Full Version: Israeli Major Offensive
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Jul 22 2006, 01:47 AM) 
QUOTE(Fma @ Jul 21 2006, 11:58 PM)
QUOTE
Israel has the right to defend itself. If that means going in and annexing the areas from which attacks are taking place, so be it.
Even if costs the life of 300+ Lebanese? Is the life of one Israeli worth more than that of tens of Lebanese?
It's not a question of Israeli lives versus Lebanese lives. If Israel had been the one launching unprovoked attacks on Lebanese cities with the deliberate intent of hitting civilians, then Lebanon would have had the right to defend itself, even if innocent Israelis wound up getting caught in the crossfire and killed. Simply put, no nation should have to tolerate that kind of horsehockey. If you're attacked, you have a right and duty to your citizens to retaliate and shut down the attackers. If those attackers hide themselves among civilian populations, then they, not you, are responsible for their deaths.
As it is, Israel gave plenty of warning for civilians to get out of areas subject to airstrikes. Many simply refused. They take their own chances when they do that.
FWIW, a UN post was just bombed in Lebannon by Israel. Reports of 4 dead.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14029827/
I have really been refraining from watching any of this junk because it just gets me too upset.
It's one thing to "protect yourself" it's another to indiscriminantly bomb the hell out of civilians and not give a crap about it. And to make matters worse it seems like the US is sitting along side of Israel saying "yeah, go ahead and kill the Lebanese, we won't stop you, they have it coming to them".
It's like the big dad bully sitting next to his bigger bully son, encouraging him on as he pummels the smaller kid.
I agree that a hard stance may need to be taken to rid the middle east of idiots like Hizbollah, but sitting by while poor innocent people are SLAUGHTERED is going over the line.
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Jul 25 2006, 03:48 PM)
It is not altogether clear that the initial incident took place on Israeli or Lebanese territory.
Seeing as how Israel's version of events is the version currently accepted by most of the civilized world, including elements that often do not see things Israel's way, I'd say that it's mostly clear. I think there'd have to be stronger evidence than Lebanon's claims to the contrary at this point.
QUOTE
The real issue is whether Israel has the moral and legal right to wreck so much havoc on Lebanon in attempting to quell Hezbollah?
As has been explained, the responsibility for the havoc lies with Hezbollah, for deliberately merging themselves with civilian populations so that they can use civilian deaths for propaganda value. Israel doesn't forfeit its right to defend itself just because Hezbollah acts this way. You're not giving us a realistic idea of what Israel should be doing.
It would be one thing if somebody had a constructive suggestion as to how Israel could hit Hezbollah effectively with less of an impact on Lebanese civilian life than their operation is currently having. But to say they should just cease fire is crazy. Ceasefire=Hezbollah victory. It's that simple.
QUOTE
The related question is whether Israel and the US will emerge from this aggression with more or less security?
As long as the U.S. and Israel don't give in to the relentless ill-conceived calls for ceasefire, it will result in more security for us. Arab countries may object now, but once Hezbollah is removed from the scene, the situation will calm. The real danger is if the operation is ended prematurely and Hezbollah is allowed to continue acting as an open sore on civilized society.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Jul 25 2006, 05:52 PM)
As has been explained, the responsibility for the havoc lies with Hezbollah, for deliberately merging themselves with civilian populations so that they can use civilian deaths for propaganda value. Israel doesn't forfeit its right to defend itself just because Hezbollah acts this way. You're not giving us a realistic idea of what Israel should be doing.
It would be one thing if somebody had a constructive suggestion as to how Israel could hit Hezbollah effectively with less of an impact on Lebanese civilian life than their operation is currently having. But to say they should just cease fire is crazy. Ceasefire=Hezbollah victory. It's that simple.
So if a robber picks up a little girl and uses her as a human shield, as he tries to escape a robbery....your soution is "the police don't forfeit their right to shoot a million shots at the robber just because he's holding up a little innocent girl"?
Yeah, that's acceptable.
I can't stand Israel and "their right" to kill indiscriminantly.
QUOTE(RedCedar)
...but sitting by while poor innocent people are SLAUGHTERED is going over the line.
Is it? QUOTE(US Dept of State)
For more than 20 years the people of Sudan have been witness to a civil war between the Government of Sudan in the north and the Sudan’s Peoples Liberation Movement/Army stationed in the south. Now as both sides are close to the signing of an agreement that would end the conflict in the country, the Sudanese government, using supported Jingaweid (Arab) militia group are systematically killing, looting and destroying ethnic African communities in the western Darfur region of the country.
The most recent round of violence started in February 2003, when two new rebel groups emerged. The Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) demanded that the Sudanese Government stop arming the Arab groups in Darfur and address longstanding grievances about undervelopment in the region. The Government answered by arming over 20,000 militiamen of Arab descent. The Government operates jointly with these militias, known as “Jingaweid,” in attacks on civilians from the Fur, Masaalit, and Zaghawa ethnic groups. In the past year, over 700,000 civilians have been forced to flee their rural villages; over 110,000 refugees are encamped along the Chad border. The Jingaweid have perpetrated widespread atrocities against these civilians. For example, on July 25, 2003 after an attack on Shoba, a Fur village south of Kabkabiya, Amnesty International reported that at least 51 villagers, including many elders, were killed. On August 5, 2003 pro-government militias allegedly killed approximately 300 civilians in Kuttum, and destroyed and burned houses and shops.
Since 2003, the Government has provided air support for the Jingaweid militia groups on the ground, paving the way for raids. Aerial bombardments and targeting of innocent civilians have taken place in the villages of Anka, Baashoum, Gooz, Hebeela-Kejengessy, Jalla, Karnoi, Kutum, Moun, Sana Haya, Swani, Saliea, and others. In February 2004, an eyewitness account of a raid on the village of Tawila noted that a well-organized attack by horseman and members of the military dressed in fatigues in which 67 people were killed, 16 girls abducted and over 93 females were raped. The attack displaced over 5,000 people. In March, another eyewitness reported that over 500 Jingaweid militia from different areas of Darfur gathered to strategize in a remote area of Darfur – something that would be next to impossible without organized supervision and a sophisticated means of communication.
(my emphasis) Link. The most recent round of violence started in February 2003, when two new rebel groups emerged. The Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) demanded that the Sudanese Government stop arming the Arab groups in Darfur and address longstanding grievances about undervelopment in the region. The Government answered by arming over 20,000 militiamen of Arab descent. The Government operates jointly with these militias, known as “Jingaweid,” in attacks on civilians from the Fur, Masaalit, and Zaghawa ethnic groups. In the past year, over 700,000 civilians have been forced to flee their rural villages; over 110,000 refugees are encamped along the Chad border. The Jingaweid have perpetrated widespread atrocities against these civilians. For example, on July 25, 2003 after an attack on Shoba, a Fur village south of Kabkabiya, Amnesty International reported that at least 51 villagers, including many elders, were killed. On August 5, 2003 pro-government militias allegedly killed approximately 300 civilians in Kuttum, and destroyed and burned houses and shops.
Since 2003, the Government has provided air support for the Jingaweid militia groups on the ground, paving the way for raids. Aerial bombardments and targeting of innocent civilians have taken place in the villages of Anka, Baashoum, Gooz, Hebeela-Kejengessy, Jalla, Karnoi, Kutum, Moun, Sana Haya, Swani, Saliea, and others. In February 2004, an eyewitness account of a raid on the village of Tawila noted that a well-organized attack by horseman and members of the military dressed in fatigues in which 67 people were killed, 16 girls abducted and over 93 females were raped. The attack displaced over 5,000 people. In March, another eyewitness reported that over 500 Jingaweid militia from different areas of Darfur gathered to strategize in a remote area of Darfur – something that would be next to impossible without organized supervision and a sophisticated means of communication.
Double standards? Hypocrisy? Racism? Anti-semitism?
Seems to me like we've been happy enough to sit by for years while poor innocent people are slaughtered and the only difference about this instance is the fact that Israel is involved so now its okay to get all worked up about it, where as in Darfur, its just a bunch of Arabs murdering each other so cares... right?
Moif:
Yeah.... so? China is not a democracy and its oil needs bear no relevance to the point I was making.
The word democracy isn't even mentioned in the article you cited.
"Oil now figures as an important remaining obstacle to a lasting peace and oil revenues have been used by the government to obtain weapons and ammunition that have enabled it to intensify the war and expand oil development. . . . Expansion of oil development has continued to be accompanied by the violent displacement of the agro-pastoral southern Nuer and Dinka people from their traditional lands atop the oilfields."
Shunned by the United States and other Western powers for its ties to radical Islamist movements, its egregious human rights record, and its brutal war against secessionist forces in the south, Sudan has had considerable difficulty attracting foreign partners for the development of its considerable oil reserves -- thus providing Chinese firms with an opening they could not find anywhere else. After Chevron abandoned its exploitation operations in the Bentiu region of the south, China stepped in and helped establish the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company to develop promising fields in the area
I believe your article is angry at the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company for providing an economic incentive for a continued genocide. I don't see why it shouldn't be.
Oil is only a means to an end. it is not an end unto itself. In other words, oil runs machinery, not run mens hearts.
Your wrong both literally and metaphorically. Oil is used to harvest, transport, and process crops, via its use in the machinery. People eat crops, and the energy thereby derived, runs their hearts.
Oil represents wealth, and plenty of people are willing to risk their lives and forget their morals for wealth.
Any one who kills for oil wealth is an 'evil person', but so also are people who kill for ideological reasons and more often than not, the pursuit of oil is merely a factor in the greater pursuit of wealth, or ideology. The massacre in Darfur may have oil as a motivating factor, but only as a resource towards the greater purpose of the Islamification and ethnic cleansing of the region.
Racism and zealous tendencies are relevant, but what makes you think their primary?
Your speculating.
To get back on topic...; I believe you cited this article to discredit the source site. Are you trying to say the places arguments are bad, or that it's facts are inaccurate?
Certainly the earlier cited portion of the site which referred to Israel, contained both arguments and facts. Discredit those; this whole debate over the the rightness of a year old Sudan article is going to drag Julia in here.
I was not addressing you, nor making an insult and I'm at pains to see where you believe I put words into your mouth at all given I have not addressed you at any point in this thread.
Further more, I have made it clear just at whom my condemnation is aimed and its neither an insult to call a socialist a 'lefty' nor is it putting words into anyones mouths to quote them.
The way you talked, you seemed to being saying: The left is delusional. Look at what certain leftys believe. Leftys are all nuts.
I'm a lefty. Am I not supposed to take offense to that?
It would be quite easy for me to find quotes from conservatives that are very disagree-able, and then launch from them into a gross deprecating generalization of conservatives as a whole.
Being that this inaccurate method of generalization is something both rightys and leftys can do to equal effect, how does it make anyone look better in the end, if it is mutually used? How is it productive? Doesn't it just propagate disrespect and a lack of inspection via consideration of opposing argument?
Also, the American left is farther to the right then the European left. Relative to Europe we basically have two partys: Right and righter. There are very few socialists here. That's not to say I don't respect what countries like Norway have...but anyways.
That clarification is relevant here, because this is an english debate forum called Americas Debate, so your liable here, to run into lefties who are mostly American.
loreng59:
How in the world has an invasion, murder of the their soldiers and 2,000+ rockets amount to an occasional rocket attack?
Not much substantial seems to have happened since Israel left Lebanon, before now. A kidnapping, a few funding suspicions, an odd incident involving mines and a bull dozer resulting in the death of a single soldier. Hezbollah had been pretty much quiet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Hez...aeli_withdrawal
...and then this rocket attack and kidnapping.
They shoot hundreds of rockets per attack and often don't even end up hurting anyone. 2000 is a large number, but the resulting casualty count isn't.
And Israel has managed to do much more damage to Lebanon in the last few weeks, then Hezbollah has managed to do to Israel in over 20 years of insurgency.
Let's see they invaded a sovereign nation, murdered 8 of their soldiers and kidnapped two more, then launched a couple of hundred rockets and you seem to think that they can then offer a cease fire like nothing happened.
I'm not saying an eye can't taken for an eye. I'm saying a hundred thousand eyes can't be taken for an eye.
Ted:
Imagine a group in Canada for example (that the Canadian government has no control over or sympathizes with) attacking across the US border, taking hostages, and shelling and killing US civilians. Do I have to tell you that we would settle for nothing less that the total destruction of the group doing this? Is there any doubt?
I don't think we would destroy Canada's airports, blockade its ports, blow up its roads, and engage in airstrikes that would kill more civilians then militants. No, we would simply invade with soldiers and annihilate the baddies with as little collateral damage to innocents, and the economy as possible. Maybe thats not palpable for Israel to do, but anyways, i'll repeat, that the solution to the Hezbollah problem (killing hundreds of innocents, displacing 600,000 people, and inflicting 100 billions dollars worth of damage on infrastructure) is not worth the problem itself (a handful of future dead or kidnapped Israeli soldiers and civilians).
