troops, then let them.

EDIT: I wrote b*tch but the language filter changed it to 'considerate person'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Israel isn't targetting civilians. See, that's what makes them different -- they're the one of the few (if not the only) that holds morality in the region.

I'm sure Israel has good intentions, but you know what they say about good intentions and the road to hell...

Morality is not just about intentions. It is first and foremost about actions. Every justice system punishes involuntary murder.

Impossible. The fact that after the state of Israel was formed there was an immediate six-player opposition invading the land. The surrounding nations aren't hateful of Israel (or the west for the majority) for rational reasons -- rather extremism (and note this is the few that controls the many) leading to invasion.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that underlines Israel's current foreign policy: "Religious fanatics are insane. You can't negotiate with them because they are hell bent on mindless destruction."

Nonsense! Just 500 years ago the entire world was composed of people that would be considered "religious fanatics" by modern Western standards. In the Middle Ages, everyone was at least as fanatical and unconcerned with human life as Hamas and Hezbollah are today. But there were plenty of negotiations going on. You can successfully negotiate with religious fanatics.

And notice that although I call them fanatics, I don't call them irrational. Because many of them are in fact very rational. Reason is all about reaching logical conclusions from given premises. If your premise is that Muslims have a right to exclusive control over the Holy Land, then the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah may be entirely logical.

And what do you purpose they do? These Arab/Islamic states hold extreme religious beliefs that cannot be rationalized with...

Yes they can. Like I said, everyone held extreme religious beliefs not so long ago, yet diplomacy still existed in those times.

If it was possible for Saladin and the Crusaders to negotiate, it sure is possible to negotiate with Hamas and Hezbollah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I might not get out of this yet.  I just wanted to say that Israel has a great Justice Minister - I mean, look at his logic! Unfallible.  ::)

It speaks for itself, I don't need to type out a post showing where he is so wrong.

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

'All southerners terrorists'

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

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5219360.stm

Well, I'm happy that Israel has such good leaders - always striving for peace and prosperity. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no qualms about Israel defending itself, what I do have qualms about is the manner in which it goes about defending itself. These kinds of tactics only draw more supporters to Hezbollah and bring more enemies against Israel. This is why, as Edric said, in the long run the Israelis will lose. And chatfsh, if your theory of war is, essentially, "Shit happens in war, get over it," then we can brush of WWII and the Holocaust as just another war, right?

Hey, Hitler was a kooky guy, he invaded countries and killed millions of people, but y'know, shit happens, right? ::)

There is a huge difference between gathering up all the Jews you can find and murdering them in cold blood, and having civillian casualties in a military conflict.  It goes about defending itself by destroying all of the Hezbollah headquarters in the south and in Beirut.  It's preposterous you'd even suggest that Israel "is going about it wrong" because militants will use this to unite.  You can't let terrorist organizations who have said "there will *never* peace, because we will *never* allow it" dictate whether to protect your citizens or not.

As for the long run, you have no clue what will happen.  But we can all see you've got quite a death grip on your dislike for Israel, as shown by your sensationalistic approach to every single thing that pops up with Israel's name on it in the news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O RLY? And why can't I dislike Israel, especially after its Justice Minister says things like "All Lebanese in the south are terrorists" and "We should flatten villages so that the number of casualties on our troops's side are reduced", eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is exactly the kind of thinking that underlines Israel's current foreign policy: "Religious fanatics are insane. You can't negotiate with them because they are hell bent on mindless destruction."

Nonsense! Just 500 years ago the entire world was composed of people that would be considered "religious fanatics" by modern Western standards. In the Middle Ages, everyone was at least as fanatical and unconcerned with human life as Hamas and Hezbollah are today. But there were plenty of negotiations going on. You can successfully negotiate with religious fanatics.

And notice that although I call them fanatics, I don't call them irrational. Because many of them are in fact very rational. Reason is all about reaching logical conclusions from given premises. If your premise is that Muslims have a right to exclusive control over the Holy Land, then the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah may be entirely logical.

You can't negotiate with them because they literally say "negotiation doesn't exist, Israel must die."

