Well that's mostly because Syria held the country for so many years... and Hezbollah is Syria's little proxy. So I don't think it is "hold your enemies too close" really, more as in the situation was already polluted from years of Syrian control and it'll take more than a year to remove the Syrian traces from Lebanon. Though, at the very least, they kicked the forces out last year. Hopefully they don't take advantage of the situation and come right back in.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13929959/

Not to comment on anything, but looks like Israel is going to step it up.

At risk of receiving more childish cracks about supporting Hezbollah, it appears I'm not alone in seeing the current trajectory of this conflict favoring Hezbollah at the expense of the Lebanese government (and by extension US and Israeli interests in Lebanon).

From a Christian Science Monitor column today:

(continued)


A Slate column from yesterday:

(continued)

(continued)


And from Slate today, worries over the impact of the conflict on the Lebanese government and a proposal to salvage the situation:

(continued)

(continued)


It just seems appallingly obvious that this military campaign, like Israel's last military campaign against Hezbollah, like Israel's many campaigns against Hamas, like the US campaign against Iraqi insurgents, and like the Soviet campaign against Afghanistan's mujaheddin, will fail to cripple or destroy Hezbollah. It is disappointing, but ultimately not surprising, that advocating some different approach, one that while less immediately gratifying is, over the long term, more likely to produce actual progress, is interpreted as being anti-Israel or pro-terrorist.

Fox News reported 16 Israeli soldiers dead, bunker hit didn't seem to get the Hezbollah leadership, 40 rockets fired today, Israeli warning of civilians in south Lebanon to leave ... ground offensive may begin soon.

Hezbollah leader says possible surprises, Fox speculates maybe chemical weapons. Lebanese military may join with Hezbollah to fight against ground offensive.

What a clusterf**k. The Lebanese military should take this opportunity to attack Hezbollah.

more than half the lebanese military have/had taken oathes to support Hezbollah...

I think that if you look at my list, you will see that each and every one of them was US wars. I would think that would make my bias towards the US, but you see it as a bias towards Arabs. Whatever.

I don't see what 'right' Israel had to .1% of their land, other than that the Jews were claiming that they should have it and the fact that people of their same religion ruled it hundreds of years ago. Surely you can see how if that was your land, you would call that claim tenuous at best, and want to fight to get your land back. Especially if it wasn't just the land of your ethnicity, but your actual homeland.

If you want to talk about the 'genesis of the Middle East problem', you could go back to it being Zionism movement. Or the Crusades of 1099. Or the Arab conquerors of 640. Etc, etc.

No need for ad hominems, I was just pointing out your flawed logic in saying that having the power to stop the fighting makes you automatically the immoral one.

If your country were being overrun by a superior army, would it be moral to use chemical weapons against military targets to defend your country?

Don't know about the morality of this but yes, the use of chemical weapons is okay imo. The caveat is, don't complain if Israel takes it up a notch in aggressiveness if Hezbollah uses chemical weapons. At that stage, the gloves are off.

I believe this holds true if the Lebanese military sides with Hezbollah in fighting against the pending Israeli invasion. If there is coordinated resistance between L/H against an Israeli incursion into southern Lebanon, then the 'intertwine' logic becomes real. Civilian collateral damage and certainly infrastrucutre all becomes 'understandable'.

I have not read this. Can you quote a source?

Yes, a good point.

When doing conflict prediction analyses of this nature, it should be remembered that morality should be kept separate from relative capability and strategy. This is certainly not to say that morality has nothing to do with conflict, but in the end whether a side is "good" or "bad" has very little to do with their chances of winning.

As for the point about how modern armies with superior firepower have performed poorly against muslim insurgents, I would say that this is not something to do with Islam, but has more to do with how the tactics of guerrilla warfare and the mindset of those who practice it minimizes the advantages of the technically superior power. Outside the West-Islam sphere, the US vs the Viet Cong, the UK vs Irish revolutionaries in the Irish war for independence, and to some extent the British vs the colonists in the American Revolution are all examples of success of the less powerful side. Were any of these sides any more "moral" or "good" than the other? Who knows, possibly. Did that have anything to do with whether they won or lost? Probably not.

I had heard it on TV, HOWEVER, I will say after reading online about them, either I misheard it or the pundit mis-spoke because everything Im reading on the net - says that they are NOT members of hezbollah but simply unwilling to fight hezbollah, for a plethora of different reasons. I apologize for misleading and being mistook myself.

I guess what I don't really understand is, what is the alternative? Ceding the farmland to Lebanon? Every Israeli citizen relocating to Brooklyn?

I guess so. I don't see an alternative. The terror groups have long admitted they won't stop until every Jew is entirely out of the region.