Yeah.... so? China is not a democracy and its oil needs bear no relevance to the point I was making.
The word democracy isn't even mentioned in the article you cited.
"Oil now figures as an important remaining obstacle to a lasting peace and oil revenues have been used by the government to obtain weapons and ammunition that have enabled it to intensify the war and expand oil development. . . . Expansion of oil development has continued to be accompanied by the violent displacement of the agro-pastoral southern Nuer and Dinka people from their traditional lands atop the oilfields."
Shunned by the United States and other Western powers for its ties to radical Islamist movements, its egregious human rights record, and its brutal war against secessionist forces in the south, Sudan has had considerable difficulty attracting foreign partners for the development of its considerable oil reserves -- thus providing Chinese firms with an opening they could not find anywhere else. After Chevron abandoned its exploitation operations in the Bentiu region of the south, China stepped in and helped establish the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company to develop promising fields in the area
I believe your article is angry at the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company for providing an economic incentive for a continued genocide. I don't see why it shouldn't be.
Oil is only a means to an end. it is not an end unto itself. In other words, oil runs machinery, not run mens hearts.
Your wrong both literally and metaphorically. Oil is used to harvest, transport, and process crops, via its use in the machinery. People eat crops, and the energy thereby derived, runs their hearts.
Oil represents wealth, and plenty of people are willing to risk their lives and forget their morals for wealth.
Any one who kills for oil wealth is an 'evil person', but so also are people who kill for ideological reasons and more often than not, the pursuit of oil is merely a factor in the greater pursuit of wealth, or ideology. The massacre in Darfur may have oil as a motivating factor, but only as a resource towards the greater purpose of the Islamification and ethnic cleansing of the region.
Racism and zealous tendencies are relevant, but what makes you think their primary?
Your speculating.
To get back on topic...; I believe you cited this article to discredit the source site. Are you trying to say the places arguments are bad, or that it's facts are inaccurate?
Certainly the earlier cited portion of the site which referred to Israel, contained both arguments and facts. Discredit those; this whole debate over the the rightness of a year old Sudan article is going to drag Julia in here.
I was not addressing you, nor making an insult and I'm at pains to see where you believe I put words into your mouth at all given I have not addressed you at any point in this thread.
Further more, I have made it clear just at whom my condemnation is aimed and its neither an insult to call a socialist a 'lefty' nor is it putting words into anyones mouths to quote them.
The way you talked, you seemed to being saying: The left is delusional. Look at what certain leftys believe. Leftys are all nuts.
I'm a lefty. Am I not supposed to take offense to that?
It would be quite easy for me to find quotes from conservatives that are very disagree-able, and then launch from them into a gross deprecating generalization of conservatives as a whole.
Being that this inaccurate method of generalization is something both rightys and leftys can do to equal effect, how does it make anyone look better in the end, if it is mutually used? How is it productive? Doesn't it just propagate disrespect and a lack of inspection via consideration of opposing argument?
Also, the American left is farther to the right then the European left. Relative to Europe we basically have two partys: Right and righter. There are very few socialists here. That's not to say I don't respect what countries like Norway have...but anyways.
That clarification is relevant here, because this is an english debate forum called Americas Debate, so your liable here, to run into lefties who are mostly American.
loreng59:
How in the world has an invasion, murder of the their soldiers and 2,000+ rockets amount to an occasional rocket attack?
Not much substantial seems to have happened since Israel left Lebanon, before now. A kidnapping, a few funding suspicions, an odd incident involving mines and a bull dozer resulting in the death of a single soldier. Hezbollah had been pretty much quiet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Hez...aeli_withdrawal
...and then this rocket attack and kidnapping.
They shoot hundreds of rockets per attack and often don't even end up hurting anyone. 2000 is a large number, but the resulting casualty count isn't.
And Israel has managed to do much more damage to Lebanon in the last few weeks, then Hezbollah has managed to do to Israel in over 20 years of insurgency.
Let's see they invaded a sovereign nation, murdered 8 of their soldiers and kidnapped two more, then launched a couple of hundred rockets and you seem to think that they can then offer a cease fire like nothing happened.
I'm not saying an eye can't taken for an eye. I'm saying a hundred thousand eyes can't be taken for an eye.
Ted:
Imagine a group in Canada for example (that the Canadian government has no control over or sympathizes with) attacking across the US border, taking hostages, and shelling and killing US civilians. Do I have to tell you that we would settle for nothing less that the total destruction of the group doing this? Is there any doubt?
I don't think we would destroy Canada's airports, blockade its ports, blow up its roads, and engage in airstrikes that would kill more civilians then militants. No, we would simply invade with soldiers and annihilate the baddies with as little collateral damage to innocents, and the economy as possible. Maybe thats not palpable for Israel to do, but anyways, i'll repeat, that the solution to the Hezbollah problem (killing hundreds of innocents, displacing 600,000 people, and inflicting 100 billions dollars worth of damage on infrastructure) is not worth the problem itself (a handful of future dead or kidnapped Israeli soldiers and civilians).
QUOTE(moif @ Jul 25 2006, 06:45 PM)
Double standards? Hypocrisy? Racism? Anti-semitism?
Seems to me like we've been happy enough to sit by for years while poor innocent people are slaughtered and the only difference about this instance is the fact that Israel is involved so now its okay to get all worked up about it, where as in Darfur, its just a bunch of Arabs murdering each other so cares... right?
QUOTE
The United States and the international community, including the United Nations, speak with one voice on the crisis in Darfur. We want particularly to underscore the staunch support of the United States for the efforts of the African Union on Darfur. We strongly support the statement issued by the Chairperson of the Commission of the African Union, Alpha Oumar Konare, condemning the large-scale violations of the ceasefire committed by all the parties. We will continue to support the accelerated deployment of the African Union mission and the exercise of its expanded mandate. We also welcome and support the African Union’s continued leadership in brokering negotiations between the Government of Sudan and the Darfur rebel groups, and see this as vital to ending the conflict.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/39954.htm
Versus
QUOTE
President Bush appealed to Arab leaders on Friday to help defuse the widening conflict in the Middle East but declined to press Israel for a cease-fire as many world leaders condemned the country's military strikes in southern Lebanon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6071401785.html
See the difference?
QUOTE(RedCedar @ Jul 25 2006, 06:00 PM)
So if a robber picks up a little girl and uses her as a human shield, as he tries to escape a robbery....your soution is "the police don't forfeit their right to shoot a million shots at the robber just because he's holding up a little innocent girl"?
This is a good illustration of the reason why it's always important to double-check your analogies to make sure they're really sound. When national security's at stake, so are innocent lives, especially in Israel. Analogies to petty pilferers of mere property are not even in the same time zone.
QUOTE(A left Handed person)
The word democracy isn't even mentioned in the article you cited.
So what? My point was about the language being used, not simply the subject being written about. Frankly, I'm not surprised democracy is not mentioned either. Democracy doesn't seem to be a concern of the left these days .
QUOTE(A left Handed person)
I believe your article is angry at the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company for providing an economic incentive for a continued genocide. I don't see why it shouldn't be.
Well in point of fact, and as I already mentioned, the article belongs to TedN5QUOTE(A left Handed person)
Your wrong both literally and metaphorically. Oil is used to harvest, transport, and process crops, via its use in the machinery. People eat crops, and the energy thereby derived, runs their hearts.
Oil represents wealth, and plenty of people are willing to risk their lives and forget their morals for wealth.
And that is EXACTLY what I just said. Oil is a means to an end.Oil represents wealth, and plenty of people are willing to risk their lives and forget their morals for wealth.
QUOTE(A left Handed person)
Racism and zealous tendencies are relevant, but what makes you think their primary?
Your speculating.
er... no. I'm taking the enemy at his word. What exactly do you think Islamic terrorism is all about? Your speculating.
QUOTE(A left Handed person)
To get back on topic...; I believe you cited this article to discredit the source site. Are you trying to say the places arguments are bad, or that it's facts are inaccurate?
I already made clear what my point was. Directly after quoting the article I wrote: The language is the same, the perspective the same and the reasoning like wise. This could just as easily have been written by Villy Søvndal, chairman of the Socialist People's Party, here in Denmark.QUOTE(A left Handed person)
The way you talked, you seemed to being saying: The left is delusional. Look at what certain leftys believe. Leftys are all nuts.
I'm a lefty. Am I not supposed to take offense to that?
Why should you take offence at me telling TedN5 that his arguments mirror those of Denmarks socialists? I'm a lefty. Am I not supposed to take offense to that?
If I were you' I'd be more concerned about why the left is so heavily aligned and influenced by non democratic forces than worry about the dubious opinions of some Dane who has zero influence over your life.
QUOTE(A left Handed person)
That clarification is relevant here, because this is an english debate forum called Americas Debate, so your liable here, to run into lefties who are mostly American.
Excellent. I hope my examples give them cause to consider where their political opinons may take them, for I can assure you, the European left, so busy with its self hatred, guilt and 'dhimmitude' is nothing to emulate. If my examples serve for anything then let it be that. Look at Sweden for example, it is drowning in a wave of Islamic extremism that has sharia law being employed in Swedish court rooms, Swedish Muslims making open demands for the full implication of sharia, or else. It is now letting in up to 100,000 immigrants per year (Sweden's popuation is circa 9 million), the majority of whom are Muslims from rural districts in the Muslim world. Its city's are becoming more and more dangerous and the nation is gripped in a rape epidemic that see's stats seven times higher than in any neighbouring country whilst the top imam in Sweden openly, and without resulting in any criticism from the Swedish establishment, attacks homosexuals and claims women bring rape upon themselves.
Malmø, one of Sweden's most important city's, is set to become the first European city with a full Muslim majority, and thus the first fully Muslim local council government in the EU. Local imams have already assured the Swedes of Malmø that they are welcome to remain in the city, for as long as they accept the introduction of sharia law. This is the same assurance the national Muslim body gave to the whole Swedish nation not so long ag and it is the end result of socialism in Sweden.
The Swedish national football team will gladly play with Saudi Arabia in a stadium where women are banned, but it refuses to participate in military exersizes with Israel designed to form a common front against terrorism.
In Sweden, cartoons about Mohammed are forbidden, not by law, but by socialist morality and the Swedish government will shut down any Swedish web site that dares to publish such drawings... but an art gallery that mocks the holocaust or celebrates the Palestinian intifada. Not only are these allowed, but they are attended by the social elite.
In Sweden, there is no nationalist party as there is in Denmark and Norway, because in Sweden, left wing thugs will attack and assault any one who meets under the auspicies of nationalism and the police seldom act to intervene. Further more, the Swedish media will not report such incidents (though the Norwegians and Danes will) because, the Swedish media openly admits that it is not interested in such things. Some of the most highly respected (and openly socialist) news paper editors in Sweden have admitted that they do not think the Swedish public needs to know about such things...
..and why am I telling you all this in a thread about Israel? Because Sweden is the end result of leftist thought executed upon a population and Sweden is also the most anti semitic nation in Europe. The examples I have refered to from Denmark of left wing politicians and organisations aligning themselves with Muslim extremists against Israel, the USA and the democratic world in general are as nothing compared to what goes on in Sweden.
Sweden is the extreme case since it has been run by a social democrat governments for sixty years, but the same story is told in every single nation in Europe, with the UK and France hardly far behind Sweden. Even in the USA, this last week end saw mass demonstrations against Israel and in favour of Hezbollah and Hamas with left wing politicians and activists openly attacking Israel whilst remaining silent with regards to Hezbollah. Here are images of the pro Hezbollah rally in London, where numerous left wing organisations and speakers were assembled along side the most anti democratic forces on the planet.
Here is an image of the Hizb ut-Tahir demonstration in Copenhagen.
Here is an image of the left wing British newspaper The Independent's front cover. The graphic used is in fact a Danish graphic which originally showed the Danish flag in the Yes side. The Independent, moved it over to the No side, since that fits the left wing perception all the better. In point of fact several other countries aside the UK and Denmark, and all democracies, have aligned themselves along side the USA, but these have all been showed as No countries. Why?
Because the left wing political point of view, whether English, Swedish, Danish or American does not care about the truth. It only cares about promoting its own perspective.
I have no doubt the right wing is equally biased and judgemental in its own way, but here is the fundamental difference:
The right wing is not actively engaged in supporting non democratic forces against a democratic nation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE(RedCedar)
See the difference?
Yup I certainly do. Darfur (a conflict initiated by extremist Muslims) is ongoing and has lasted for years. Israel's retaliation against Hezbollah (also a conflict initiated by extremist Muslims) is about two weeks old.
The difference is Israel and the hostile attitudes towards it that are so wide spread across the planet due to the left wing mentality that has become so aligned with the Muslim world view.