I guess we can talk about all this other crap all we'd like, but asking people to comprehend that ^ simple fact, or premise as you call it, is apparently too much of a task.

Let's be honest, religious fanaticism =/= terrorism.  There are many Christian fanatics in the US who don't like homosexuals, abortion, etc., who still don't go around blowing themselves up or launching unprovoked attacks so they can hope to kill as many Jews as possible with them.  So let's go ahead and call Hezbollah what they really are:  they are a terrorist organization bent on the absolute destruction of the Jews (just like Hitler and the Nazis if you want a *valid* comparison to a group desiring or attempting to mimmick the Holocaust) and Israel.

As for the premise that Muslims have the right to exclusive control of the Holy Land, they have no such claim or justification.  Islam is a 1,300 year old religion at best.  There is about as much space between the creation of Christianity and the later creation of Islam as there is a seperation between the Babylonian captivity (a forced exile from the land of Israel) and the beginning of Christianity, which accounts to about as much time between the end of the Hebrew Bible and the beginning of Islam, as Islam has existed altogether.  How they would have claim to it over the Jews is beyond me.  It's simply not the case.  The Muslim holy land is the birth and death place of Muhammad, a man.  Only in reverence of Muhammad and his apparent flight through heaven and hell does Jerusalem become tied to them as Holy.

So no, they don't have a pre-Jewish claim or premise to the land.  And they certainly don't have a post-Israel claim to it, as the Jews had actually purchased much of the land they were alloted, while the Muslims wanting to take it over just want to steal it post-the death of all Jews.

And this is taking into account the fact that Jerusalem, the holiest city, is already protected, and features the Muslim Dome of the Rock and Mosque built over the destruction of the Holy Temple.  They have no reason to destroy all the Jews and take it back for themselves exclusively.  The fact that they already have their way in Jerusalem, but that that isn't enough, and that they must wipe all the Jews out and take it all for themselves exclusively just goes to show you the ridiculousness and irrationality of it all.

So spare me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O RLY? And why can't I dislike Israel, especially after its Justice Minister says things like "All Lebanese in the south are terrorists" and "We should flatten villages so that the number of casualties on our troops's side are reduced", eh?

You can dislike Israel, and obviously do.  Don't let me get in the way of what you've been doing since your very first post in this thread.

However, if you are gonna hate Israel, at least don't do it for such ridiculous reasons.

Israel is told and/or says they should/will steer clear of civillians as they can.  But almost immidiately these same "civillian villages" begin firing weapons upon them.  This thing has been going on for 16 days, over two weeks.  Israel has dropped tons of leaflets, they've made vocal warnings to Lebanese citizens to evacuate, they've done all they can to make it clear that anyone not fighting should not be there.  So when a village starts firing missiles at them, they are going to have missiles fired at *them*.  Again, it is unfortunate that civillians have been killed and are being killed, but this thing's been going on for more than half a month.  There's no claiming ignorance of the conflict at this point.

And as Hezbollah has vowed to fire missiles upon Israel, Israel has vowed to destroy any one or aea doing so.  And if a village that Israel is supposed to be steering clear of begins firing missiles on them, what other option do they have?

"Oh, wait, that's the village, we can't shoot them."

"But they are bombarding us with missiles."

"Yeah, but we've got the high ground."

No, with that rationale you have the "dead ground".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you have to take into account that there are people who can't evacuate. The elderly, the young and orphaned, the injured... What about them? I'm pretty sure most people won't help them, considering that they've got their own problems(:D) so what are those stragglers going to do? Walk miles and miles in blazing hot heat through shelling and bombs raining down all around them, or tough it out in their homes? The orphaned young could make it, but the elderly(Who might have problems with the heart or diabetes or a plethora of other sicknesses or diseases) and the injured(Who can have infected wounds, or serious blood loss, or no medical supplies, even simple bandages) would probably die in the desert trying to reach the safety of the north. If Israel just flattens whole villages without taking into account that there are those who can't evacuate, then it becomes no better than the terrorists it is fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's where we agree to disagree.