Yes, Israel is weakened by fighting back. But they would be weakened further by not fighting back.

This cartoon may be a little offensive to some. But it was printed in a mainstram newspaper and I think it's an accurate portrayal of what we're up against with Al Qaeda, and what Israel is up against with Hamas and Hezbollah.

hxxp://www.unionleader.com/uploads/media-items/2006/july/717cartoon.jpg

Terrorism is a very effective weapon against an unpopular power.

To the Hamas/Hezbollah sympathizers here (and when I say sympathizers, I mean exactly that, people who have some degree of sympathy for their cause - I don't mean you necessarily want to wipe Israel off the map, too, though they clearly do...)

What would be your reaction if Native Americans began a concerted terror campaign against nearby American cities? Let's say they get Russia to train them in guerrilla warfare and start lobbing missiles at downtown Tulsa or Fargo with the long-term intent of wiping out these populations and claiming specific ancestoral land?

What should our army do in response?

And keep in mind that Native Americans have far more claim to kick the US out than Hezbollah does with Israel. Jews had a long-term, consistent presence in the region - long before Zionism was even a policy.

But there was no continuous presence in the region until the Jewish settlements. This was nomadic territory for the most part.

In 1850, before Zionism was anyone's policy, Jews made up about 3% of Palestine. In 1900, it was about 12%, which is about the time Zionism too hold. In 1948, it was still only 40%. One fact you conveniently ignore is that about 80% of the near-million Arabs living in Israel when it was formed left voluntarily, [b]at the request of the rest of the Arab world[/i], when the Arabs declared war.

Second, Arabs migrated to the region with the Jews. The settlements made land habitable. They lived in peace for the most part until the 1920s. Between 1900 and 1948 about as many Arabs migrated to Palestine as Jews.

Jews also made up a significant percentage of the rest of the region. In 1900, the Jewish population of Turkey was about 300,000. They're just about all gone now. About 30,000 Jews lived in Egypt. All gone now. About 65,000 lived in the Syria region. All gone now. Another 60,000 in Tunisia. Down to about 1,000 today. Iran had 35,000 in 1900, about 20,000 today, surprisingly.

More Jews were forced out of other countries in the region than there were Arabs in Israel as it was founded.

Jews lived scattered around the world, and many groups had lived in the Middle East or North Africa for hundreds of years, if not predating Arab conquerers.

After the Russian pogroms and Hitler's genocide, the Jews felt a state of their own was necessary. But they were still willing to live in peace, side by side with the Arabs. It was the Arabs who decided that wasn't possible.

Why is it that the Jews who were forced out of Turkey and other countries in the region don't count? Why is it only the Arabs who left Israel on their own, as their compatriots promised genocide, who count with you?

The Arabs decided they couldn't live with the Jews, not vice versa. They declared war. They're the ones who still, to this day, promise genocide. And still, Israel is 14% Arab, and that 14% has full citizenship rights, affirmative action programs to support them, and their children are dying from Hezbollah missles, too.

The Palestinian problem is the result of Arab countries who control 99.9% of the land in the region, but refuse to take in Palestinian refugees?

At what point will you see that the Jews have a right to live in peace, just as any other group in the entire world does? Why are they the only group of people in the entire world not entitled to a peaceful existence?

Our army and special forces would attack them. I don't think a single person here has said that Israel has no right to attack Hezbollah. You are still fighting a strawman. What our military would not do is start bombing the infrastructure of every Indian reservation in the country to "punish" them, as Israel says they are "punishing" the Lebanese.

What about you? What would you do? According to your philosophy, if the Native Americans claim our land, we should give it to them, maybe declare the Dakota's a separate country, to be administered and governed by the Native Americans? I mean, that's just a small fraction of the land we have, and most of the area is uninhabited. The people of Fargo should just deal with it. Right?

When was the abandoned Jeruselem re-settled by the Jews? 1900? I thought it was older than that. If there was no continuous presence in the region, how were Jews only 3% of the population that numbered in the hundreds of thousands in 1850? Did those three percent show up, then the 97% of Palestinians show up right after them in the Jewish settlements? I know that Israel made a lot of the land habitable, but to say that the Palestinians weren't even there is absurd.

This whole 'just live in peace' thing is completely illogical. Someone comes in, is given part of your land by an outside power, then they want to live in peace, and you are completely in the wrong for wanting your land back? Again, you can't have one side given what they want, taken from someone else, then declare the former moral because they want peace.

I feel for the Jews that were forced to leave Turkey and elsewhere. But that doesn't automatically give them a right to take someone else's land. It isn't the fault of the Palestinians that Turkey kicked out any Jewish people.