If the USA and its allies didn't support Israel, then it would soon be destroyed and its democracy lost for ever.
edited for spelling
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Jul 25 2006, 06:46 PM)
loreng59:
How in the world has an invasion, murder of the their soldiers and 2,000+ rockets amount to an occasional rocket attack?
Not much substantial seems to have happened since Israel left Lebanon, before now. A kidnapping, a few funding suspicions, an odd incident involving mines and a bull dozer resulting in the death of a single soldier. Hezbollah had been pretty much quiet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Hez...aeli_withdrawal
...and then this rocket attack and kidnapping.
They shoot hundreds of rockets per attack and often don't even end up hurting anyone. 2000 is a large number, but the resulting casualty count isn't.
And Israel has managed to do much more damage to Lebanon in the last few weeks, then Hezbollah has managed to do to Israel in over 20 years of insurgency.
Let's see they invaded a sovereign nation, murdered 8 of their soldiers and kidnapped two more, then launched a couple of hundred rockets and you seem to think that they can then offer a cease fire like nothing happened.
I'm not saying an eye can't taken for an eye. I'm saying a hundred thousand eyes can't be taken for an eye.
Ted:
Imagine a group in Canada for example (that the Canadian government has no control over or sympathizes with) attacking across the US border, taking hostages, and shelling and killing US civilians. Do I have to tell you that we would settle for nothing less that the total destruction of the group doing this? Is there any doubt?
I don't think we would destroy Canada's airports, blockade its ports, blow up its roads, and engage in airstrikes that would kill more civilians then militants. No, we would simply invade with soldiers and annihilate the baddies with as little collateral damage to innocents, and the economy as possible. Maybe thats not palpable for Israel to do, but anyways, i'll repeat, that the solution to the Hezbollah problem (killing hundreds of innocents, displacing 600,000 people, and inflicting 100 billions dollars worth of damage on infrastructure) is not worth the problem itself (a handful of future dead or kidnapped Israeli soldiers and civilians).
As for missing, now Israel is suppose to ignore them because they are inaccurate? Suppose I started shooting at your house, as long as I didn't actually kill you I didn't really commit a crime? That is totally ludicrous. It's not for lack of trying, Israeli have been building bomb shelters for 58 years now. They have a civil defense system second to none. So now you believe that they shouldn't shoot back because the Arabs happen to be using weapons that are about the same as the Nazis did.
As for an eye for eye do you really think that is what is going on? If so then how come the remarkable LOW number of casualties that Israel has managed to inflict? Do you really think that they could possible miss so many targets? I don't because I have served in both the Israeli and the US Armies and know that what their accuracy is really like. They are doing their best to reduce the combat capability of Hezbollah to enable the Lebanese government to control their territory. Since the government of Lebanon has refused to fulfill their obligations as a sovereign nation and reduced it's own military by 30% just so they could claim that they can not control 25% of their own country, Israel is forced to do it for them.
And if you do not believe that we would blockade Canada, blow up it's roads, bomb each single Canadian military installation, every government facility, every utility, and we would not give a fig for any civilians at all. Just like we did in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. You have no idea of the sort of firepower that the US has used and would use again without any question at all. We would not send our troops forward without a massive bombing campaign. We haven't since oh about 1918.
Just because you do not seem to hold our soldiers lives or Israeli lives as dear as their respective governments doesn't mean a whole lot. The Israeli government has not only a right but a responsibility to protect Israelis from all foreign aggressors. They do not have any such requirement of countries that attack them. If Lebanon did anything at all to prevent their territory from being used as a platform for terrorists to invade and murder their neighbors then and only then would have a point. Barring that guess what they get exactly what they deserve.
I see that a lot has happened in my few days of absence. I shall do my best to catch up.
Low?????
You call the deaths of over 380 civilians and the (re)destruction of Lebanon's infastructure as low casualties?
Please speare us of this ridicule.
The government of Lebanon is not taking control of the south because they are evil people who want Israeli's to suffer. They can't do what Israel asks them to do becuase they lack the capacity to do so. Lebanon is a tiny nation with insufficient resources and little (compared to Israel) foreign asistance. They have been spending their resources to rebuild what Israel and the Civil War had destroyed. Had the US given Lebanon the military aid it has been giving to Israel, Hezbollah could have been controlled.
Hezbollah was formed to fight Israeli occupation in Lebanon. Fact.
According to you, they do not have a obligation to respect the lives of Israeli civilians as Israel has attacked them. What they have been doing (dropping rockets on town) is a justified act of war from the view you have been using to justify Israel's actions.
Note:
Moif, not every bad event in the world occurs because of Islam. I can understand your hostility towards Muslims after the cartoon incident but please do not condemn a religion because of its militant followers.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Jul 26 2006, 03:08 AM)
If so then how come the remarkable LOW number of casualties that Israel has managed to inflict?
Low?????
You call the deaths of over 380 civilians and the (re)destruction of Lebanon's infastructure as low casualties?
Please speare us of this ridicule.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Jul 26 2006, 03:08 AM)
Since the government of Lebanon has refused to fulfill their obligations as a sovereign nation and reduced it's own military by 30% just so they could claim that they can not control 25% of their own country, Israel is forced to do it for them.
The government of Lebanon is not taking control of the south because they are evil people who want Israeli's to suffer. They can't do what Israel asks them to do becuase they lack the capacity to do so. Lebanon is a tiny nation with insufficient resources and little (compared to Israel) foreign asistance. They have been spending their resources to rebuild what Israel and the Civil War had destroyed. Had the US given Lebanon the military aid it has been giving to Israel, Hezbollah could have been controlled.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Jul 26 2006, 03:08 AM)
Just because you do not seem to hold our soldiers lives or Israeli lives as dear as their respective governments doesn't mean a whole lot. The Israeli government has not only a right but a responsibility to protect Israelis from all foreign aggressors. They do not have any such requirement of countries that attack them. If Lebanon did anything at all to prevent their territory from being used as a platform for terrorists to invade and murder their neighbors then and only then would have a point. Barring that guess what they get exactly what they deserve
Hezbollah was formed to fight Israeli occupation in Lebanon. Fact.
According to you, they do not have a obligation to respect the lives of Israeli civilians as Israel has attacked them. What they have been doing (dropping rockets on town) is a justified act of war from the view you have been using to justify Israel's actions.
Note:
Moif, not every bad event in the world occurs because of Islam. I can understand your hostility towards Muslims after the cartoon incident but please do not condemn a religion because of its militant followers.
Fma:
Ridicule? And I suppose that it is never mind that the other claimed legitimate resistance, at least according to the UN, is responsible for the death of 100 daily in Baghad alone? We aren't doing the ridiculing, some others are. And by calling the one "war crime" while calling the other "legitimate."
I would otherwise agree with your remark re the Lebanese government's impotence but for one thing. Not being able to suppress the Hizb Allah's militia is one thing, allowing Hizb Allah to take part in your government is another. That changes everything.
As my new signature line otherwise indicates, some here in the land of the great Satan, as some call our land, well, we are under no illusions as to what is truly at stake here. And some, even some Lebanese, say thank you Israel. Please see: http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/2006/J...6a/july16a.html
Oh, sorry, almost forgot, re the Hizb Allah "cowards":
"'Some believe I spoke only about excessive use of force by Israel there (Beirut),' he [Jan Egeland] said in Cyprus after arriving from Lebanon en route to Israel. 'However, consistently from Hezbollah heartlands my message was, 'Hezbollah, stop this cowardly blending in among women and children'.' 'I heard there was a statement they were proud they had lost very few fighters, and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think you want to be proud of having more children and women than armed men [killed].'"
See: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...925-663,00.html
And compare Egeland's remarks re cease-fire with the one [middle] quote below. So too with respect to the claimed breach of humanitarian law. So he knows they are cowards from personal observation but otherwise need do some research...but don't worry, they'll have a lull in arms when Hizb Allah finally gets the message that it has been defeated.
Fact: Israel ended its occupation four years ago. So why Hezbollah now, and why didn't Nasrullah go back to goat herding [as the one Egyptian blogger suggested he do]? And by the way, Hezbollah does not even want a Lebanese state. They want Khomeini's Shia ummah. And if you doubt that, ask Hizb Allah.
And, Fma, there is, no matter how much the radical Islamic left and the radical American left claim otherwise, no moral equivalence here. Hizb Allah are cowards who hide among women and children. And so the Israelis kill women and children, regretably so. Hizb Allah, on the other hand, knows where the Ramat David Air Base is, but instead of taking out that place, rains ball-bearing laden missiles down on the Arabs of Haifa.
Lastly, Fma, do me a favor. Check, or backcheck my check, on how many Arab news outlets reported Egeland's "cowards" remark. As of the time I wrote this, I found a single Arab press report. Al-Jazeera has one also, except that when you click the link, you get the page unavailable page [as it were]. And so now you know why some of us don't care what the Arab street has to say. Not that I blame the Arab street, since I don't, since all they know is what their leaders decide to feed them, and it won't be the truth, since why let the truth get in the way of raping, pillaging and plundering your own while one distracts their attention by the report of those damned Zionists and their conspiracy to ruin all things Arab and/or Muslim. I mean, sorry, but if there ever was a living definition of perverse this is it. The motto of the Arab street, in my considered opinion: Rape, pillage, and plunder us, but so long as you to teach those Zionists and the great Satan a lesson every now again, it's all good.
Sorry, one more. Back to some of us being under no illusion, well, as I said, the one wise soul once wrote that fascism is simply a heresy of Marxism. And so Hitler's heresy was substituting "race struggle" for "class struggle" and so he sought to obtain the dictatorship of the German Volk over all others [races]. And his oppressor race [his reactionary capitalist class] was the same as that for Arabs now, or so some Arabs claim, but you guessed it, it was those darn Jews. And so those who posit some greater Arab struggle against some other races, well, say hello to Hitler and the Third Reich.
The other heresy, Khomeini's, substitutes "religious struggle", and not "race struggle", for "class struggle". And so we have, stated in heretical Marxist terms, the Iranian Revolution is the struggle of the Muslims to throw off the chains of those oppressor Jews and Crusaders and establish the dictatorship of the ummah. Read Khomeini. Listen to Hezollah.
And now note the conflict between the two. According to some, Islam knows no color. If so, how can there be an Islamic Pan Arabism? So the two are not only in actual conflict, as I posited elsewhere, they are also in rather fundamental and hopelessly irreconcilable ideological conflict, and that by definition [unless you wish to claim that Islam means Arab and so knows a color, and I trust that you know where that leads, which is to say that some Indonesians and Malaysians would be something more than sad to hear a Muslim say such].
Lefthandedperson:
Don't know much about the military, yes? Ground troops means tank fire and artillery. If you are worried about dead civilians, stick with the laser-guided bombs and skip the invasion, if at all possible [you'll keep more of yours alive and more of theirs alive]. And you really don't want an invasion of Tyre, do you? And the infrastructure damage, well, one thing that one does when one is at war is to disrupt the enemies line[s] of supply, at least to the extent that one can do so. And that explains a goodly portion of the infrastructure damage. And maybe the Lebanese army could have sealed that non-existent border with Syria [who want that Greater Syria and so have no border with Lebanon] and otherwise took up positions at the Beirut International Airport and other facilities having to do with air, land, and marine transport, for purposes of ensuring and proving to the world that nothing having to do with the combatant arms or the death of humans was being transported through and/or via such facilities. So the Lebanese people might want to blame their own government, and their own government could indeed have done that, and the only three reasons that I can see for such failure is that they never thought of doing so, they didn't want to do so, or they are afraid of Hezbollah. I'll let you make the call on that one.
And if the Lebanese were even smarter, they might try not going north, but south instead, towards Israeli lines. Such would, in addition to anything else, saddle the IDF with a "displaced persons" problem of Lebanese proportion and allow for some personal contact between Lebanese and Israelis. The latter would no doubt be beneficial, and the former, well, maybe some don't want to create "displaced persons" to have to deal with, and so, while I don't blame the people, the Lebanese government could have scored a coup by urging those in the south to go south. And as you can imagine, I left someone out. Hizb Allah. Do they rain missiles and rockets on all those "displaced persons" who go south? How would they justify that? That was and might still be the solution here. But it won't, since Jew-hating, ego, and stupidity, and not necessarily in that order, are a lethal brew, and so for all of those reasons none are prepared to take that action.
But, please, never be the chief executive of your country. One of your citizens is worth any and all non-citizens, plus some. And you don't get to surrender one of yours for one or more of theirs. You can trade one or more of yours for some greater number of yours, but as related, one of yours equals all of theirs plus some, and so there cannot be a trade for even so much as one of yours [since the other side does not have the plus to give]. As I've said, your nation exists to preserve the lives of its citizens. That would be your legal duty. If your moral conscience cannot fulfill that duty, then you would owe it to the lives of your fellow citizens to decline the office [on the basis of your unfitness to assume that office]. Oh, and the duty of nation, well, as is obvious, that's why the nation has armed combatant forces. And now you also know why I am in favor of a universal draft. We all need be responsible for preserving our own lives and those of our fellow citizens, aka the nation, even if for only a while. We might otherwise learn something about each other and maybe, just maybe, we'd not be willing to make the sacrifice of some of our own that you seemingly advocate [since the unit motto is, no one gets left behind...].
