Middle East - what's next

[Edward64]

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:

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?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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.

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.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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.

...

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.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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?

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.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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.

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The USA is a sovereign nation. Palestine never was.

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

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.

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.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

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.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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.

[st.cronin]

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

1. The Arabs left voluntarily.

'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.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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.

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:

Originally Posted by EagleFan

At least it's not an islamic government or we would all be commanded to kill "non-believers".

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:

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Interesting thing about this poll is that the more religious you are, the more intolerant you are, as opposed to the common meme of the intolerant atheist. For example, 37% overall wouldn't vote for a Mormon, and it breaks down like:

28% of those who never/barely attend church say they wouldn't.

35% monthly attendees.

41% weekly.

50% more than once a week.

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.

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.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

This is a lie.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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

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?

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

This is a lie.

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.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

[duckman]

Don't feed the trolls.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by duckman

Don't feed the trolls.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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).

[yabanci]

good news from the British.

British split with Bush as Israeli tanks roll in

· Minister attacks 'disproportionate' raids
· 2,000 troops cross into Lebanon

Ned Temko, Conal Urquhart in Tel Aviv and Peter Beaumont in Beirut
Sunday July 23, 2006
The Observer

Britain dramatically broke ranks with George Bush last night over the Lebanon crisis, publicly criticising Israel's military tactics and urging America to 'understand' the price being paid by ordinary Lebanese civilians.

The remarks, made in Beirut by the Foreign Office minister, Kim Howells, were the first public criticism by this country of Israel's military campaign, and placed it at odds with Washington's strong support. The Observer can also reveal that Tony Blair voiced deep concern about the escalating violence during a private telephone conversation with the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, last week. But sources close to Blair said Olmert had replied that Israel faced a dire security threat from the Hizbollah militia and was determined to do everything necessary to defeat it.

Britain's shift came as Israeli tanks and warplanes pounded targets across the border in southern Lebanon yesterday ahead of an imminently expected ground offensive to clear out nearby Hizbollah positions, which have been firing dozens of rockets onto towns and cities inside Israel.

Downing Street sources said last night that Blair still believed Israel had every right to respond to the missile threat, and held the Shia militia responsible for provoking the crisis by abducting two Israeli soldiers and firing rockets into Israel. But they said they had no quarrel with Howells's scathing denunciation of Israel's military tactics.

Speaking to a BBC reporter before travelling on for talks in Israel, where he will also visit the missile-hit areas of Haifa and meet his Israeli opposite number, Howells said: 'The destruction of the infrastructure, the death of so many children and so many people: these have not been surgical strikes. If they are chasing Hizbollah, then go for Hizbollah. You don't go for the entire Lebanese nation.' The minister added: 'I very much hope that the Americans understand what's happening to Lebanon.'

[continued]
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world...826969,00.html

[MrBigglesworth]

Civilian Toll Mounts in Lebanon Conflict
At Hospitals in Tyre, Cries Go Up Among Wounded for Slain Loved Ones

By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, July 24, 2006; Page A01

TYRE, Lebanon, July 23 -- The day ended in Tyre as it began, with a desperate cry of grief.

"Where's my father? Where's my father?" asked Mahmoud Srour, an 8-year-old whose face was burned beyond recognition after an Israeli missile struck the family's car Sunday. His mother, Nouhad, lurched toward his hospital bed, her eyes welling with tears.

"Is he coming?" he asked her.

"Don't worry about your father," she said, her words broken by sobs.

Barely conscious, bewildered, he lay with his eyes almost swollen shut. His head lolled toward her. A whisper followed.

"Don't cry, mother," he told her.

Mahmoud's father, Mohammed, was dead. An Israeli missile had struck their green Mercedes as they fled the southern town of Mansuri, where the family had been vacationing. The boy's uncle, Darwish Mudaihli, was dead, too. The bodies were left in the burning car. Mahmoud's sister Mariam, 8 months old, lay next to him, staring at the ceiling with a Donald Duck pacifier in her mouth. Her eyes were open but lifeless, a stare that suggested having seen too much. Her hair was singed, her face slightly burned. Blisters swelled the tiny fingers on her left hand to twice their size. In other beds of Najm Hospital were their other brothers, 13-year-old Ali and 15-year-old Ahmed.