I know. It sucks that Jews can't live in peace anywhere. Persecuted in NY, LA, etc. Sad.

Isn't that what the reservations are for? Remember how small Israel is in comparison to the Arab world. There are at least two separate reservations in America larger than the entire country of Israel.

Reservations are selected by the US government, governed by the US, and not sovereign in any way. Are you advocating that the Arabs should select some uninhabited land of the Arabs' choosing and give it to the Jews, as long as the Jewish people live under the laws of the Arab country they are in, maybe throw some casinos their way too? Or are you really saying that reservations are the same as the creation of Israel?

1. The Arabs left voluntarily.

2. The Jews had Jerusalem for more than 1,000 years, then were kicked out by the Arabs. They maintained a presence in the region. They gradually returned to their homeland.

3. If 1,400 years ago doesn't count, then why does 60 years ago count?

4. Yes, it sucks for individual Palestinians who trusted their fellow Arabs. But when you wage war and you lose, sometimes you don't get what you want in the settlement. The Palestinians may have a right to complain, but not about the Jews. They made a dumb choice.

5. Israel didn't wage that war. They would have been happy to share a country with the Arabs, peacefully. The Arabs chose to attack instead.

6. Palestine was not a country, and is still not a country. The Jews were allowed to settle there by the owners of that land.

Ha. This is so awkward. So if Mexicans gradually return to their homeland, and someday a foreign entity awards them California, the people of California are just screwed?

Reservations are sovereign, with internal governments, usually on land familiar to the native group - though remember that they, like the Arabs throughout much of the Middle East, were often nomadic.

I'm saying that the Isrealis have just as much claim to the land as the Arabs. And because the Arabs refuse to coexist with them in peace, the Jews are entitled to a sovereign nation somewhere in the region.

Palestine, for many reasons, was the best location.

The USA is a sovereign nation. Palestine never was.

Mexico gave California to the US in exchange for a lot of money, and citizenship rights.

Well if the Brittish Empire folds up shop in their colony of California, and leaves a large Mexican population the option to declare a new state. Yes then the rest of the people in California would be more than welcome to stay or to leave while the surrounding territories attacked the new Mexican state. If that Mexican state prevailed, then yeah, the folks that lost the war, should accept that reality and consider that the Mexicans had won the right to that land. Those surrounding states who declared war also ought to readilly accept the population that left their homes in support of the war.

So yeah what you said.

The principle is the same. Taking ones land, giving it to another.

Sorry, if you can't see why people are upset, I don't know what to tell you.

.

It's not that people can't see why the Arabs are upset. What we object to is the solution they propose.

Sounds like that's an issue for Israel to deal with...and if they can't handle themselves, Israel should be punished accordingly. Oh wait, we (the US) don't let that happen.

We've pampered this abused child, and now the abused child is acting out.

Actually, pampered is going a bit far. The US support of Israel is not a moral one, it is a completely strategic one--the massive amounts of foreign aid makes Israel more or less beholden to the whims of US foreign policy. Foreign aid has more or less bought us a reliable vassal in an otherwise unpredictable region.

The threat of a foreign aid cut-off keeps the Israelis in line. Besides that, we have more or less bankrolled the Egyptian military--that also keeps the Israelis honest.

A child is either pampered or abused - which is it???

But, anyway - your point of view would have more credibility if you would occasionally condemn Hezbollah's launching of missiles into populated areas. Your lack of criticism on the one hand, combined with your inane Zionist conspiracy theories (do you still think Israel is responsible for 9/11?), plus your insistence that Israel has no right to exist, means that nobody will ever take you seriously on this topic.

Both. Abused early on, now pampered.

I think the whole situation is regretable.

I don't think Israel is responsible for 9/11, I never said that. I think it's worth looking into (their knowledge of the situation), as are their major spying initiatives in the US.

My thoughts on a "right to exist" aren't limited to Israel - I think the entire concept is a bit strange. What, does the United States have a "right to exist" and that makes us immune to those who challenge us? Did the USSR have a "right to exist" when we wanted to topple communism (what they were founded on)?

Then you don't agree that Palestine has a right to exist? That's a dangerous path to tread upon.

I don't think anyone has an irrefutable "right to exist". Neither does the US. Neither does Canada.

It's all subjective.

Fact is, everything withstanding, Israel has screwed over the people in that region so hard time and time again, that people simply hate them now.

Rexallllsc. I probably missed this from a while ago but can you please clarify for me. I do want to understand your statement.