Because Israel can't go in there with the mindset that the villages are full of people who *couldn't* heed their warning.  By all accounts huge amounts of people heeded their warning and evacuated.  At this point, when missiles are being fired on them from "villages" they have to assume those villages are hostile.  In fact, when missiles are coming from these "villages" one doesn't have to assume that, one can see it in fruition in physical form.

Hey, I am right there with you on the civillian deaths.  They suck.  They absolutely suck.  It would be great for the hostile armed terrorists of Hezbollah to be located in one building so Israel could take on swoop over and destroy the enemy at once, without killing a single civillian.

It sucks even more because the inaction of the Lebanese government (Israel pulls out of south Lebanon, and Hezbollah and is immidiately installed there, and resumes baseless attacks on Israel) has caused Israel to have to take into their own hands, where a strong government or country would have otherwise been able to take care of it themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't negotiate with them because they literally say "negotiation doesn't exist, Israel must die."

That's what people always say after decades of religious war. "Burn the heretics", "visit God's wrath upon the infidels", that sort of thing. In the Middle Ages, you could easily get them to change their minds by offering a suitable quantity of gold, marrying their daughters (or have them marry yours), and/or making not-so-subtle remarks about the fact that you've got the upper hand so they'd better STFU and accept your terms while they still can.

I don't see how the present is any different. To negotiate with fanatics, all you have to do is be very, err, persuasive.

There are many Christian fanatics in the US who don't like homosexuals, abortion, etc., who still don't go around blowing themselves up or launching unprovoked attacks so they can hope to kill as many Jews as possible with them.  So let's go ahead and call Hezbollah what they really are:  they are a terrorist organization bent on the absolute destruction of the Jews (just like Hitler and the Nazis if you want a *valid* comparison to a group desiring or attempting to mimmick the Holocaust) and Israel.

Of course that is a murderous goal, but it's also pie in the sky. Israel has vastly superior military power at the moment. Surely even Hezbollah would be tempted to accept a reasonable peace settlement in the present rather than keep fighting for an imaginary goal in the distant future.

See, the huge, gigantic difference between Hezbollah and the Nazis is that the Nazis actually had the power to kill large numbers of Jews, whereas Hezbollah doesn't. It's always okay to negotiate with organizations that are much weaker than you, even if they are genocidal.

As for the premise that Muslims have the right to exclusive control of the Holy Land, they have no such claim or justification.  Islam is a 1,300 year old religion at best.  There is about as much space between the creation of Christianity and the later creation of Islam as there is a seperation between the Babylonian captivity (a forced exile from the land of Israel) and the beginning of Christianity, which accounts to about as much time between the end of the Hebrew Bible and the beginning of Islam, as Islam has existed altogether.  How they would have claim to it over the Jews is beyond me.  It's simply not the case.  The Muslim holy land is the birth and death place of Muhammad, a man.  Only in reverence of Muhammad and his apparent flight through heaven and hell does Jerusalem become tied to them as Holy.

Blah blah blah... If we're going by the "who was here first" rule, the descendants of the philistines should have control of the Holy Land, since they were there before the Jews. But if you ask me, no one has a rightful claim to exclusive control of the Holy Land. Jerusalem should be an international city, administered by the United Nations. In fact, the UN headquarters should be there.

But that's not the point. The point is that Muslim fundamentalists think they have a right to exclusive control of the Holy Land, and their reasoning is based on that premise.

And they certainly don't have a post-Israel claim to it, as the Jews had actually purchased much of the land they were alloted...

Let's not go over that again. Purchasing land from imperial oppressors who stole it in the first place is not going to make you popular with the locals.

Israel is told and/or says they should/will steer clear of civillians as they can.  But almost immidiately these same "civillian villages" begin firing weapons upon them.  This thing has been going on for 16 days, over two weeks.  Israel has dropped tons of leaflets, they've made vocal warnings to Lebanese citizens to evacuate, they've done all they can to make it clear that anyone not fighting should not be there.  So when a village starts firing missiles at them, they are going to have missiles fired at *them*.  Again, it is unfortunate that civillians have been killed and are being killed, but this thing's been going on for more than half a month.  There's no claiming ignorance of the conflict at this point.