Ridicule? And I suppose that it is never mind that the other claimed legitimate resistance, at least according to the UN, is responsible for the death of 100 daily in Baghad alone? We aren't doing the ridiculing, some others are. And by calling the one "war crime" while calling the other "legitimate."
I would otherwise agree with your remark re the Lebanese government's impotence but for one thing. Not being able to suppress the Hizb Allah's militia is one thing, allowing Hizb Allah to take part in your government is another. That changes everything.
As my new signature line otherwise indicates, some here in the land of the great Satan, as some call our land, well, we are under no illusions as to what is truly at stake here. And some, even some Lebanese, say thank you Israel. Please see: http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/2006/J...6a/july16a.html
Oh, sorry, almost forgot, re the Hizb Allah "cowards":
"'Some believe I spoke only about excessive use of force by Israel there (Beirut),' he [Jan Egeland] said in Cyprus after arriving from Lebanon en route to Israel. 'However, consistently from Hezbollah heartlands my message was, 'Hezbollah, stop this cowardly blending in among women and children'.' 'I heard there was a statement they were proud they had lost very few fighters, and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think you want to be proud of having more children and women than armed men [killed].'"
See: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...925-663,00.html
And compare Egeland's remarks re cease-fire with the one [middle] quote below. So too with respect to the claimed breach of humanitarian law. So he knows they are cowards from personal observation but otherwise need do some research...but don't worry, they'll have a lull in arms when Hizb Allah finally gets the message that it has been defeated.
Fact: Israel ended its occupation four years ago. So why Hezbollah now, and why didn't Nasrullah go back to goat herding [as the one Egyptian blogger suggested he do]? And by the way, Hezbollah does not even want a Lebanese state. They want Khomeini's Shia ummah. And if you doubt that, ask Hizb Allah.
And, Fma, there is, no matter how much the radical Islamic left and the radical American left claim otherwise, no moral equivalence here. Hizb Allah are cowards who hide among women and children. And so the Israelis kill women and children, regretably so. Hizb Allah, on the other hand, knows where the Ramat David Air Base is, but instead of taking out that place, rains ball-bearing laden missiles down on the Arabs of Haifa.
Lastly, Fma, do me a favor. Check, or backcheck my check, on how many Arab news outlets reported Egeland's "cowards" remark. As of the time I wrote this, I found a single Arab press report. Al-Jazeera has one also, except that when you click the link, you get the page unavailable page [as it were]. And so now you know why some of us don't care what the Arab street has to say. Not that I blame the Arab street, since I don't, since all they know is what their leaders decide to feed them, and it won't be the truth, since why let the truth get in the way of raping, pillaging and plundering your own while one distracts their attention by the report of those damned Zionists and their conspiracy to ruin all things Arab and/or Muslim. I mean, sorry, but if there ever was a living definition of perverse this is it. The motto of the Arab street, in my considered opinion: Rape, pillage, and plunder us, but so long as you to teach those Zionists and the great Satan a lesson every now again, it's all good.
Sorry, one more. Back to some of us being under no illusion, well, as I said, the one wise soul once wrote that fascism is simply a heresy of Marxism. And so Hitler's heresy was substituting "race struggle" for "class struggle" and so he sought to obtain the dictatorship of the German Volk over all others [races]. And his oppressor race [his reactionary capitalist class] was the same as that for Arabs now, or so some Arabs claim, but you guessed it, it was those darn Jews. And so those who posit some greater Arab struggle against some other races, well, say hello to Hitler and the Third Reich.
The other heresy, Khomeini's, substitutes "religious struggle", and not "race struggle", for "class struggle". And so we have, stated in heretical Marxist terms, the Iranian Revolution is the struggle of the Muslims to throw off the chains of those oppressor Jews and Crusaders and establish the dictatorship of the ummah. Read Khomeini. Listen to Hezollah.
And now note the conflict between the two. According to some, Islam knows no color. If so, how can there be an Islamic Pan Arabism? So the two are not only in actual conflict, as I posited elsewhere, they are also in rather fundamental and hopelessly irreconcilable ideological conflict, and that by definition [unless you wish to claim that Islam means Arab and so knows a color, and I trust that you know where that leads, which is to say that some Indonesians and Malaysians would be something more than sad to hear a Muslim say such].
Lefthandedperson:
Don't know much about the military, yes? Ground troops means tank fire and artillery. If you are worried about dead civilians, stick with the laser-guided bombs and skip the invasion, if at all possible [you'll keep more of yours alive and more of theirs alive]. And you really don't want an invasion of Tyre, do you? And the infrastructure damage, well, one thing that one does when one is at war is to disrupt the enemies line[s] of supply, at least to the extent that one can do so. And that explains a goodly portion of the infrastructure damage. And maybe the Lebanese army could have sealed that non-existent border with Syria [who want that Greater Syria and so have no border with Lebanon] and otherwise took up positions at the Beirut International Airport and other facilities having to do with air, land, and marine transport, for purposes of ensuring and proving to the world that nothing having to do with the combatant arms or the death of humans was being transported through and/or via such facilities. So the Lebanese people might want to blame their own government, and their own government could indeed have done that, and the only three reasons that I can see for such failure is that they never thought of doing so, they didn't want to do so, or they are afraid of Hezbollah. I'll let you make the call on that one.
And if the Lebanese were even smarter, they might try not going north, but south instead, towards Israeli lines. Such would, in addition to anything else, saddle the IDF with a "displaced persons" problem of Lebanese proportion and allow for some personal contact between Lebanese and Israelis. The latter would no doubt be beneficial, and the former, well, maybe some don't want to create "displaced persons" to have to deal with, and so, while I don't blame the people, the Lebanese government could have scored a coup by urging those in the south to go south. And as you can imagine, I left someone out. Hizb Allah. Do they rain missiles and rockets on all those "displaced persons" who go south? How would they justify that? That was and might still be the solution here. But it won't, since Jew-hating, ego, and stupidity, and not necessarily in that order, are a lethal brew, and so for all of those reasons none are prepared to take that action.
But, please, never be the chief executive of your country. One of your citizens is worth any and all non-citizens, plus some. And you don't get to surrender one of yours for one or more of theirs. You can trade one or more of yours for some greater number of yours, but as related, one of yours equals all of theirs plus some, and so there cannot be a trade for even so much as one of yours [since the other side does not have the plus to give]. As I've said, your nation exists to preserve the lives of its citizens. That would be your legal duty. If your moral conscience cannot fulfill that duty, then you would owe it to the lives of your fellow citizens to decline the office [on the basis of your unfitness to assume that office]. Oh, and the duty of nation, well, as is obvious, that's why the nation has armed combatant forces. And now you also know why I am in favor of a universal draft. We all need be responsible for preserving our own lives and those of our fellow citizens, aka the nation, even if for only a while. We might otherwise learn something about each other and maybe, just maybe, we'd not be willing to make the sacrifice of some of our own that you seemingly advocate [since the unit motto is, no one gets left behind...].
QUOTE
Ridicule? And I suppose that it is never mind that the other claimed legitimate resistance, at least according to the UN, is responsible for the death of 100 daily in Baghad alone? We aren't doing the ridiculing, some others are. And by calling the one "war crime" while calling the other "legitimate."
Just because something worse is going on in Iraq does not mean that there are low causalties in Lebanon. It is a riducule to say that Israel has inflicted LOW casualties after it has killed over 400 people and (re)destroyed the infastructure of Lebanon.
Note: What is going on in Iraq is not any less barbaric.
QUOTE
I would otherwise agree with your remark re the Lebanese government's impotence but for one thing. Not being able to suppress the Hizb Allah's militia is one thing, allowing Hizb Allah to take part in your government is another. That changes everything.
What does it change? Does it change the ugly fact that over 400 people has died? Does it change that Israel has managed to destroy everything the Lebanese has rebuild in the last twenty years in just two weeks? Does it change the fact that despite all the violence Hezbollah is still very strong and continue to fire rockets at the same rate? Does it change that Israel is repeating the mistake of creating new generations that hate it by its irresponsible and destructive methods?
QUOTE
And, Fma, there is, no matter how much the radical Islamic left and the radical American left claim otherwise, no moral equivalence here. Hizb Allah are cowards who hide among women and children. And so the Israelis kill women and children, regretably so. Hizb Allah, on the other hand, knows where the Ramat David Air Base is, but instead of taking out that place, rains ball-bearing laden missiles down on the Arabs of Haifa.
It is very easy and naive to condemn Hezballah as cowards and Israel's attacks on civilians as collateral damage. It shows that you show very little to understand the people who live in the middle of this war.
Hezbollah was founded to fight Israeli occupation in Lebanon. They were founded to fight a very strong army backed by the worlds sole superpower. It might suprise you to learn that Hezballah does not have tanks, fighter planes or other high-tech military equipment Israel posesses. They are powerless to fight such a military juggernaut in any "conventional" war.
In the past, the people whom Hizballah represent have been killed, abused and displaced by Israel. Their lands were taken, their families were killed, their homes were destroyed. Israel has created a generation that hates it by its irresponsible actions. When some country has taken everything from you, you have little respect for the lives of civilians from that country. As I said earlier and will repeat again; Hizballah is not an organisation that hides among children and women. It is movement that includes women and children in it. It is the only way the people who have suffered a lot from Israel's hand to "get back at them". Most of the civilian population welcome Hezballah as it promises to punish those that made them suffer so much. Although I don't like or agree with Hizballah's actions, I can't blame the Lebanese for their support of Hizballah.
QUOTE(Fma @ Jul 27 2006, 05:26 AM)
QUOTE
Ridicule? And I suppose that it is never mind that the other claimed legitimate resistance, at least according to the UN, is responsible for the death of 100 daily in Baghad alone? We aren't doing the ridiculing, some others are. And by calling the one "war crime" while calling the other "legitimate."
Just because something worse is going on in Iraq does not mean that there are low causalties in Lebanon. It is a riducule to say that Israel has inflicted LOW casualties after it has killed over 400 people and (re)destroyed the infastructure of Lebanon.
Note: What is going on in Iraq is not any less barbaric.
QUOTE
I would otherwise agree with your remark re the Lebanese government's impotence but for one thing. Not being able to suppress the Hizb Allah's militia is one thing, allowing Hizb Allah to take part in your government is another. That changes everything.
What does it change? Does it change the ugly fact that over 400 people has died? Does it change that Israel has managed to destroy everything the Lebanese has rebuild in the last twenty years in just two weeks? Does it change the fact that despite all the violence Hezbollah is still very strong and continue to fire rockets at the same rate? Does it change that Israel is repeating the mistake of creating new generations that hate it by its irresponsible and destructive methods?
QUOTE
And, Fma, there is, no matter how much the radical Islamic left and the radical American left claim otherwise, no moral equivalence here. Hizb Allah are cowards who hide among women and children. And so the Israelis kill women and children, regretably so. Hizb Allah, on the other hand, knows where the Ramat David Air Base is, but instead of taking out that place, rains ball-bearing laden missiles down on the Arabs of Haifa.
It is very easy and naive to condemn Hezballah as cowards and Israel's attacks on civilians as collateral damage. It shows that you show very little to understand the people who live in the middle of this war.
Hezbollah was founded to fight Israeli occupation in Lebanon. They were founded to fight a very strong army backed by the worlds sole superpower. It might suprise you to learn that Hezballah does not have tanks, fighter planes or other high-tech military equipment Israel posesses. They are powerless to fight such a military juggernaut in any "conventional" war.
In the past, the people whom Hizballah represent have been killed, abused and displaced by Israel. Their lands were taken, their families were killed, their homes were destroyed. Israel has created a generation that hates it by its irresponsible actions. When some country has taken everything from you, you have little respect for the lives of civilians from that country. As I said earlier and will repeat again; Hizballah is not an organisation that hides among children and women. It is movement that includes women and children in it. It is the only way the people who have suffered a lot from Israel's hand to "get back at them". Most of the civilian population welcome Hezballah as it promises to punish those that made them suffer so much. Although I don't like or agree with Hizballah's actions, I can't blame the Lebanese for their support of Hizballah.
Talk about having it both ways at the exact same time. First off, I am willing to bet you have never seen combat. Yes 400 civilians after thousands of bombing raids and over 25,000 artillery strikes, that has got to be the lowest percentage of non-combatant deaths per attack in a modern war in the world.
Second you agree that Hezbollah are hiding among civilians and then whining when Israel attacks and yes sometimes those civilians in their midst are going to get hurt. According to the Geneva Convention Hezbollah is committing a war crime by hiding there and are accountable for anything that happens to those civilians. That is what the Geneva Convention says, go read it for yourself. On top of that those people have been given warning to leave and yet choose to remain. Again according to the Geneva Convention Israel has more than honor their commitment.