"What happened?" Ahmed shouted to no one in particular.

It was a question asked often Sunday in Tyre and its hinterland, a bloody day for civilians, even by the standards of this war. Israeli forces repeatedly struck cars on southern Lebanon's already perilous roads in attacks that victims said were indiscriminate. Seven people were killed, three of them when an Israeli helicopter fired a missile at a white minibus carrying 19 people fleeing the village of Tairi, which Israeli forces had ordered residents to evacuate...

The IDF explained that strikes targeted "approximately 20 vehicles" that were "serving the terror organization in the launching of missiles at Israel, and were recognized fleeing from or staying at missile-launching areas." In other words, if you live near a place where Hezbollah was shooting missiles from, your house may be blown up in an effort to stop the missiles and you'll be killed if you stay put. But if you decide to flee, then your car may be blown up on the grounds that you were fleeing missile-launching areas.

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.

[sachmo71]

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.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

...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.

Red Cross ambulances destroyed in Israeli air strike on rescue mission

· Volunteer paramedics demand UN guarantees
· Flags and lights prove no protection for aid teams

Suzanne Goldenberg in Tyre
Tuesday July 25, 2006

The ambulance headlamps were on, the blue light overhead was flashing, and another light illuminated the Red Cross flag when the first Israeli missile hit, shearing off the right leg of the man on the stretcher inside. As he lay screaming beneath fire and smoke, patients and ambulance workers scrambled for safety, crawling over glass in the dark. Then another missile hit the second ambulance.

Even in a war which has turned the roads of south Lebanon into killing zones, Israel's rocket strike on two clearly marked Red Cross ambulances on Sunday night set a deadly new milestone.

Six ambulance workers were wounded and three generations of the Fawaz family, being transported to hospital from Tibnin with what were originally minor injuries, were left fighting for their lives. Two ambulances were entirely destroyed, their roofs pierced by missiles.

The Lebanese Red Cross, whose ambulance service for south Lebanon is run entirely by volunteers, immediately announced it would cease all rescue missions unless Israel guaranteed their safety through the United Nations or the International Red Cross.

For the villages below the Litani river, the ambulances were their last link to the outside world. Yesterday, that too was gone, leaving the 100,000 people of Tyre district with no way of reaching hospital other than to take to the roads themselves, under the roar of Israeli war planes.

[continued]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...828142,00.html

[sachmo71]

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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.

[Qwikshot]

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

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

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.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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...

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

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.

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

# Around 30 to 40 people are killed every day in the current Israel/Lebanon conflict.

# About 100 people are killed every day in the violence in Iraq.

# And 1,200 people are killed every day in the war in the Congo.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

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.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

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

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.

Yeh, we really took care of business in Afghanistan.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by bronconick

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.

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...

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

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.

[JPhillips]

Well this would be a nightmare.

From the Washinton Times.

Iraqi Shi'ite militia ready to join fight
By Sharon Behn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published July 24, 2006

