Israel/Lebanon situation

[Nancy Allen``]

Thats like saying "we could get all those damn criminals if they didn't pourposefully hide among all the civilians"

 

That's diffirent, police do go after criminals if they know where they are. If a country knows where terrorists are hiding out then they are expected, especially in this day day and age, to go after them. I know that if the situation was reversed and Israel were sending in suicide bombers to kill Palestinions I would be supporting the elimination of the Israeli terrorist threat. I really couldn't care less about whose land it is or who drove out whose people, the current issue is the point.

[TK-8252]

Because they retaliate against terrorist attacks?

 

Right, and they retaliate by bombing indiscriminately and terrorizing innocent people. Exactly what terrorists do.

 

I don't know if you're aware of this, but Israel allows Muslims to live in Jerusalem.

 

So can the Palestinians come back and live on their land then? No? Why not?

 

And I haven't heard the Israeli government pushing for the destruction of Islam, just for Muslim terrorists to stop killing Israeli civilians.

 

Wait... this whole mess didn't even start with the killing of Israel civilians. It started when one Israeli soldier was abducted.

 

 

A lot of the contention in the region throughout history (including the Crusades) has been because of Muslims' belief that once they are in possession of a piece of land, it becomes "Muslim land" for the rest of all eternity...and their defense of that belief has been very bloody indeed.

 

Wait a second, it seems that the Israelis are the ones who believe that if it's their land it's theirs for all eternity. They left (diaspora), and then decided to come back because it's "their" god-given land. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians believe it's "their" land. The difference is, the Israelis were the ones who kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and off their land. All because they thought it is "their" land to begin with. Hmm.

 

I can't speak for Bush, but frankly, I don't see how the neoconservative agenda to spread democracy to the Middle East excuses the behavior of HAMAS and Hezbollah.

 

Neocons give the impression that if a country democratically elects its leaders, it suddenly becomes a great civilized nation that will not wage war. The neoconservative agenda gives power to Middle Eastern extremists through their push for democracy in the region. It gives power to HAMAS and Hezbollah. It weakens this country.

 

Buchanan isn't a neocon, he's a wacko.

 

So you're saying that Pat Buchanon is a wacko, when he's a Nixon/Reagon-type conservative. Okay.

 

I'll agree he's wacko on his "family values" crap, but his foreign policies beat the hell out of Bush's.

 

We didn't take enough time for diplomacy to work in Iraq...even though Hussein was using the diplomatic process to toy with the world.

 

We didn't need to do ANYTHING in Iraq. They weren't even a threat. But that's a different debate.

 

The problem with saying, "give diplomacy a chance," like I said before, is that diplomacy requires two rational parties willing to agree on a compromise. HAMAS and Hezbollah have shown in the past that they will compromise and then attack, and then compromise and then attack. About as effective as Neville Chamberlain's Munich Agreement.

 

So start a war... that's the solution? What happens, all the Muslims in the Middle East just decide "hey, let's just give up. They win." Eventually, diplomacy will be the only solution. Unless you can kill radical Islam... which is an idea. Which cannot be killed.

 

Simple: once the terrorists are dead, they are incapable of attacking again.

 

If seems you have a "failure of logic" as well. Clearly, you can't just kill all the terrorists and say "yay, radical Islam is gone!" Because, well, radical Islam is not going away any time soon. It is an idea, not a foreign army that can be fought on the battlefield. That's why the "War on Terrorism" fails so horribly.

 

the only way there will be peace in the Middle East with the Islamic radicals still there is to give them all of the land and let them institute Sha'ria law there.

 

Right. And there's nothing wrong with that. Israel never should have existed. If they want to continue to occupy that land, they have to deal with the continuous violence like civilized people: i.e. not starting wars, not killing civilians, not terrorizing innocents, etc. Otherwise they're no better than the people they're fighting.

 

Then, the Middle East will be at peace, but radical Islam will inevitably spread and start threatening some other area. You seem to forget: the goal of radical Islam is not simply the re-conquest of Jerusalem, it is global domination.