1. You don't think Israel is responsible for 9/11.
2. You think we should investigate what they knew about 9/11.

Are you implying ...

a. They knew something was going to happen but did nothing substantial to inform us.
b. They knew something was going to happen, got Jews out of the Trade Center and did nothing substantial to warn us.
c. They knew something was going to happen, did inform us but we did not pay attention.
d. They are some sort of co-conspirators, minor conspirators via funding, intelligence etc.
e. (other options)

No state has an inherent right to exist. It's not subjective though: the ability to impose and guarantee one's sovereignty (via one's own power or the power of sympathetic states) ultimately determines whether a state exists or not.

I believe A & D are plausible and should be looked into.

It's genesis comes from this thread:

http://fof.sportplanet.gamespy.com//...ad.php?t=47713

The point I have been trying to argue (both through my own words and in the quotations from other sources) is that there is fundamental mistake being made when this conflict is viewed through a military prism. If this were basically a military conflict, Israel's responses would make sense. But then the terrorist actions would not. The style of attacks they make will never, ever destroy Israel militarily. From a military standpoint, the damage that Hezbollah and Hamas do is completely insignificant. To them the war is not military, it is political, and they are very astute and talented political actors. Israel, on the other hand, treats the conflict as military and comes off clumsy and ham-handed in the political arena. For Israel to win (and I would very much like this to happen) they need to wage a political war. I don't disagree that there needs to be some military response, for the usual stated reason of needing to demonstrate that Israel is not toothless. But I think the military response needs to be a) more precise (which is why I would put the focus on Israel's capable and experienced anti-terror agencies and special forces) and b) executed in conjunction with political engagement.

The initial reaction to the kidnapping among the Lebanese public was, in general, not favorable to Hezbollah. If Israel's military response had been more narrowly targetted and combined with diplomatic contact with the Lebanese government (and possibly some coordination of efforts to recover the kidnapped soldiers), the public reaction in Lebanon could have remained unfavorable to Hezbollah. It could have driven a wedge between the majority of Lebanese who want democratic rule and peace with Israel and the minority who seek war. But widespread strikes throughout the civil infrastructure while leaving the Lebanese government completely isolated and helpless has had the opposite effect, driving the Lebanese majority towards Hezbollah and placing the wedge between the entire population of Lebanon and Israel.

My frustration is simply that Israel, who actually want peace, so badly misplay their hand by focusing on the military battlefield, where their actual impact is quite limited, and consistently allow themselves to be beaten where it really matters, on the political battlefield. This is not to say that political solutions will be quick or easy. They will almost certainly be painful and slow, but they are the only solutions that can ever bring closure to this conflict.

The cartoon Jim posted isn't wrong. That is basically what this scenario is. And here's why: Israel and the US want peace. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas (or least certain factions thereof) want war. In order to achieve peace the winning of hearts and minds on the other side is critical (roll your eyes if you want, but it's true). But if you want war, that's the last of your concerns. So we have to control our actions while they don't give a fuck. No one said it was easy being the good guys.

Klinglerware. Thanks for the link. I don't feel up to reading it right now but will.

I found this on Drudge and found it interesting. I wondered why it took the Israelis so long to go Infantry. The article said they were trying the air war option first. If true, I think I could have told them that wasn't going to work.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...986111113.html

Rex must have finally put me on ignore.

thats ok he may be the first ever that I will put on ignore.

Dave Chappelle stopped doing his show because Bill Cosby and Oprah were going to have him killed.

Both are plausible, I guess, but theyre also ridiculously incomprehensible as having any foot in reality....but if it opens even a crack in the door that Jews are bad, or that Oprah and Bill have that sort of power than plant the seed and watch it grow. So ignorant.

You think it's "ridiculously incomprehensible" that another country may have had intelligence on 9/11?

Edit: Who said Jews are bad? You should get something straight, Israel does not represent all Jews. That would be like saying I said blacks are bad because I believe OJ killed his wife.

yup, couldve had as much as we did and you saw that it was almost impossible to put the clues together, so I do NOT suspect another country wouldve put them together either....ESPECIALLY when it wasnt red flagging their country in the "static".

Jew comment = youre right, sorry.....however your conspiracy theory WOULD paint a very broad picture that I DO Think is idiotic.

new news tonight rearding the impending humanitarian crisis...

I DO think it is imperative AND the responsibility of the world U.S., Israel, Syria, all of us to make sure that the food, medicine, water, etc. get into the civilians that did not heed the warnings OR couldnt leave of their own volition. THAT I do believe is the responsibility of everyone ESPECIALLY Israel, to protect the health of those citizens caught in the middle of their attempt to rout Hezbollah and I certainly hope they move with God Speed in this direction.