Frankly, I'm not surprised democracy is not mentioned either. Democracy doesn't seem to be a concern of the left these days .
We'll I hardly hear the right moaning about how undemocratic the senate is. Or since the election of muslim fundentalists in Egypt, the autocratic state of Egypts government. Nor did their values stand in the way of their forcing a win in 2000.
I suppose i'm getting scattered complaints at best, but the right does seem to let go of democratic ideals when it suits them to do so.
Do we see the left doing much for democracy right now?
Perhaps not, but how can they be expected to when they don't control the government.
Are they opposing democracy via their opposition to Bushes policies?
A portion of the left wants us to leave Iraq, which would doom the prospect of an Iraqi democracy, and some on the left and right claim we should think of giving North Korea and Iran security gaurentees in exchange for cessation of nuclear proliferation.
Undeniably, Bush is a pro-democracy man. However, I do not believe that we can generalize to say that at the core of conservative belief, lies some denominated value towards democracy which does not exist in the left. When push came to shove in the Cold War, the right didn't care about democracy at all.
Well in point of fact, and as I already mentioned, the article belongs to TedN5.
You were the first one to link to it.
er... no. I'm taking the enemy at his word. What exactly do you think Islamic terrorism is all about?
Evil people seldom admit their evil. They will come up with noble rationalizations to justify selfish action.
I haven't heard of any martrys in Sudan, and it seems to me as if this could easily be a stereotypical African civil war, in which people who would otherwise be starving, join up into militias and run around trying to acquire reasorces that will get them money from the west.
Even in Iraq, much of the insurgency is based off of profiteer combatants, who plant IEDs for green paper.
This is why poverty spawns instability. People can't get what they want (and in the case of food and water-need) via legit methods. In the face of intense desire, morals (if they already present obstacles) can be over run by desire and bitterness.
The language is the same, the perspective the same and the reasoning like wise. This could just as easily have been written by Villy Søvndal, chairman of the Socialist People's Party, here in Denmark.
And what are your complaints about the Israeli article?
Excellent. I hope my examples give them cause to consider where their political opinons may take them, for I can assure you, the European left, so busy with its self hatred, guilt and 'dhimmitude' is nothing to emulate. If my examples serve for anything then let it be that.
Europe is trying to wall itself off to globalization, and America is embracing it. Though it does to some extent benefit the consumer, it is my belief, that globalization is overall bad, as it undeniably shrinks middle class by stripping it of nearly all industrial jobs, and many educated jobs.
Even given that opinion as a premise however, I must still ask myself whether or not it is wise to fight inevitable? Is it inevitable?
Europe I believe has more to loose then here America does, because America's economy is secured via reserve currency exportation. Europe cannot afford to have the trade defecit that the United States has, so is it not accurate to state, that if Europe were to lose its home industry, then it's economies would be doomed?
Look at Sweden for example, it is drowning in a wave of Islamic extremism that has sharia law being employed in Swedish court rooms, Swedish Muslims making open demands for the full implication of sharia, or else. It is now letting in up to 100,000 immigrants per year (Sweden's popuation is circa 9 million), the majority of whom are Muslims from rural districts in the Muslim world. Its city's are becoming more and more dangerous and the nation is gripped in a rape epidemic that see's stats seven times higher than in any neighbouring country whilst the top imam in Sweden openly, and without resulting in any criticism from the Swedish establishment, attacks homosexuals and claims women bring rape upon themselves.
Malmø, one of Sweden's most important city's, is set to become the first European city with a full Muslim majority, and thus the first fully Muslim local council government in the EU. Local imams have already assured the Swedes of Malmø that they are welcome to remain in the city, for as long as they accept the introduction of sharia law. This is the same assurance the national Muslim body gave to the whole Swedish nation not so long ag and it is the end result of socialism in Sweden.
The Swedish national football team will gladly play with Saudi Arabia in a stadium where women are banned, but it refuses to participate in military exersizes with Israel designed to form a common front against terrorism.
In Sweden, cartoons about Mohammed are forbidden, not by law, but by socialist morality and the Swedish government will shut down any Swedish web site that dares to publish such drawings... but an art gallery that mocks the holocaust or celebrates the Palestinian intifada. Not only are these allowed, but they are attended by the social elite.
In Sweden, there is no nationalist party as there is in Denmark and Norway, because in Sweden, left wing thugs will attack and assault any one who meets under the auspicies of nationalism and the police seldom act to intervene. Further more, the Swedish media will not report such incidents (though the Norwegians and Danes will) because, the Swedish media openly admits that it is not interested in such things. Some of the most highly respected (and openly socialist) news paper editors in Sweden have admitted that they do not think the Swedish public needs to know about such things...
I dunno, the open immigration policy sounds like its been a real killer, and I suppose you can blame the left for that. Though plenty of European countries have brought that under control, via the action of leftist politicians.
Wherever Islam goes it seems to run amok...except here. Is it significant that a less then 1% Islamic population isn't making all that much noise?
I don't know. Essentially I believe the problem with Islam is that it is too self reinforcing. You pray 3 times a day bowing towards Israel...you have all sorts of conspicous mandates to follow (grow a beard, wear a veil, etc). Because of all of this, religion forces itself to be a very big part of your life, and the larger the zelous population of a religion is, the more fanatics your going to get.
Christians will ignore that and cite scripture, but I don't think thats an adequate way to appraise this situation. The Koran has bad things in it, but so does the bible, which contains slaves regulation (not condemnation; basically it tells Israeli's to treat non-foreign slaves kindly), god requested genocides (amakelites and what not), and if I remember correctly, it tells Jews in the old testement to murder missionaries...didn't Jesus tell people to murder disobedient chilren? We'll anyways, I think you get my point.
Returning to proper focus, what of the leftist suppressing action against political dissidents in Sweden?
Were you take the stuff you mentioned, and not tell me which country it came from, I would guess that you were talking about some country in Central or South America.
Now, down there, it really doesn't to play favorites. That is to say, it does not seem to discriminate between rightest and leftest government, but is ambidexterous...
Because Sweden is the end result of leftist thought executed upon a population and Sweden is also the most anti semitic nation in Europe. The examples I have refered to from Denmark of left wing politicians and organisations aligning themselves with Muslim extremists against Israel, the USA and the democratic world in general are as nothing compared to what goes on in Sweden.
No one is sympathizing with muslim extremists here. The people who disagree with you on this issue are rather sympathizing for the hundreds of thousands of people forced out of their homes, many of whom, with the removal of a 100 billion dollars worth of property and business from their third world country's economy, could now face starvation.
Israel was attacked yes, but only 8 men died, and two were captured. Since Israel left Lebanon 6 years ago, less then 20 Israeli's have been killed by Hezbollah.
How can that justify blasting a countries infrastructure to ruin, killing hundreds of civillians?
Even from a purely selfish Israeli standpoint this can have no justification. The escalation to open warfare has killed more Israeli's this month, then were killed in the past 6 years combined.
The problem is not worth this kind of solution, and as a whole, Europe is a lot less anti semitic then America. In Europe they actually have laws prohibiting Nazism and holocaust denial.
To call your oponents in this debate "anti-semitic" because they care about Lebanese civillians losing their lives both literally and metaphorically, is just to carelessly throw false labels around, without actually looking at what people are saying.
Sweden is the extreme case since it has been run by a social democrat governments for sixty years, but the same story is told in every single nation in Europe, with the UK and France hardly far behind Sweden.
Even in the USA, this last week end saw mass demonstrations against Israel and in favour of Hezbollah and Hamas with left wing politicians and activists openly attacking Israel whilst remaining silent with regards to Hezbollah.
Silence does not acquate to support. I believe silence towards Hezbollah existed because it's already animinous that they are evil (so what would a demonstration against them accomplish; there is no one who needs convincing), they are not the ones doing the majority of the damage (which is a measure of capability not will), and, perhaps most importantly, this is the kind of thing we expect from them; we expect more morality from Israel then we do from terrorists.
The Independent, moved it over to the No side, since that fits the left wing perception all the better. In point of fact several other countries aside the UK and Denmark, and all democracies, have aligned themselves along side the USA, but these have all been showed as No countries. Why?
Because the left wing political point of view, whether English, Swedish, Danish or American does not care about the truth. It only cares about promoting its own perspective.
Define alignment.
We'll I hardly hear the right moaning about how undemocratic the senate is. Or since the election of muslim fundentalists in Egypt, the autocratic state of Egypts government. Nor did their values stand in the way of their forcing a win in 2000.
I suppose i'm getting scattered complaints at best, but the right does seem to let go of democratic ideals when it suits them to do so.
Do we see the left doing much for democracy right now?
Perhaps not, but how can they be expected to when they don't control the government.
Are they opposing democracy via their opposition to Bushes policies?
A portion of the left wants us to leave Iraq, which would doom the prospect of an Iraqi democracy, and some on the left and right claim we should think of giving North Korea and Iran security gaurentees in exchange for cessation of nuclear proliferation.
Undeniably, Bush is a pro-democracy man. However, I do not believe that we can generalize to say that at the core of conservative belief, lies some denominated value towards democracy which does not exist in the left. When push came to shove in the Cold War, the right didn't care about democracy at all.
Well in point of fact, and as I already mentioned, the article belongs to TedN5.
You were the first one to link to it.
er... no. I'm taking the enemy at his word. What exactly do you think Islamic terrorism is all about?
Evil people seldom admit their evil. They will come up with noble rationalizations to justify selfish action.
I haven't heard of any martrys in Sudan, and it seems to me as if this could easily be a stereotypical African civil war, in which people who would otherwise be starving, join up into militias and run around trying to acquire reasorces that will get them money from the west.
Even in Iraq, much of the insurgency is based off of profiteer combatants, who plant IEDs for green paper.
This is why poverty spawns instability. People can't get what they want (and in the case of food and water-need) via legit methods. In the face of intense desire, morals (if they already present obstacles) can be over run by desire and bitterness.
The language is the same, the perspective the same and the reasoning like wise. This could just as easily have been written by Villy Søvndal, chairman of the Socialist People's Party, here in Denmark.
And what are your complaints about the Israeli article?
Excellent. I hope my examples give them cause to consider where their political opinons may take them, for I can assure you, the European left, so busy with its self hatred, guilt and 'dhimmitude' is nothing to emulate. If my examples serve for anything then let it be that.
Europe is trying to wall itself off to globalization, and America is embracing it. Though it does to some extent benefit the consumer, it is my belief, that globalization is overall bad, as it undeniably shrinks middle class by stripping it of nearly all industrial jobs, and many educated jobs.
Even given that opinion as a premise however, I must still ask myself whether or not it is wise to fight inevitable? Is it inevitable?
Europe I believe has more to loose then here America does, because America's economy is secured via reserve currency exportation. Europe cannot afford to have the trade defecit that the United States has, so is it not accurate to state, that if Europe were to lose its home industry, then it's economies would be doomed?
Look at Sweden for example, it is drowning in a wave of Islamic extremism that has sharia law being employed in Swedish court rooms, Swedish Muslims making open demands for the full implication of sharia, or else. It is now letting in up to 100,000 immigrants per year (Sweden's popuation is circa 9 million), the majority of whom are Muslims from rural districts in the Muslim world. Its city's are becoming more and more dangerous and the nation is gripped in a rape epidemic that see's stats seven times higher than in any neighbouring country whilst the top imam in Sweden openly, and without resulting in any criticism from the Swedish establishment, attacks homosexuals and claims women bring rape upon themselves.
Malmø, one of Sweden's most important city's, is set to become the first European city with a full Muslim majority, and thus the first fully Muslim local council government in the EU. Local imams have already assured the Swedes of Malmø that they are welcome to remain in the city, for as long as they accept the introduction of sharia law. This is the same assurance the national Muslim body gave to the whole Swedish nation not so long ag and it is the end result of socialism in Sweden.
The Swedish national football team will gladly play with Saudi Arabia in a stadium where women are banned, but it refuses to participate in military exersizes with Israel designed to form a common front against terrorism.
In Sweden, cartoons about Mohammed are forbidden, not by law, but by socialist morality and the Swedish government will shut down any Swedish web site that dares to publish such drawings... but an art gallery that mocks the holocaust or celebrates the Palestinian intifada. Not only are these allowed, but they are attended by the social elite.
In Sweden, there is no nationalist party as there is in Denmark and Norway, because in Sweden, left wing thugs will attack and assault any one who meets under the auspicies of nationalism and the police seldom act to intervene. Further more, the Swedish media will not report such incidents (though the Norwegians and Danes will) because, the Swedish media openly admits that it is not interested in such things. Some of the most highly respected (and openly socialist) news paper editors in Sweden have admitted that they do not think the Swedish public needs to know about such things...