Look at it from the Lebanese point of view, though: You live in your house, minding your own business and trying not to upset the Hezbollah thugs in your village, when Israel drops leaflets telling you to get out of there ASAP because they intend to blow your home to pieces.

I don't think you'd be very happy about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're military scenarios can be quite disconnected from reality.

In reality logistics create the biggest stress on a military especially if he is the invading force.

And communication sucks, it's not like your average RTS game, you never really know where your units are, and what the hell is happening.

That's why mistakes like the UN telling 10 times and easily occur. Because of bas communication between artillery, intelligance and air force.

In the same way no country can send 1,000,000 of its people to simply run into the next country and take out all tanks. Even if it will work. (And weapons like artillery can stop on open ground a good deal) it doesn't matter. You'll have 1,000,000 people on that country, without any logistic support, no food no water no shit.

In a average army the logistic staff is more than 5 times bigger than the fighting staff.

For every one artillery cannon, there are usually 3-4 trucks if you want to keep it supplised to shoot a small part of the time.

That's why taking commanders is sufficient to block a military. And that's why superior technology can gap insane amountf of man-power. Today Israel still have a giant technology gap on most of its enemies.

And BTW we have peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. And Israel's potential enemies who can drag into fighting are just Iran and Syria nowdays. The rest would really prefer overlook it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're military scenarios can be quite disconnected from reality.

In reality logistics create the biggest stress on a military especially if he is the invading force.

And communication sucks, it's not like your average RTS game, you never really know where your units are, and what the hell is happening.

That's why mistakes like the UN telling 10 times and easily occur. Because of bas communication between artillery, intelligance and air force.

In the same way no country can send 1,000,000 of its people to simply run into the next country and take out all tanks. Even if it will work. (And weapons like artillery can stop on open ground a good deal) it doesn't matter. You'll have 1,000,000 people on that country, without any logistic support, no food no water no shit.

In a average army the logistic staff is more than 5 times bigger than the fighting staff.

For every one artillery cannon, there are usually 3-4 trucks if you want to keep it supplised to shoot a small part of the time.

That's why taking commanders is sufficient to block a military. And that's why superior technology can gap insane amountf of man-power. Today Israel still have a giant technology gap on most of its enemies.

And BTW we have peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. And Israel's potential enemies who can drag into fighting are just Iran and Syria nowdays. The rest would really prefer overlook it.

I won't argue with any of that, but didn't King Abdullah(Of Saudi Arabia) say something about the conflict? Namely, didn't he state that he was anti-Israel? I'm not sure about this, though, since I heard it from a friend. And yes, I know that most Muslim nations are anti-Israel, but I meant openly hostile. Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, no?  ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the Phillistines were not *from* Phillistia, they were most definitely not Semitic people.  They are believed to be from Greek islands, and Phillistia itself was a tiny sliver on the beaches where the Gaza Strip currently is, that had belonged to Egypt, not the whole of the land of Israel.

So no, the Phillistines would have no claim to the whole of Israel, especially not Jerusalem, or anything other than the area of land currently inhabited by about 1.3 million Palestinians called the Gaza Strip.

And Jerusalem will be an international city as soon as the Palestinian terrorists quit kidnapping Israeli soldiers and ruining the negotiations that are supposed to pave the way to it being made official.  Unfortunately, the Palestinian terrorists, who's preamble is "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it", are also the Palestinian government.  Nonetheless, while it isn't officially an international city, Israel has allowed the Dome of the Rock and Mosques on the spot of their Holy Temple to remain without attack, and without giving into relgiious terrorism.

Let's not go over that again. Purchasing land from imperial oppressors who stole it in the first place is not going to make you popular with the locals.

No.  They purchased land from Arab and Muslim land owners just as they did Muslim Ottoman owners.  The Jews didn't dupe anyone into anything.  They purchased their land from the recent ancestors (mid 1800s-early 1900s) of the very people that now wish to just destroy them and take it.