I didn't want to get back into this thread, and will stay out of the Israel-Lebannon thing (Jim, I wouldn't keep arguing, your not going to change the minds of others), but this got my interest:

A) Why is it the US's responsibility for humanitarian relief of something that is happening way outside of our borders, and something we can't control (the war)? Just wanted to understand why you said the "US", without mention of others.

B) Should we risk our own men and resources (when they could be spent here helping our own) to support those who decide to stay, after Israel and others are telling them to leave?

Just some questions I wanted to ask.

a - when I said "us" I meant all countries with the capability to help....and the reason is the same as when I say "we" should go into countries to stop genocide, help save people from starving, etc. Its my opinion of how the world order works.

b - yes

Thanks....

Now slowing backing out the thread again. :)

yeah, the US is just a disinterested bystander with no ability to affect events in Lebanon.

a) I do agree it is the world's responsibility to do humanitarian relief but the reality of the situation is in some specific cases (ex. post-War Europe) the world lacks the political will, military might, logistical resources to pull off a humanitarian relief without the US.

Say what you will about the UN and its politics, but it allows countries to collaborate better in humanitarian relief than without. Ex. UNICEF might be rife with corruption, but there has certainly been people that have benefited and would not have without the UNICEF organizationl.

b) No if this group is able bodied etc. Yes if this group also consists of children, elderly etc. (which it probably does).

Galaxy. You're right, all sides have stated their points several times. I'll try to redirect this to more tangible military issues.

I was watching CNN last night and their special on Hezbollah. The one thing that struck me was how it said Hezbollah was a tough, organized military, knows the land etc.

I always assumed that when Israel goes mano-a-mano, there will be losses but will eventually send Hezbollah running. I wonder now if the reverse is possible, especially in cities, towns etc. Israel having to call up reserves to help out in the North is not a reassuring thought.

Anyone know how many towns, cities are in south Lebanon?

The problem is that when you spout crap like that people are just going to assume that either you yourself are a Jew-hater, or have been sucked in by the propaganda of one of the Jew-hating groups, regardless of what you actually think.

Hezbollah has had some successes against Israel in Lebanon, so it wouldn't be unprecedented. However, I would remind you about what CNN said about the vaunted Iraqi republican guard, and keep their assessment in perspective. I think any success they have against the Israelis is going to be in limited guerilla engagements.

Well, that's the typical situation in a guerrilla war. The more powerful conventional military will have much difficulty winning because the guerrillas' definition of "winning" and "losing" are not tactical in nature. In Vietnam for example, the NLF/Viet Cong lost pretty much every firefight against the Americans--yet they won the war, in part, because the NLF were willing to keep fighting "until the end of time".

Based on this, and the IDF's historically poor-to-mediocre performance in these types of conflicts, I don't think that Israel can really win a guerrilla war against Hezbollah. But with that being said, it doesn't have to. Realistically, if the Israelis' are to continue with the military route and in light of their current capabilities, their best strategic bet would be to accept the fact that they will have to be in southern Lebanon for years with continuing low-intensity conflict with Hezbollah and/or their replacements. At the very least, a buffer zone in southern Lebanon will reduce the occurences of attacks on northern Israel.

Oh well. If people are that quick to jump on the "anti-semite!" bandwgon, that's their problem.

California, like Palestine, was also never a sovereign nation. The Ottoman Empire, like the United States, was.

People are that pissed off that the Arabs want a return to the 1967 borders?

What makes you think that the US doesn't want war? What makes you think that at least certain elements of Israel doesn't want war? I mean, Israel is in the middle of waging war, I think that is a good sign that they want war right now.

didnt the Israeli's win a war for that land?

This argument is so circular, Im tired of it. My opinion wont change and neither wil yours. I will try not to visit this thread anymore since it seems that, like most threads, people (possinly including myself) cherry pick info to support their cause but ignore evidence or opinion to the contrary, ie. When I quoted the Lebanese PM and it was quickly ignored so that some could continue their ignorant, ridiculous, and/or accusatory tone.

Like I said I will try.

dnftt

It's become perfectly obvious that Mr. Bigglesworth is the biggest political troll on this board, more so even than Bubba Wheels or Jesse Ewok ever was. His strategy is to intentionally misrepresent other people's arguments so they appear offensive. He continually labels people "racist" or "intolerant". It's high time he was banned outright, because all he does is stir shit up.

dola

Just look at his last three posts in this thread. In each one, he quotes a poster, then interprets their post in the most bizarre way he possibly can, for the sole purpose of inflaming the argument.

'Voluntarily' is a subjective term. They were, quite literally, fleeing a war zone. You said yourself that it was against all odds that Israel won that war. So the thinking at the time was that there was going to be fighting in the streets all throughout Israel as the Arabs pushed them back. And people left, became refugees, because they didn't want to be in the middle of it.