I dunno, the open immigration policy sounds like its been a real killer, and I suppose you can blame the left for that. Though plenty of European countries have brought that under control, via the action of leftist politicians.
Wherever Islam goes it seems to run amok...except here. Is it significant that a less then 1% Islamic population isn't making all that much noise?
I don't know. Essentially I believe the problem with Islam is that it is too self reinforcing. You pray 3 times a day bowing towards Israel...you have all sorts of conspicous mandates to follow (grow a beard, wear a veil, etc). Because of all of this, religion forces itself to be a very big part of your life, and the larger the zelous population of a religion is, the more fanatics your going to get.
Christians will ignore that and cite scripture, but I don't think thats an adequate way to appraise this situation. The Koran has bad things in it, but so does the bible, which contains slaves regulation (not condemnation; basically it tells Israeli's to treat non-foreign slaves kindly), god requested genocides (amakelites and what not), and if I remember correctly, it tells Jews in the old testement to murder missionaries...didn't Jesus tell people to murder disobedient chilren? We'll anyways, I think you get my point.
Returning to proper focus, what of the leftist suppressing action against political dissidents in Sweden?
Were you take the stuff you mentioned, and not tell me which country it came from, I would guess that you were talking about some country in Central or South America.
Now, down there, it really doesn't to play favorites. That is to say, it does not seem to discriminate between rightest and leftest government, but is ambidexterous...
Because Sweden is the end result of leftist thought executed upon a population and Sweden is also the most anti semitic nation in Europe. The examples I have refered to from Denmark of left wing politicians and organisations aligning themselves with Muslim extremists against Israel, the USA and the democratic world in general are as nothing compared to what goes on in Sweden.
No one is sympathizing with muslim extremists here. The people who disagree with you on this issue are rather sympathizing for the hundreds of thousands of people forced out of their homes, many of whom, with the removal of a 100 billion dollars worth of property and business from their third world country's economy, could now face starvation.
Israel was attacked yes, but only 8 men died, and two were captured. Since Israel left Lebanon 6 years ago, less then 20 Israeli's have been killed by Hezbollah.
How can that justify blasting a countries infrastructure to ruin, killing hundreds of civillians?
Even from a purely selfish Israeli standpoint this can have no justification. The escalation to open warfare has killed more Israeli's this month, then were killed in the past 6 years combined.
The problem is not worth this kind of solution, and as a whole, Europe is a lot less anti semitic then America. In Europe they actually have laws prohibiting Nazism and holocaust denial.
To call your oponents in this debate "anti-semitic" because they care about Lebanese civillians losing their lives both literally and metaphorically, is just to carelessly throw false labels around, without actually looking at what people are saying.
Sweden is the extreme case since it has been run by a social democrat governments for sixty years, but the same story is told in every single nation in Europe, with the UK and France hardly far behind Sweden.
Even in the USA, this last week end saw mass demonstrations against Israel and in favour of Hezbollah and Hamas with left wing politicians and activists openly attacking Israel whilst remaining silent with regards to Hezbollah.
Silence does not acquate to support. I believe silence towards Hezbollah existed because it's already animinous that they are evil (so what would a demonstration against them accomplish; there is no one who needs convincing), they are not the ones doing the majority of the damage (which is a measure of capability not will), and, perhaps most importantly, this is the kind of thing we expect from them; we expect more morality from Israel then we do from terrorists.
The Independent, moved it over to the No side, since that fits the left wing perception all the better. In point of fact several other countries aside the UK and Denmark, and all democracies, have aligned themselves along side the USA, but these have all been showed as No countries. Why?
Because the left wing political point of view, whether English, Swedish, Danish or American does not care about the truth. It only cares about promoting its own perspective.
Define alignment.
We seem to be getting way of topic here so I'm going to limit myself to those points you raise which actually have a bearing on what we're debatting.
For as long as the Middle East is dominated by Islam, there will never be peace there, nor any where else. Only when (if) secular Muslims take control of their religion can there be any hope of peace. Until then the war will continue, in one way or another as it always has.
No I was not. TedN5 provided the article in his post at the top of page 3. Four posts ahead of my reply. The link is titled Article. In my answer to that link I even preceded my reply to TedN5 by writing 'Look at the links you just provided for example.'
If the leadership of the Middle East were not so dishonest and corrupt to their very core, then that region would have found peace a long time ago.
And what are your complaints about the Israeli article?I don't understand this question since I already made my complaint as clear as day. 
The truth is, Europe is the only place on Earth where the decent living standards are slowing down population growth. This ought to be seen as a good thing for the very simple reason that planet Earth cannot sustain its current human population.
The problem is, the third world, and that includes the Muslims in Europe, is pushing out babies without any due regard to future sustainability. Even here in Europe it is not unusual for the third generation of Muslim settlers to have as many as twenty or more children. Danish imams openly tell their people to band together in ghetto's and have more and more babies. They preach that by babies, they will 'destroy the infidel'.
This tactic is openly advocated by the worlds largest and most powerful Islamic organisation, the Muslim Brotherhood which, surprise surprise, also has an opinion with regards to the war in Lebanon.
Israel faces the same problem as every other democratic nation. The Palestinians were once a few scattered villages and towns with a tiny population of the region. Now they are numbered in the millions and every single Arab nation which borders on to Israel has a similar population problem. Egypt for example has risen from 5 to 80 million in the last century. Israel has a population of 6 million or so.
It is actually the Danish nationalist party which has led the way in curbing immigration. Several years ago they did a deal with the minority conservative government to introduce the most stirngent anti immigration laws in Europe and for this they were attacked by the left wing and branded as racists. To date the Danish laws have been copied by several European governments.
Denmark is currently under investigation for being a 'racist country' though.
If on the other hand you recognize an act of war for what it is then Israel's response is just and is no different from the actions of any other state which had been attacked in a similar way.
And is there any difference between how Israel has reacted now and how in the past the USA reacted to a similar hostage crisis?
Its a good book, I suggest you read it.
It demonstrates clearly the similarities of the current situation with what happened two hundred years ago. Nothing has changed in all that time. Despite the wholesale slaughter and mutilation of the twentieth century, we are still in a situation where we have to defend ourselves from religious maniacs who resort to violence in the name of their god.
This is all plain and simple. When an Islamic terrorist organisation attacks a democratic nation, then it is an attack against all democracies. The notion that Israel is somehow to blame only has any validity if you believe, as Hezbollah and its supporters do, that Israel should cease to exist.
Any one who thus supports Hezbollah, whether they be civilians in Lebanon or Danish left wing members of parilment, have taken a stand against democracy.
Israel's tactics can only be criticized if one ignores their context.
edited to fix a link.
QUOTE(A left Handed person)
Do we see the left doing much for democracy right now?
Perhaps not, but how can they be expected to when they don't control the government.
Are they opposing democracy via their opposition to Bushes policies?
Israel is a democracy under attack by a religious extremist ideology that cannot accept the presence of a non Islamic nation in the Middle East. Islam dictates that all territory must be held by Islam and any territory lost must be regained. To wage war to regain lost territory is thus an obligation, a jihad, and to not do so is a sin.Perhaps not, but how can they be expected to when they don't control the government.
Are they opposing democracy via their opposition to Bushes policies?
For as long as the Middle East is dominated by Islam, there will never be peace there, nor any where else. Only when (if) secular Muslims take control of their religion can there be any hope of peace. Until then the war will continue, in one way or another as it always has.
QUOTE(A left Handed person)
You were the first one to link to it.
No I was not. TedN5 provided the article in his post at the top of page 3. Four posts ahead of my reply. The link is titled Article. In my answer to that link I even preceded my reply to TedN5 by writing 'Look at the links you just provided for example.' QUOTE(A left Handed person)
Evil people seldom admit their evil. They will come up with noble rationalizations to justify selfish action.
This is why poverty spawns instability. People can't get what they want (and in the case of food and water-need) via legit methods. In the face of intense desire, morals (if they already present obstacles) can be over run by desire and bitterness.
The Middle East is rife with wealth, much of it just for the taking. Your argument is a diversion away from the true cause of instability, which is greed, not poverty. This is why poverty spawns instability. People can't get what they want (and in the case of food and water-need) via legit methods. In the face of intense desire, morals (if they already present obstacles) can be over run by desire and bitterness.
If the leadership of the Middle East were not so dishonest and corrupt to their very core, then that region would have found peace a long time ago.
QUOTE(A left Handed person)
QUOTE(moif)
The language is the same, the perspective the same and the reasoning like wise. This could just as easily have been written by Villy Søvndal, chairman of the Socialist People's Party, here in Denmark.
And what are your complaints about the Israeli article?
QUOTE(A left Handed person)
Europe is trying to wall itself off to globalization, and America is embracing it. Though it does to some extent benefit the consumer, it is my belief, that globalization is overall bad, as it undeniably shrinks middle class by stripping it of nearly all industrial jobs, and many educated jobs.
Even given that opinion as a premise however, I must still ask myself whether or not it is wise to fight inevitable? Is it inevitable?
Europe I believe has more to loose then here America does, because America's economy is secured via reserve currency exportation. Europe cannot afford to have the trade defecit that the United States has, so is it not accurate to state, that if Europe were to lose its home industry, then it's economies would be doomed?
These are semantics and can be pushed back and forth all day with no result. The problem Europe faces is not 'globalization', that word, like 'multiculture', is a lie. A buzz word, meant to avoid civil unrest by giving the illusion that what is happening to Europe is a good thing. Even given that opinion as a premise however, I must still ask myself whether or not it is wise to fight inevitable? Is it inevitable?
Europe I believe has more to loose then here America does, because America's economy is secured via reserve currency exportation. Europe cannot afford to have the trade defecit that the United States has, so is it not accurate to state, that if Europe were to lose its home industry, then it's economies would be doomed?
The truth is, Europe is the only place on Earth where the decent living standards are slowing down population growth. This ought to be seen as a good thing for the very simple reason that planet Earth cannot sustain its current human population.
The problem is, the third world, and that includes the Muslims in Europe, is pushing out babies without any due regard to future sustainability. Even here in Europe it is not unusual for the third generation of Muslim settlers to have as many as twenty or more children. Danish imams openly tell their people to band together in ghetto's and have more and more babies. They preach that by babies, they will 'destroy the infidel'.
This tactic is openly advocated by the worlds largest and most powerful Islamic organisation, the Muslim Brotherhood which, surprise surprise, also has an opinion with regards to the war in Lebanon.
QUOTE(ADNKI)
Cairo, 26 July (AKI) - Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood issued a statement on Wednesday condemning an international conference in Rome on the conflict in Lebanon defining it "an attempt to suppress Lebanese resistance to suit the interests of the Israeli state." The Muslim Brotherhood also criticised US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice's refernce to a new Middle East emerging after the current Israel-Lebanon crisis. The Brotherhood, officially banned but tolerated by the Egyptian authorities, is the country's largest opposition party.
"It is evident that the Zionist war is aimed at destroying Arab resistance and conquer the Islamic world," said the statement, signed by the group's leader, Mohammad Mahdi Akef. "The conference taking place today (Wednesday) in Rome is an attempt to destroy the last hope of the Arab world."
Link."It is evident that the Zionist war is aimed at destroying Arab resistance and conquer the Islamic world," said the statement, signed by the group's leader, Mohammad Mahdi Akef. "The conference taking place today (Wednesday) in Rome is an attempt to destroy the last hope of the Arab world."
Israel faces the same problem as every other democratic nation. The Palestinians were once a few scattered villages and towns with a tiny population of the region. Now they are numbered in the millions and every single Arab nation which borders on to Israel has a similar population problem. Egypt for example has risen from 5 to 80 million in the last century. Israel has a population of 6 million or so.
QUOTE(A left Handed person)
I dunno, the open immigration policy sounds like its been a real killer, and I suppose you can blame the left for that. Though plenty of European countries have brought that under control, via the action of leftist politicians.
Such as? It is actually the Danish nationalist party which has led the way in curbing immigration. Several years ago they did a deal with the minority conservative government to introduce the most stirngent anti immigration laws in Europe and for this they were attacked by the left wing and branded as racists. To date the Danish laws have been copied by several European governments.
Denmark is currently under investigation for being a 'racist country' though.
QUOTE(A left Handed person)
Wherever Islam goes it seems to run amok...except here. Is it significant that a less then 1% Islamic population isn't making all that much noise?
Your turn will come. America is considered the fore most enemy in the Muslim world and the geographical advantage of distance from the Middle East is being eroded even as you read this. QUOTE(A left Handed person)
Returning to proper focus, what of the leftist suppressing action against political dissidents in Sweden?
Were you take the stuff you mentioned, and not tell me which country it came from, I would guess that you were talking about some country in Central or South America.
No I was still talking about Sweden. I'd give you a link but I doubt you speak any Scandiavian languages. Were you take the stuff you mentioned, and not tell me which country it came from, I would guess that you were talking about some country in Central or South America.