A senior member of Muqtada al-Sadr's Iraqi Shi'ite militia, the Mahdi Army, says the group is forming a squadron of up to 1,500 elite fighters to go to Lebanon.
The plan reflects the potential of the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah to strengthen radical elements in Iraq and neighboring countries and to draw other regional players into the Lebanon conflict.
"We are choosing the men right now," said Abu Mujtaba, who works in the loosely organized following of radical Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. "We are preparing the right men for the job."
Mr. Mujtaba, who was interviewed in Baghdad, said some of the men have had special training but did not specify what kind.
Sheik al-Sadr's black-clad armed militia numbers in the thousands, operates throughout central and southern Iraq and is thought to be responsible for numerous killings of Sunnis.
A rival Sunni cleric, Abdul Rahman al-Duleimi, said he knew about the militia's recruiting effort and that he had appealed to his own followers to fight Israel.
"We know that the Mahdi militia is on this issue since the Lebanon-Israeli crisis started," said Sheik al-Duleimi, whose house in Baghdad contains a large portrait of former ruler Saddam Hussein. The cleric is not related to Adnan al-Dulaimi, also a Sunni cleric and leader of a major faction in parliament.
Sheik al-Duleimi said that during prayers on Friday, he "called the people to volunteer, and if they cannot, they should donate anything. I called on people to donate even one bullet, because maybe this one bullet will kill one Israeli."
Government officials said they knew nothing of the Mahdi militia's plans, although Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has condemned Israel's assault on Lebanon and said he will discuss it with President Bush during a scheduled visit to the White House tomorrow.
"The hostile acts against Lebanon will have effects on the region, and we are not far from what is going on in Lebanon," Mr. al-Maliki said Saturday. "We will speak to the United Nations and American government to call for a cease-fire quickly."
Iraq's national security adviser, Mowafaq al-Rubaie, said he had not heard of any Iraqis planning to go to Lebanon, "and if I had heard it, I don't have a comment."
Mr. Mujtaba shrugged off the government reaction, saying the Mahdi militia has been keeping its moves quiet until it has everything ready.
"If some politicians or Iraqis laugh at us, I think the coming days will prove these reports and we will see who is defending Islam to prove he is a Muslim and who is not," he said.
Other Shi'ite groups in Baghdad are rumored to be gathering donations to help the Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon, where the Islamist group has come under fierce attack since kidnapping two Israeli soldiers on July 12.
Sheik al-Sadr has openly voiced support for Iran -- Hezbollah's main sponsor -- and on Friday urged Iraqis to stand behind Lebanon to confront the "common enemy," Israel.
"We say no, a thousand nos to Israel and its terrorism, and everybody should know that we in Iraq will not stay quiet against the rampaging Zionists," Agence France-Presse quoted Sheik al-Sadr as saying in a statement issued from his home in the southern Shi'ite holy city of Najaf.
Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said that the Mahdi militia's claim to be sending a force to Lebanon could be exaggerated, but that Sheik al-Sadr stood to gain a lot by sending volunteers to help Hezbollah.
"He shows he is a fighter for the Arab cause at a time when the Iraqi government cannot, which gives him support at the local level in Iraq and makes him into a regional rather than a local figure, even if it isn't real," he said.
"He gains power and status as a person seen as willing to take such risks," Mr. Cordesman said.
Mr. Mujtaba said the Mahdi militia was figuring out how to get its fighters to Lebanon without the help of the Iraqi government.
"People have volunteered ... but as this is not the government, we cannot use planes. We need to go by land," he said.
The most direct land route would be across Iraq's western Anbar province to Jordan or Syria. Because of border restrictions, Jordan would be an unlikely crossing point, Iraqis said. Syria is an important backer of Hezbollah but may not want to be seen as helping Mahdi militia fighters reach Lebanon.
Sheik al-Duleimi said the fight in Lebanon extends beyond the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, and that it is a struggle between Muslims and the American-Israeli alliance.
"This is a must-do, to show all the Arabs that Iraq is still standing," said the Sunni cleric.
"And the other reason is we want to extend the fighting range so they will know Lebanon is not just one country and Iraq is not just one country, it is Muslims from all over the world," he said.
"I have ex-officers and young college students and workers who volunteer, and I think if you come to the next Friday prayers you will find more supporters and donations."

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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...

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.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Well this would be a nightmare.

From the Washinton Times.

Hearts and minds
Stabilize the region
Last throes
Nation building

[yabanci]

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:

Israel bomb 'kills UN observers'

BBC Tuesday, 25 July 2006, 21:58 GMT 22:58 UK

Four United Nations peacekeepers have been killed in an Israeli air strike on an observation post in southern Lebanon, the UN has said.

A bomb struck the post occupied by the peacekeepers of the Unifil force in the Khiam area, it said.

The attack came as Israel announced it would keep control over an area in southern Lebanon until a new international force could be deployed.