Because it is a 1/x graph. Time matters. It just doesn't make any sense to say that a Native American has the same claim to the land that my house is on that I do. There is no workable theory where time doesn't matter, it would be chaos. I'm not saying that Israel should be wiped off the planet, which is what you seem to imply. I'm just saying that I can see both sides.

Ok, the Palestinians can be pissed at the Arabs for not winning the war. But why can't they be pissed at the Jews for setting out for years and years to acheive the goal that eventually led to them losing their land? Sure, they could have stayed, and many did, but self rule is an important thing to people, and Israel was set up specifically to be a homeland for the Jewish people.

Iraq didn't wage the first Gulf War. They would have been happy to share a country with the Kuwaitis, peacefully. The Americans chose to attack instead.


New Hampshire isn't a country, so can that be given away by the United States? What does it matter if it wasn't a country? I don't understand how that matters at all.

Let's go to the tape! According to the search freely available on this site for all to see, I have [EDIT: haven't] called a single poster a racist this year (as far back as I searched, I figured st.cronin's crusade was based off of recent comments). I did however call two comments that people made racist, one where JiMG said that McKinney only gets reelected because black people only vote for black people. The other was this one:
http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...st#post1101430

In any definition of the word, those are racist comments, and I think most people would agree.

How about intolerant? How many dozens of posters have I labelled that? Well, again according to the search: nobody. I did say though:

After this, st.cronin said that just because he would never even think of voting for a Mormon candidate because he knows Mormons so well, that doesn't make him intolerant of voting for them. And also that I was a troll for implying it. :rolleyes:

st.cronin has also previously accused me of calling people trolls all the time, when I have only come out of nowhere to call one person a troll in my entire time here. st.cronin, this is bordering on libel. I may have to report your post.

This is a lie.

Sure they did. So they have a right to it. But you can see why the Palestinians would have a right to the land too, right?

Cherry picking always happens, nobody is going to sit around and talk about every single point that they agree on. I have read a bunch of stuff here from a bunch of different people that is enlightening and/or that I agree with, but if I were to quote each one and post "I agree", everyone would accuse me of post whoring. I think you can see numerous times, at least in my discussions here with Solecismic, that I have said that I agree that Israel has a right to the land or has the right to defend themselves or whatever. There are points on both sides, and not one 'haha'! point makes every point on the other side irrefutable.

Unlike the practice of some, I have provided links with all of my accusations, people can read for themselves and decide. I would rather not discuss your peronal hatred of me in this thread any further though. If you would like PM me or to start a "MrBigglesworth is a poopy-head" thread, I would gladly respond.

I see, you attempt to take the high road once you realize that your infantile behavior has gone too far, and that you've stated an outright lie.

Don't feed the trolls.

Well obviously certain people in the US and Israel do want war. There are those even on this board who would prefer a broad-based campaign of genocide (well, there's one at least). But as a whole and represented through our respective governments, I do believe peaceful coexistence is the objective. Of course, I believe that is true for a majority of Palestinians and Lebanese as well. But it does not appear to be true for Al Qaeda or the most militant wings of Hamas and Hezbollah.

In any case, the basic point stands. The reason that we need to respect human rights (aside from basic questions of moral conduct) is because we are engaged in cultural warfare. We make progress by showing why our approach is better. And people are highly attuned to hypocracy emanating from the US. Our rhetoric sets a very high bar that we need to ensure that our actions meet. The other side has no interest in winning over the US public, and to win over Arabs and muslims, they rely on our actions, not their own, to earn them converts. As has been the case in Lebanon this past week, even if what they do is repellant, they count on us to do something even more repulsive, knowing that the perception of these acts, on both sides, is heavily impacted by who you identify with. For those who identify with Israelis, what Hezbollah has done seems much worse. For those who identify with the Lebanese, the reverse is true. The audience Hezbollah plays to is the Lebanese themselves and other Arabs who identify with them. They don't care how the Israelis or Americans perceive them. We do care how the Lebanese perceive us (or we should if we're smart).

good news from the British.

This is they type of stuff that is so casually dismissed by those cheering on Israel here. They try to negate moral responsibility for the civilian casualties by saying that they should evactuate, but becoming a refugee is a high risk factor for dying.

Israel has declared war on Hezbollah, but they are waging war on Lebanon. How can this be in their best interests? What is their end game? What do they hope to accomplish? Israel spend 18 years in Lebanon recently, and when they left Hezbollah was still there. They aren't going to eradicate them through military means. Lebanon was moderating, Hezbollah was losing power relative to the emerging democracy. Now Israel has thrown that into doubt. I wouldn't be surprised if Hezbollah straight out won the next election. I don't understand what they plan to do.