QUOTE(A left Handed person)
No one is sympathizing with muslim extremists here. The people who disagree with you on this issue are rather sympathizing for the hundreds of thousands of people forced out of their homes, many of whom, with the removal of a 100 billion dollars worth of property and business from their third world country's economy, could now face starvation.
Israel was attacked yes, but only 8 men died, and two were captured. Since Israel left Lebanon 6 years ago, less then 20 Israeli's have been killed by Hezbollah.
How can that justify blasting a countries infrastructure to ruin, killing hundreds of civillians?
Even from a purely selfish Israeli standpoint this can have no justification. The escalation to open warfare has killed more Israeli's this month, then were killed in the past 6 years combined.
To call your oponents in this debate "anti-semitic" because they care about Lebanese civillians losing their lives both literally and metaphorically, is just to carelessly throw false labels around, without actually looking at what people are saying.
Well I suppose it all comes down to what you believe. If you believe its okay to attack a soverign nation, kill its soldiers and kidnap others, then no, there can have no justification for Israel's actions. Israel was attacked yes, but only 8 men died, and two were captured. Since Israel left Lebanon 6 years ago, less then 20 Israeli's have been killed by Hezbollah.
How can that justify blasting a countries infrastructure to ruin, killing hundreds of civillians?
Even from a purely selfish Israeli standpoint this can have no justification. The escalation to open warfare has killed more Israeli's this month, then were killed in the past 6 years combined.
To call your oponents in this debate "anti-semitic" because they care about Lebanese civillians losing their lives both literally and metaphorically, is just to carelessly throw false labels around, without actually looking at what people are saying.
If on the other hand you recognize an act of war for what it is then Israel's response is just and is no different from the actions of any other state which had been attacked in a similar way.
QUOTE(Jihad Watch)
...wars are not conducted according to a principle of proportionality. No general ever counted casualties during World War I or World War II or any other war and then told his troops that they could only inflict that same number of casualties on the enemy, and no more. That is not how wars are won.
Link.And is there any difference between how Israel has reacted now and how in the past the USA reacted to a similar hostage crisis?
QUOTE(Amazon)
Drawing upon numerous ship logs, journals, love letters, and government documents, Frederick C. Leiner paints a vivid picture of the world of naval officers and diplomats in the early nineteenth century, as he recreates a remarkable and little known episode from the early American republic. Leiner first describes Madison's initial efforts at diplomacy, sending Mordecai Noah to negotiate, reasoning that the Jewish Noah would fare better with the Islamic leader. But when the ruler refused
to ransom the Americans--"not for two millions of dollars"--Madison declared war and sent a fleet to North Africa. Decatur's squadron dealt quick blows to the Barbary navy, dramatically fighting and capturing two ships. Decatur then sailed to Algiers. He refused to go ashore to negotiate--indeed, he refused to negotiate on any essential point. The ruler of Algiers signed the treaty--in Decatur's words, "dictated at the mouths of our cannon"--in twenty-four hours. The United States would never pay
tribute to the Barbary world again, and the captive Americans were set free--although in a sad, ironic twist, they never arrived home, their ship being lost at sea in heavy weather.
Link. to ransom the Americans--"not for two millions of dollars"--Madison declared war and sent a fleet to North Africa. Decatur's squadron dealt quick blows to the Barbary navy, dramatically fighting and capturing two ships. Decatur then sailed to Algiers. He refused to go ashore to negotiate--indeed, he refused to negotiate on any essential point. The ruler of Algiers signed the treaty--in Decatur's words, "dictated at the mouths of our cannon"--in twenty-four hours. The United States would never pay
tribute to the Barbary world again, and the captive Americans were set free--although in a sad, ironic twist, they never arrived home, their ship being lost at sea in heavy weather.
Its a good book, I suggest you read it.
It demonstrates clearly the similarities of the current situation with what happened two hundred years ago. Nothing has changed in all that time. Despite the wholesale slaughter and mutilation of the twentieth century, we are still in a situation where we have to defend ourselves from religious maniacs who resort to violence in the name of their god.QUOTE(A left Handed person)
Silence does not acquate to support. I believe silence towards Hezbollah existed because it's already animinous that they are evil (so what would a demonstration against them accomplish; there is no one who needs convincing), they are not the ones doing the majority of the damage (which is a measure of capability not will), and, perhaps most importantly, this is the kind of thing we expect from them; we expect more morality from Israel then we do from terrorists.
A demonstration against Hezbollah would accomplish a show of solidarity in the democratic world that told the jihadi's that their violence has no chance of succeeding.This is all plain and simple. When an Islamic terrorist organisation attacks a democratic nation, then it is an attack against all democracies. The notion that Israel is somehow to blame only has any validity if you believe, as Hezbollah and its supporters do, that Israel should cease to exist.
Any one who thus supports Hezbollah, whether they be civilians in Lebanon or Danish left wing members of parilment, have taken a stand against democracy.
Israel's tactics can only be criticized if one ignores their context.
QUOTE(A left Handed person)
Define alignment.
Don't you own a dictionary?edited to fix a link.
Israel is a democracy under attack by a religious extremist ideology that cannot accept the presence of a non Islamic nation in the Middle East.
Agreed.
Islam dictates that all territory must be held by Islam and any territory lost must be regained. To wage war to regain lost territory is thus an obligation, a jihad, and to not do so is a sin.
Agreed, if you interpret literally, and if the past translations of the Koran I have previously read were accurate to the Arabic from which they were derived. Campains of conquest however, do not seem to be within Arab's minds or their capabilities, should not be considered a threat right now. Their Jihads are what we should be worried about, and if we were smarter, perhaps we wouldn't have put ourselves into so many positions where we have to face them. Military action in the Middle East generally seems to simply fan the flames of that which is not destructable via military means: a populace.
For as long as the Middle East is dominated by Islam, there will never be peace there, nor any where else. Only when (if) secular Muslims take control of their religion can there be any hope of peace. Until then the war will continue, in one way or another as it always has.
Agreed, but how do we go about forming a secular Middle East? Are we even capable of achieving one? If not, then wouldn't damage control dictate that we keep as low a profile as possible?
No I was not. TedN5 provided the article in his post at the top of page 3. Four posts ahead of my reply. The link is titled Article. In my answer to that link I even preceded my reply to TedN5 by writing 'Look at the links you just provided for example.'
He linked the site yes, but not directly to the Sudan article. Albeit, the first paragraph of the Sudan article was visible at the top of Ted's page, forming a hyperlink to the Sudan article in its totallity.
The Middle East is rife with wealth, much of it just for the taking. Your argument is a diversion away from the true cause of instability, which is greed, not poverty.
The Middle East is not part of the first world. At the same time, except for Iraq (before and after the war; 100,000 Iraqi's starve to death every year), it is not Africa either. It's something more like South America.
Do not mistakenly think that wealth gained via natural reasorces trickles down, because it doesn't.
By European and American standards, the Middle East is very poor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HDImap_current.png
Iraq is gray now...
We'll I remember before they updated the map, it was red to some degree or other.
I think personally that we are dealing with both greed, poverty, and fanaticism.
If the leadership of the Middle East were not so dishonest and corrupt to their very core, then that region would have found peace a long time ago.
Dishonest? Corrupt? Are you so certain they are not sincerely deranged?
Israel faces the same problem as every other democratic nation. The Palestinians were once a few scattered villages and towns with a tiny population of the region. Now they are numbered in the millions and every single Arab nation which borders on to Israel has a similar population problem. Egypt for example has risen from 5 to 80 million in the last century. Israel has a population of 6 million or so.
We'll, I don't suppose you have a solution for this. Do Muslims reproduce at a faster rate then Africans, Latin Americans, Asians, and Polynesians?
Such as?
It is actually the Danish nationalist party which has led the way in curbing immigration. Several years ago they did a deal with the minority conservative government to introduce the most stirngent anti immigration laws in Europe and for this they were attacked by the left wing and branded as racists. To date the Danish laws have been copied by several European governments.
Denmark is currently under investigation for being a 'racist country' though.
A minority conservative party could not have passed the law without assistance from leftist politicians.
Your turn will come. America is considered the fore most enemy in the Muslim world and the geographical advantage of distance from the Middle East is being eroded even as you read this.
America has 300,000 million people, and a decent growth rate for a first world country. It will take them a while.
Well I suppose it all comes down to what you believe. If you believe its okay to attack a soverign nation, kill its soldiers and kidnap others, then no, there can have no justification for Israel's actions.
If on the other hand you recognize an act of war for what it is then Israel's response is just and is no different from the actions of any other state which had been attacked in a similar way.
Hezbollah killed (counting this sparking incident) 18 Israeli's in the past 6 years. How does that justify 500,000 displaced Israelis, 700,000 displaced Labanese, 50 dead Israeli's, 500 dead Lebanese, and 100 billion dollars worth damage to a country were starvation is palpable.
You keep trying complicate this issue, but it really is a simply a question of cost and gain, and obviously, there is no gain for either side. Israel can cripple Hezbollah, but not destroy it, and whilst it's current actions may prune the plant, they also may strengthen its roots with anger.
Yes, Israel should have done something, but nothing Hezbollah did can justify the humanitarian disaster that escalation has resulted in.
And is there any difference between how Israel has reacted now and how in the past the USA reacted to a similar hostage crisis?
How will we ever get to a better world if we simply aspire towards what is typical, rather then what is right? Not since Vietnam has America done anything as bad as what Israel is doing.
This is all plain and simple. When an Islamic terrorist organisation attacks a democratic nation, then it is an attack against all democracies.
They were attacking Israel because it's jewish, not because its a democracy. Though if they had their way there would be only theocracies in the Middle East.
-Needs to be proof read.
Agreed.
Islam dictates that all territory must be held by Islam and any territory lost must be regained. To wage war to regain lost territory is thus an obligation, a jihad, and to not do so is a sin.
Agreed, if you interpret literally, and if the past translations of the Koran I have previously read were accurate to the Arabic from which they were derived. Campains of conquest however, do not seem to be within Arab's minds or their capabilities, should not be considered a threat right now. Their Jihads are what we should be worried about, and if we were smarter, perhaps we wouldn't have put ourselves into so many positions where we have to face them. Military action in the Middle East generally seems to simply fan the flames of that which is not destructable via military means: a populace.
For as long as the Middle East is dominated by Islam, there will never be peace there, nor any where else. Only when (if) secular Muslims take control of their religion can there be any hope of peace. Until then the war will continue, in one way or another as it always has.
Agreed, but how do we go about forming a secular Middle East? Are we even capable of achieving one? If not, then wouldn't damage control dictate that we keep as low a profile as possible?
No I was not. TedN5 provided the article in his post at the top of page 3. Four posts ahead of my reply. The link is titled Article. In my answer to that link I even preceded my reply to TedN5 by writing 'Look at the links you just provided for example.'
He linked the site yes, but not directly to the Sudan article. Albeit, the first paragraph of the Sudan article was visible at the top of Ted's page, forming a hyperlink to the Sudan article in its totallity.
The Middle East is rife with wealth, much of it just for the taking. Your argument is a diversion away from the true cause of instability, which is greed, not poverty.
The Middle East is not part of the first world. At the same time, except for Iraq (before and after the war; 100,000 Iraqi's starve to death every year), it is not Africa either. It's something more like South America.
Do not mistakenly think that wealth gained via natural reasorces trickles down, because it doesn't.
By European and American standards, the Middle East is very poor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HDImap_current.png
Iraq is gray now...
We'll I remember before they updated the map, it was red to some degree or other.
I think personally that we are dealing with both greed, poverty, and fanaticism.
If the leadership of the Middle East were not so dishonest and corrupt to their very core, then that region would have found peace a long time ago.
Dishonest? Corrupt? Are you so certain they are not sincerely deranged?
Israel faces the same problem as every other democratic nation. The Palestinians were once a few scattered villages and towns with a tiny population of the region. Now they are numbered in the millions and every single Arab nation which borders on to Israel has a similar population problem. Egypt for example has risen from 5 to 80 million in the last century. Israel has a population of 6 million or so.
We'll, I don't suppose you have a solution for this. Do Muslims reproduce at a faster rate then Africans, Latin Americans, Asians, and Polynesians?
Such as?
It is actually the Danish nationalist party which has led the way in curbing immigration. Several years ago they did a deal with the minority conservative government to introduce the most stirngent anti immigration laws in Europe and for this they were attacked by the left wing and branded as racists. To date the Danish laws have been copied by several European governments.
Denmark is currently under investigation for being a 'racist country' though.
A minority conservative party could not have passed the law without assistance from leftist politicians.
Your turn will come. America is considered the fore most enemy in the Muslim world and the geographical advantage of distance from the Middle East is being eroded even as you read this.
America has 300,000 million people, and a decent growth rate for a first world country. It will take them a while.