Say what you will about Israel, but the state of Jerusalem is a shining example of their stance of their protection as a State and as a people, and not giving into fanaticism towards other religions.  And while you may say the status of Israel according to the Tanakh isn't binding, the status of Israel today, as a people who purchased much of the land, who's land was made officially a State, and come unto the other parts of the land only when invaded by Palestine and their 4 or 5 Arab brothers, has been established so legitimately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you notice something that's been happening in the past few days? The militias of Lebanon, Al Qaeda, radical Shiite clerical factions in Iraq and even Iranian and Syrian nationalists have all been exploiting this conflict to gain common ground and gain supports against Israel. This is exactly the sort of thing that the islamist extremist want - it strengthens them, it unites them and divides the West. Even if every single member of Hezbollah is destroyed, it will only make the other factions and militias all the more powerful. The same Hezbollah will be recreated in Syria and there will be nothing that Israel could do about it without going to war with both Syria and Iran, which is something I truly doubt they would like to see happen. I wouldn't be surprised that in such a situation Iran would be able to reach a purchase agreement with North Korea, giving it an early jumpstart on its supposed nuclear weapon research. And Israel, as we know, is just seven million people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't Israel's job to appease terrorists and militant Muslims.  I don't care if Hamas and Al Quaida have gay sex and a Palibanian amalgamation bent on the destruction of the Jews comes to fruition.  The fact remains that is already their collective goal.

And if they show too much unity in the press, and start coming together, there will be a movement to snuff them out by civilized nations like that.  Everyone may not agree with Israel's force on this, but none of the large countries are going to allow militant Islam to come together and act on their goals.

I'm sorry, I just can't buy into the "this is what they want" logic, as if Israel doing anything else (i.e. not protecting themselves) won't bring them immidiate destruction.

Being dictated by that would be tantamount to abolishing laws against rape, because trying to keep rapists in line makes them angry, and more sneaky about it.

As for Hezbollah being recreated in Syria, Hezbollah/Lebanon is heavily Syrian as it is.  200K Syrians were given Lebanese citizenship about 15-16 years ago, when the Syrian occupation drove the head of the Lebanese government into exile in France.  The head of that government, of course, wanted the Syrians to get the hell out, and even launched a War of Liberation to oust Syria from Lebanon.  So he was taken care of and driven off to France in 89, just before the citizenship of all those Syrians into Lebanon.

If you don't think Lebanon is and has been a Syrian occupation for 16 years you are mistaken.  Now Israel isn't trying to liberate Lebanon or any of that crap, but if that can be achieved somehow through this, so be it.  It's a really messed up situation, but I don't believe Israel is doing anything wrong.  There have been some extremely unfortunate deaths.

Bottom line is this situation is so much more complex and has so many more threads than most people realize or a willing to accept.  It isn't just the evil Israel going to town on the Lebanese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Claiming that it isn't Israel's "job" to appease militants is a rather naive way of looking at things. It might not be their responsibility, but it is in the best interest for Israel's longterm survival to appeal not to the militant muslims - their minds can hardly be changed by the very people they hate, but to those muslims that are on the verge of taking on the militant path. Because, let's face it, militant recruitment techniques are very similar to those of the US army - they focus mainly on poor, bored and disillusioned youth, who see it as an opportunity to belong to something greater than them and to die with supposed honor. But naturally, unlike regular soldiers, they are more eager to die, because that is when the majority of the promised benefits occur. These actions by Israel, no matter how justified they may seem to you, make it easier for militant groups to gain membership by inciting anger, as well as creating a larger layer of poor and disillusioned youth with no alternative.

As far as your fighting crime comparison goes, this is exactly why along with strict punishments and jail time, areas that are heavy with crime are often offered government-sponsored scholastic/career opportunity programs. Not everything is about punishment, it's also about prevention. Ultimately all humans have the same needs and all humans can be reasoned with and set on the right path if you put enough effort into it. But as you can imagine, it takes a lot less effort to convince someone to stray from that path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pushing Hezbollah and Syria out of southern Lebanon is what is in the best intest of Israel.  Preventing attacks means moving the attackers from out of places where they can easily attack you.  Syria is occupying and attacking from Lebanon, so again, there aren't any other realistic options.  None of the surrounding Muslim nations offered to help deal with the problem.  Lebanon itself didn't or could't.  So again, while I hear what you're saying, I can't see where it changes the necessity for Israel to do what it is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't argue with any of that, but didn't King Abdullah(Of Saudi Arabia) say something about the conflict? Namely, didn't he state that he was anti-Israel? I'm not sure about this, though, since I heard it from a friend. And yes, I know that most Muslim nations are anti-Israel, but I meant openly hostile. Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, no?  ???