I heard a report about this on NPR this morning. What I would like to know more about is whether or not these vehicles followed exactly whatever instructions they were given. I don't know one way or the other; it was just something that popped into my mind. Otherwise, I can't really see the logic of firing on civilian vehicles unless I was absolutely certain there were terrorist suspects within. The political cost is too high.

the same reason the Israelis are bombing ambulances -- to terrorize the Lebanese people and impose collective punishment, thinking that this will cause the Lebanese people turn against Hezbollah and submit to Israel for their protection.

:(

I think it's time to put you on ignore. Bye now.

The bolded part is the kind of trolling that adds a lot of bad personal feeling to this argument. I could just as easily say you're cheering on Hamas and Hezbollah as they seek to rid the world of Jews. You do twist your opponents' words, and your perception of American and Israeli history is unusual, if not outright revisionist.

There's a world a difference between sympathizing with Israel and supporting their right to defend their country, and cheering civilian casualties. The latter implies satisfaction with these images of Lebanese civilians suffering. No one on this board has made that kind of comment.

Hezbollah attacked Israel. They hide behind the Lebanese citizens, knowing Israel will respond. Israel is stuck. They can either ignore the attacks and ask the UN to disarm Hezbollah, which the UN has ordered but refuses to help with. Or they can try and do the job themselves.

Clearly, Israel finally hit a breaking point. I feel bad for the Lebanese citizens caught in this. They should have heeded the Israeli warnings early on, but that's not always possible, and it's likely Hezbollah told them not to leave. Now they are stuck, and scenes like this are terrible.

I don't know that Israel will gain from this. They are stuck, too. If they allow a group of terrorists that is dedicated to the slaughter of their people to remain massed on their border, they will never have peace.

If they attack in response, as they have done, and Hezbollah entrenches its troops among the people of southern Lebanon, there will be civilian casualties of this nature and condemnation will grow louder.

Unfortunately, the constant rain of missiles into heavily-populated Haifa and other Israeli cities is simply dismissed as an annoyance by the media because the rate of casualties is lower. Try and imagine living in Haifa - a major, modern city - right now.

And the fact that a group of terrorists committed to the destruction of Israel started this war is conveniently ignored. As well as the fact that a very powerful nation, Iran, is very much involved here - training, supplying and in some cases actually joining the war as soldiers.

I can only imagine what our society would be like had our leaders refused to press the fight in Afghanistan when we were attacked by Islamic terrorists as well.

The problem is to combat a monster, one must be worse than a monster.

Wars have become marginalized, because you aren't facing an enemy, you are facing shadows.

Of course, this isn't the only war or barbarism going on...the whole Ethiopia/Somalia conflict will be far more barbaric, but will get less press time.

Not necessarily. The Northern Ireland peace process brokered by George Mitchell (and the resulting framework that was set up) shows that another way is possible. It's very difficult and requires certain prerequisites, but it's not impossible.

I don't they equate...you basically had two groups in that with Protestants (Ulster) and Catholic (IRA). And there were still splinter groups (the Omagh Bombing) and violence to this day (I recall a few years back two or three children dying in a fire set because their parents were mixed religion, and just recently a man was killed by the IRA and his sisters were shouting for justice).

In the Middle East, it's Israel verse everyone. You are not going to get a suitable arrangement between Israel and Lebanon, and Syria, and Iran, and Palestine, and Hamas, and Hezzbolah, and the Martyr's Brigade, and Al-Queda, and Iraq, and...

And don't forget the Congo. 4 million people have died so far and nobody gives a crap:

And don't forget the Congo. 4 million people have died s far and nobody gives a crap.

There, now I care as much as you do.

Since the IRA was never interested in converting all of Britain to Catholicism, making a comparison between the IRA and assorted Muslim groups is difficult at best.

Western terrorist groups almost always have solely political goals. Many Muslim groups have political and cultural/religious goals simultaneously, which makes negotiating peace infinitely more difficult.

Yes. Condemnation of Israel. The people killing their friends and loved ones.


Yeh, we really took care of business in Afghanistan.

But then again, it all depends on the group--there are several insurgent groups operating in the Middle East that are decidedly on the secular/socialist side of the spectrum. Fatah is of course the most notable group that traditionally defined themselves in nationalist rather than religious terms...

I had to put bigglesworth on ignore months ago.

I think people really need to sit down and think about the bolded part. Haifa is a city roughly the size of Chandler, Arizona. There are major American businesses there, not just small regional offices. Most of the low-voltage processor research and development that Intel does comes out of a large facility in Haifa. It's not just some sparsely populated cow town.