The force will be discussed at crisis talks to be held in Rome on Wednesday.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be at the talks after ending her tour of the Middle East on Tuesday.

More than 380 Lebanese and 42 Israelis have died in nearly two weeks of conflict in Lebanon, which began after Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on 12 July.

Protest

The UN in Lebanon says the Israeli air force destroyed the observer post, in which four military observers were sheltering.

It said the four, of different nationalities, had taken shelter in a bunker under the post after it was earlier shelled 14 times by Israeli artillery.

A rescue team was also shelled as it tried to clear the rubble.

The UN has made urgent protests about the attacks.

Unifil has been operational in the border area since 1978 and is currently 2,000 strong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5215366.stm

[Dutch]

WOW!

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

Iran president warns Hezbollah of spreading violence
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jul 25, 12:43 PM ET

DUSHANBE, Tajikistan - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned his Hezbollah militant group on Tuesday that the conflict between Lebanon and Israel could trigger "a hurricane" of broader fighting in the Middle East.

Ahmadinejad's nation is a major backer of Hezbollah and a sworn enemy of Israel. But in his comments, he referred to a proverb that says: "He who raises the wind will get a hurricane."

"That proverb fully relates to the Middle East, which is a very volatile region," he said. "And it will be a strong hurricane which will strike really hard."

Ahmadinejad made his comments after meeting with Tajik President Emomali Rakhmonov. The two leaders signed a joint statement declaring "that the use of force against Israel is unacceptable."

"All issues of international security must be resolved through dialogue, because Hezbollah killings, shellings, and kidnapping does not bring a solution," the Iranian leader said. "The use of force will only exacerbate the situation."

Ahmadinejad and Rakhmonov called for a cease-fire and urged international organizations to seek the swiftest possible settlement of the conflict.

Tajikistan is an impoverished but strategically important former Soviet republic because of its border with Afghanistan. Tajik and Iranian officials signed agreements Tuesday meant to boost terror exports and cooperation on Arab issues, IED explosive training, proper beheading techniques and tourism. But that's a story for a different article. The real news here is that Iran finally pulled it's head out of it's arse and is talking sense.

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

[MrBigglesworth]

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

It was just for fun.

[Subby]

[duckman]

Nice jugs, but the sunglasses have got to go.

[Grammaticus]

Its Harry Carey with boobs

[SackAttack]

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:

Psa 83:1 Keep not thou silence, O God: hold not thy peace, and be not still, O God.

Psa 83:2 For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head.

Psa 83:3 They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones.

Psa 83:4 They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from [being] a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance.

Psa 83:5 For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee:

Psa 83:6 The tabernacles of Edom, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes;

Psa 83:7 Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek; the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre;

Psa 83:8 Assur also is joined with them: they have holpen the children of Lot. Selah.

Psa 83:9 Do unto them as [unto] the Midianites; as [to] Sisera, as [to] Jabin, at the brook of Kison:

Psa 83:10 [Which] perished at Endor: they became [as] dung for the earth.

Psa 83:11 Make their nobles like Oreb, and like Zeeb: yea, all their princes as Zebah, and as Zalmunna:

Psa 83:12 Who said, Let us take to ourselves the houses of God in possession.

Psa 83:13 O my God, make them like a wheel; as the stubble before the wind.

Psa 83:14 As the fire burneth a wood, and as the flame setteth the mountains on fire;

Psa 83:15 So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm.

Psa 83:16 Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD.

Psa 83:17 Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish:

Psa 83:18 That [men] may know that thou, whose name alone [is] JEHOVAH, [art] the most high over all the earth.

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.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Yeh, we really took care of business in Afghanistan.

?

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.

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

the whole Ethiopia/Somalia conflict will be far more barbaric, but will get less press time.

Which were fairly quickly moved over there.

Originally Posted by Yabanci

It's been well reported that the international push for a ceasefire would include some kind of international force in the south of Lebanon.

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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.

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.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Which were fairly quickly moved over there.

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...

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Its Harry Carey with boobs