Well I suppose it all comes down to what you believe. If you believe its okay to attack a soverign nation, kill its soldiers and kidnap others, then no, there can have no justification for Israel's actions.
If on the other hand you recognize an act of war for what it is then Israel's response is just and is no different from the actions of any other state which had been attacked in a similar way.
Hezbollah killed (counting this sparking incident) 18 Israeli's in the past 6 years. How does that justify 500,000 displaced Israelis, 700,000 displaced Labanese, 50 dead Israeli's, 500 dead Lebanese, and 100 billion dollars worth damage to a country were starvation is palpable.
You keep trying complicate this issue, but it really is a simply a question of cost and gain, and obviously, there is no gain for either side. Israel can cripple Hezbollah, but not destroy it, and whilst it's current actions may prune the plant, they also may strengthen its roots with anger.
Yes, Israel should have done something, but nothing Hezbollah did can justify the humanitarian disaster that escalation has resulted in.
And is there any difference between how Israel has reacted now and how in the past the USA reacted to a similar hostage crisis?
How will we ever get to a better world if we simply aspire towards what is typical, rather then what is right? Not since Vietnam has America done anything as bad as what Israel is doing.
This is all plain and simple. When an Islamic terrorist organisation attacks a democratic nation, then it is an attack against all democracies.
They were attacking Israel because it's jewish, not because its a democracy. Though if they had their way there would be only theocracies in the Middle East.
-Needs to be proof read.
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Jul 31 2006, 04:51 PM)
Hezbollah killed (counting this sparking incident) 18 Israeli's in the past 6 years. How does that justify 500,000 displaced Israelis, 700,000 displaced Labanese, 50 dead Israeli's, 500 dead Lebanese, and 100 billion dollars worth damage to a country were starvation is palpable.
You keep trying complicate this issue, but it really is a simply a question of cost and gain, and obviously, there is no gain for either side. Israel can cripple Hezbollah, but not destroy it, and whilst it's current actions may prune the plant, they also may strengthen its roots with anger.
Ignoring direct terrorists attacks on Israel would be easier in the short term, yes. But it's a false economy. Five years from now, Iran will still want to wipe Israel off the map, and groups like Hezbollah will be chomping at the bit to attack Israel. There is nothing Israel can do to change that. The only goal of these groups is the destruction of Israel and no amount of concessions will appease them. In light of that Israel can do three things. It could cease to exist and let their perfectly nice country be taken over and ruined. It could do nothing and be faced with the exact same situation in five years only with a better equipped and stronger Hezbollah. Or they can defend themselves. You keep trying complicate this issue, but it really is a simply a question of cost and gain, and obviously, there is no gain for either side. Israel can cripple Hezbollah, but not destroy it, and whilst it's current actions may prune the plant, they also may strengthen its roots with anger.
Israel can cease to exist or fight this same war down the line, only with Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in Hezbollah's crosshairs. It's certainly unfortunate that Israel has had to defend itself like this but Israel can't deal with terrorists peacefully.
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Jul 12 2006, 12:58 AM)
Short of genocide (which shouldn't and won't be done), how can any amount force go to solve anything in this conflict?
Is Israel making things better or worse via their massive assault for the release of a single Israeli soldier?
Will this help efforts to get the Palestinians to elect a less amniable government? Is this moral?
1. The amount of force required to decimate Hezbollah and their military capability is what can "solve" anything in this conflict. This is the same amount of force that is required in all wars. Of course, Israel may not have to burn Lebanon to the ground like we did to Germany and Japan in order to eliminate their military threats. But that's just because the Hezbollah is ostensibly the "minority" within that country. If their support spreads to the entire Lebanon military and the population, then such attacks would be justified.
2. Is Israel making things worse? Worse than what? Having 2,000+ missiles fired at your civilians around the clock? Having suicide bombers kill your people on a regular basis? Israel has been in a state of war for decades and the REASON there has been no peace is because the forces of regression that keep fighting to eliminate that legitimate state have not given up and decided to live in peace with the Jews. What's warped is that the UN and Europe and the Left at large regularly take the sides of the Islamic radicals who want to eliminate Israel and commit genocide. They constantly ask Israel to "just concede" more in order to buy peace. That doesn't work. It just encourages the Israel haters, like the late Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and the others to keep pushing for more. Israel needs to make it perfectly clear that attacks on their nation will be met with extreme violence. When they raise the pain threshold to the intolerable point for those initiating this conflict, it will end. They have resisted to date. That's why this conflict has dragged on for decades.
If the US and the allies had taken such an approach against Germany and Japan in WWII, we'd STILL Be fighting that war.
Ignoring direct terrorists attacks on Israel would be easier in the short term, yes. But it's a false economy. Five years from now, Iran will still want to wipe Israel off the map, and groups like Hezbollah will be chomping at the bit to attack Israel. There is nothing Israel can do to change that. The only goal of these groups is the destruction of Israel and no amount of concessions will appease them. In light of that Israel can do three things. It could cease to exist and let their perfectly nice country be taken over and ruined. It could do nothing and be faced with the exact same situation in five years only with a better equipped and stronger Hezbollah. Or they can defend themselves.
Israel can cease to exist or fight this same war down the line, only with Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in Hezbollah's crosshairs. It's certainly unfortunate that Israel has had to defend itself like this but Israel can't deal with terrorists peacefully.
I've been listening to podcasts for 8 hours a day for two days now while I sweep up dust in a rather large boatyard. Pertaining to this issue, I have heard two 40 minute NPR: On Point segments, and last Sundays meet the press.
Essentially the stated direct goals of Hezbollah, are too reacquire the Sheeba farm area (which it considers part of Lebanon), and gain the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israel. One analyst suggested that giving these concessions might undermine the movement, by giving it less legitimacy. I don't know if that could work, but honestly, if we were going to do that, we should have done it a month ago. Currently operations in Lebanon sound to be wrapping up, with the UN securing a peacekeeping force, and Israel clearing the way for one in a 15-18 mile stretch past the border.
Initially the attacks by Israel on Lebanon, made Hezbollah less popular due to blame assigned to it for underestimating the Israeli response. Now it's popularity sours, as Arabs feel helpless and resentful, and see strength in the terrorist organization.
It is considered by the mass majority of Lebanon (even by over 70% of the Christian population) to be a resistance (rather then terrorist) movement, and the country's president has said that he carries a great respect towards the organizations leader.
Whilst heads of state in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan have all made statements denouncing the group, many seem to worry that the opinions of the leaders are merely superficial symbols of Islamic moderation, as their people mostly see the conflict in a different light.
Self allegedly, Israel has now destroyed two thirds of Hezbollahs rocket arsenal. Hezbollah claims slightly more then 50 of it's men have died, and Israel claims dozens more then that number have been killed.
Personally extrapolating, essentially its seems as though Israel is well on track to destroying capability, but has inflamed will. Capability will be reattained unless a constant force is kept on the border.
Can a border force exist without being constantly attacked by Hezbolla?
This depends to a certain extent on the nationality of it, but also on factors I can't appraise with confidence. In the worst case scenario, I envision something like Iraq. At best, maybe almost complete calm.
What could have Israel done, other then what it did?
1. It could have done nothing.
2. It could have simply traded the prisoners.
3. It could have done a surgical strike or two, and have declared fair revenge.
(Consequence of doing any of those, is (as you stated) a possible future war in which they would face a stronger enemy. With the reannexation of the Shebaa farms, I think such a war would only have been probable, in the context of another region wide, multinational, jump on Israel war like the Yom Kipper one. A unilateral war would lack neccessary local popularity.)
4. It could have started a ground war, which would have done just what the air war has, except with dramatically less civilian casualties, less economic damage, and more killed or captured Israeli soldiers.
(I think that would have been the most self serving humanitarian option)
And...I guess that's then end of my last. I think they should have done
Israel can cease to exist or fight this same war down the line, only with Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in Hezbollah's crosshairs. It's certainly unfortunate that Israel has had to defend itself like this but Israel can't deal with terrorists peacefully.
I've been listening to podcasts for 8 hours a day for two days now while I sweep up dust in a rather large boatyard. Pertaining to this issue, I have heard two 40 minute NPR: On Point segments, and last Sundays meet the press.
Essentially the stated direct goals of Hezbollah, are too reacquire the Sheeba farm area (which it considers part of Lebanon), and gain the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israel. One analyst suggested that giving these concessions might undermine the movement, by giving it less legitimacy. I don't know if that could work, but honestly, if we were going to do that, we should have done it a month ago. Currently operations in Lebanon sound to be wrapping up, with the UN securing a peacekeeping force, and Israel clearing the way for one in a 15-18 mile stretch past the border.
Initially the attacks by Israel on Lebanon, made Hezbollah less popular due to blame assigned to it for underestimating the Israeli response. Now it's popularity sours, as Arabs feel helpless and resentful, and see strength in the terrorist organization.
It is considered by the mass majority of Lebanon (even by over 70% of the Christian population) to be a resistance (rather then terrorist) movement, and the country's president has said that he carries a great respect towards the organizations leader.
Whilst heads of state in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan have all made statements denouncing the group, many seem to worry that the opinions of the leaders are merely superficial symbols of Islamic moderation, as their people mostly see the conflict in a different light.
Self allegedly, Israel has now destroyed two thirds of Hezbollahs rocket arsenal. Hezbollah claims slightly more then 50 of it's men have died, and Israel claims dozens more then that number have been killed.
Personally extrapolating, essentially its seems as though Israel is well on track to destroying capability, but has inflamed will. Capability will be reattained unless a constant force is kept on the border.
Can a border force exist without being constantly attacked by Hezbolla?
This depends to a certain extent on the nationality of it, but also on factors I can't appraise with confidence. In the worst case scenario, I envision something like Iraq. At best, maybe almost complete calm.
What could have Israel done, other then what it did?
1. It could have done nothing.
2. It could have simply traded the prisoners.
3. It could have done a surgical strike or two, and have declared fair revenge.
(Consequence of doing any of those, is (as you stated) a possible future war in which they would face a stronger enemy. With the reannexation of the Shebaa farms, I think such a war would only have been probable, in the context of another region wide, multinational, jump on Israel war like the Yom Kipper one. A unilateral war would lack neccessary local popularity.)
4. It could have started a ground war, which would have done just what the air war has, except with dramatically less civilian casualties, less economic damage, and more killed or captured Israeli soldiers.
(I think that would have been the most self serving humanitarian option)
And...I guess that's then end of my last. I think they should have done
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Jul 12 2006, 12:58 AM)
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/277183_tolan12.html
In the name of forcing the release of a single soldier, Israel has seized members of a democratically elected government; bombed its interior ministry, the prime minister's offices and a school; threatened another sovereign state (Syria) with a menacing overflight; dropped leaflets from the air, warning of harm to the civilian population if it does not "follow all orders" of the Israel Defense Forces; loosed nocturnal "sound bombs" under orders from the Israeli prime minister to "make sure no one sleeps at night in Gaza"; fired missiles into residential areas, killing children; and demolished a power station that was the sole generator of electricity and running water for hundreds of thousands of Gazans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/world/mi.../12mideast.html
The president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, met Tuesday with King Abdullah II in Amman, Jordan, and claimed that the Israeli military was targeting civilians in Gaza.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200607121421/25864bd6
Israel bombed the main power plant, causing widespread blackouts and also hampering water supplies. Bridges and roads have also been attacked in almost nightly air raids.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/29/news/web.0629gaza.php
In the West Bank city of Ramallah early on Thursday, Israeli forces detained eight ministers of the 24-member Hamas-led Cabinet and 20 lawmakers, including Deputy Prime Minister Nasser Shaer and Labor Minister Mohammed Barghouti.
Israel stepped up its confrontation on Wednesday with Palestinian militants over the capture of an Israeli soldier, battering northern Gazan towns with artillery and sending warplanes over the house of the Syrian president, who is influential with the Palestinian leader believed to have ordered the kidnapping.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-06...tent_629778.htm
Israel Radio said Shin Bet security chief Yuval Diskin had warned Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on the day of the kidnapping: "If the soldier is not returned in 24 hours, Israel will not allow the Palestinian Government to survive. "
The leaflets told residents to leave town in advance of artillery strikes, so my first cited author phrased that misleadingly.
Everything else however, seems to be pretty accurate.
Short of genocide (which shouldn't and won't be done), how can any amount force go to solve anything in this conflict?
Is Israel making things better or worse via their massive assault for the release of a single Israeli soldier?
Will this help efforts to get the Palestinians to elect a less amniable government? Is this moral?
Israel has a right to defend themselves. It is as simple as that. The Palestinians made the first move by kidnapping an Israeli soldier, suicide bombings, and just supporting the deaths of Israelis. Why? The ISraelis gave back land, made a Cease-Fire deal (the Palestinians broke) and have tried for peace so much. Why has the Palestinians not learned.
Now the world is whining because the Israelis are tired of being attacked and are fighting back. I support Israel in this war.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.