Actually it was Saudi-Arabia who offer 2-3 years ago a concept for an agreement that includes acknoledging of Israel by all arab states. And it also condemned Hizbullah on the start of these events.

Most arab-countries have passive hostile relations with us. They have no real interest in fighting with Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a quote from me on the 25th:

And a good way to not get hit by fire is to not drive in a war zone, especially one in which Hezbollah is attacking the Israelis from civillian areas.

Of course, my comments were just ignored in lieu of proclaiming that Israel was targeting civillians, targeted the UN, etc. out of spite, and doing it on purpose.

Using UN post as 'shield'

Canadian e-mailed friend about militia's presence days before Israeli bomb killed him. The Ottawa Citizen

Jul 28, 2006

The words of a Canadian UN observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.

Those words, written in an e-mail dated just nine days ago, offer a possible explanation as to why the post - which according to UN officials was clearly marked and known to Israeli forces - was hit by Israel on Tuesday night, said retired Maj-Gen Lewis MacKenzie yesterday.

The strike hit the UN observation post in the southern Lebanese village of El Khiam, killing Canadian Maj Paeta Hess-von Kruedener and three others serving as unarmed UN military observers in the area.

Just last week, Maj Hess-von Kruedener wrote an e-mail about his experiences after nine months in the area, words Maj-Gen MacKenzie said are an obvious allusion to Hezbollah tactics.

"What I can tell you is this," he wrote in an e-mail to CTV dated July 18. "We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing.

"The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."

Those words, particularly the last sentence, are not-so-veiled language indicating Israeli strikes were aimed at Hezbollah targets near the post, said Maj-Gen MacKenzie.

"What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces)," he said.

That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It's a tactic Maj-Gen MacKenzie, who was the first UN commander in Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war, said he's seen in past international missions: Aside from UN posts, fighters would set up near hospitals, mosques and orphanages.

A Canadian Forces infantry officer with the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and the only Canadian serving as a UN military observer in Lebanon, Maj Hess-von Kruedener was no stranger to fighting nearby.

The UN post, he wrote in the e-mail, afforded a view of the "Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base."

"It appears that the lion's share of fighting between the IDF and Hezbollah has taken place in our area," he wrote, noting later it was too dangerous to venture out on patrols.

The e-mail appears to contradict the UN's claim there had been no Hezbollah activity in the vicinity of the strike.

The question of Hezbollah's infiltration of the area is significant because UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, speaking Tuesday just hours after the bombing, accused the Israelis of the "apparently deliberate targeting" of the base near Khiam in southern Lebanon.

A senior UN official, asked about the information contained in Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail concerning Hezbollah presence in the vicinity of the Khiam base, denied the world body had been caught in a contradiction.

"At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area," he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon.

"Whether or not they thought they were going after something else, we don't know. The fact was, we told them where we were. They knew where we were. The position was clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us."

Even if Hezbollah was not firing rockets at the time of the bombing, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail indicates they were using a terrorist tactic of purposely drawing out enemy forces near a neutral site, said retired Capt Peter Forsberg, who did two UN tours between 1993 and 1995 during the Bosnian war.

The UN's limited mandate, meaning that its observers are unarmed and have few options, put the observers in a poor position, he said.

This confirms what I was saying days ago.  Not because I'm psychic or anything, but because in 2006 it is common knowledge that terrorists do and will put their fellow civillians in harms way especially if it means rallying public opinion against Israel.

This email - from one of the UN soldiers that was killed - makes it clear that Israel isn't deliberately targeting them, and that Hezbollah was and had been using their base as a cover, and to fire at Israelis from, also putting the UN building in danger.

Remember when you asked how one defines a terrorist organization?

Hezbollah and their techniques, like this, are a great indicator/example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×