The indiscriminate barrage of rockets into Haifa has to be stopped. Hezbollah is putting citizens at risk on both sides of the border with this aggression. It's their fault that Lebanese are getting killed. Period. They started it. The Lebanese government can't stop it. Israel has a right to defend itself, period.

Well this would be a nightmare.

From the Washinton Times.

Now hold on a second, this is just flat out wrong, the war against straw continues. You want to talk about twisting arguments? I said that people that are cheering on Israel (another way of saying supporting them and their right to defend their country the way they are doing, you don't deny that, right?) are DISMISSING the dead civilians, not cheering on their deaths. I've never said you or anyone else was cheering civilian deaths (though to be honest FN comes close sometimes). And since you have stated on several occasions that it isn't the Israeli's fault that their bombs are falling on women and children and that Israel should keep bombing power plants anyway, you are definitely dismissing the civilian deaths.

Secondly, you can't say that I am cheering on H/H because I think they as well as Israel should 'dial it down'. I would love for Hezbollah to be destroyed. But that needs to happen as a political movement, not a military one.

I don't see how you can accuse me of twisting an argument when every single thing you get hot and bothered over is a strawman of what I am actually saying. If I say I see both sides, I'm attacked for cheering on Hezbollah. If I say I can see how both sides have some claim to the land now, I'm attacked because I think the Arabs should drive Israel into the ocean. If I say someone is cheering on Israel's war, I'm attacked because I think those people are greedily wishing for more civlians to die. I mean, I know this is an emotional subject for some people, and I was emotional when I was reading about that boy's family being killed for no reason, but c'mon. I'm not Hitler because I agree with most of the rest of the world on the Middle East.

Hearts and minds
Stabilize the region
Last throes
Nation building

It's been well reported that the international push for a ceasefire would include some kind of international force in the south of Lebanon. Isreal, of course, opposes any ceasefire for the time being. So what is the best way to discourage the formation of an international force and thus a ceasefire? By targeting bombs on the international force already there:

WOW!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060725/...ZjBHNlYwNyaGw-

Of course, the real article really only talks about how much the Iranian leader hates Israel and how Israel is to blame for everything.

Thanks Dutch, dynamite drop in. Those journalism courses are really starting to pay off.

It was just for fun.

Nice jugs, but the sunglasses have got to go.

Its Harry Carey with boobs

Ancient book of Psalms found in an Ireland bog:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe....ap/index.html

Placed at between a thousand and 1200 years old. Pretty neat find.

Little bit of an odd/creepy sidenote to the story: it was discovered open to the 83rd Psalm.

I had to look it up:


I don't think it means anything more than "hey, neat archaeological find!"

The juxtaposition of the condition of the book's discovery with the most recent violence flare-up in the Middle East is kind of creepy, though.

?

Yeah, the Taliban still has influence in some southern parts of the country, and managed to launch a (quickly destroyed) offensive from across the border, but overall we took them out of power, made Afghanistan no longer a safe haven for al-Qa'eda, and destroyed the terrorist training camps.Which were fairly quickly moved over there.There's been an international force in the south of Lebanon for a long time. At best it stands idly by. At worst it has actively helped Hiz'b'allah kidnap Israeli soldiers and covered up the evidence. FWIW, the biggest UN peacekeeping force is in the Congo (UNMOVIC) and there is another large international peacekeeping force in Darfur. So pardon me if I don't believe an international force is going to help at all.


As for al-Sadr's militia potentially sending men to Lebanon... well that's a convenient reminder how well cease-fires turn out in the Middle East. We should have killed al-Sadr and destroyed his militia 2 years ago when we had the chance in Najaf and Kufa, just as Israel should kill Nasrallah and destroy Hiz'b'allah now.

A lot of UN forces don't have the authority to "prevent breaches of the peace" (ie, fight) because of the threat of veto by the US or Russia or China if they were given such a right.

The US ejected the Taliban from power, but could not destroy them--their influence is growing, and their influence is allowed to grow because the US did not leave Karzai's government enough time or resources to consolidate their hold on the country. Consequently, Afghanistan is quickly headed towards narcocracy--drug lords, and not the central government, increasingly have effective control over significant portions of the country outside of Kabul. Many of these drug lords are allying themselves with the Taliban in many cases. Granted, cozying up to the Taliban will probably not end well for the drug lords, but in the meantime, the relationship (safe haven and an infusion of opium cash) will help to foster a rebuilding of Taliban power.


Bishop, I'm not sure what this reference is to re the Ethiopia-Somalia conflict--but the US is not really involved at the moment...

:D :D