 

As far as we know they want Jerusalem back, and Western powers out of their affairs. These are actually not unreasonable demands... it's the means they use to achieve their goals that are evil.

 

Until I see Islamic revolutions in Europe and the Americas, you have no proof that radical Muslims would attempt to dominate the globe. Of course they would LIKE to, but a lot of conservative Christians would like to see Islam crushed (i.e. Ann Coulter, Tom Tancredo). Is it gonna happen? Hmm... nope.

[rccar328]

TK, I can see that I'm not going to win you over, so I will leave you with this:

 

First, this comment:

Wait... this whole mess didn't even start with the killing of Israel civilians. It started when one Israeli soldier was abducted.

The primary insigator of the current military action was the killing of eight Israeli soldiers and the kidnapping of two by Hezbollah, and a rocket attack by Hezbollah on Israeli towns. But if you think that even that was the start of "this whole mess," you're extremely naive, which I know you are not. According to UN Security Council Resolution 1559, Lebanon was to disband and disarm all militias operating within its borders...including Hezbollah. Obviously, Lebanon has failed to do so. That says to me that not only is Israel justified in retaliating against Hezbollah, but every nation in the United Nations should be defending their actions. So when Hezbollah mounts attack after attack on Israel, they have a choice: they can either give in to Hezbollah's demands, which has been proven to be a failing strategy, or they can make sure, militarily, that Hezbollah will cease to be a threat to them. The only time that Israel will ever be in a position to negotiate with Hezbollah will be after Hezbollah has been beaten into submission (and with Iran and Syria supplying them, that will definitely take quite a beating). And even then, it's more likely than not that Hezbollah will do what it takes to get a cease-fire, lick its wounds, and then bide its time until it is once again in a position to attack Israel.

 

Neocons give the impression that if a country democratically elects its leaders, it suddenly becomes a great civilized nation that will not wage war. The neoconservative agenda gives power to Middle Eastern extremists through their push for democracy in the region. It gives power to HAMAS and Hezbollah. It weakens this country.

If that's what you think, you really are naive. Democracy is not the be-all and end-all. If any nation wants to be treated like a civilized nation, then it has to act like a civilized nation. That's why President Bush, the great touter of democracy, is supporting Israel in this case. Changing the form of government from Sha'ria to democracy, while a step in the right direction, cannot automatically create a civilized nation, and frankly, anyone who thinks that it can or will is just plain stupid. Any nation can have a democratically elected government, but if the citizens under that government elect terrorists such as HAMAS or Hezbollah into power, then there should be no reasonable expectation that the world should treat them as civilized nations just because they held elections. It's simply a fact of life that civilized nations don't elect terrorist organizations into power.

 

As far as we know they want Jerusalem back, and Western powers out of their affairs. These are actually not unreasonable demands... it's the means they use to achieve their goals that are evil.

I would say that getting Jerusalem back is not too unreasonable (except that Israel has shown itself to be much more responsible as a nation than any Islamic state out there), but if they want Western powers out of their affairs, then they have another thing coming. Follow the money: As long as the Islamic world controls the majority of oil in the world, Western nations and Eastern nations will have interests there. Most conservatives and neocons don't want to admit it, but the main reason that any nation has interests in the Middle East is their oil. Without oil, these kinds of religious conflicts would be treated much like the civil wars and ethnic cleansings in Africa: causes for concern, but not enough concern for nations to take action. This is why it's not only in the United States' best interests to have stable, democratic nations in the Middle East, but it's in the best interests of every other civilized nation on the planet (stable being the operative term).

 

Until I see Islamic revolutions in Europe and the Americas, you have no proof that radical Muslims would attempt to dominate the globe. Of course they would LIKE to, but a lot of conservative Christians would like to see Islam crushed (i.e. Ann Coulter, Tom Tancredo). Is it gonna happen? Hmm... nope.

When you see Islamic revolutions in Europe and the Americas, it'll be too late. But lest you forget, radical Islamists do refer to America as "the Great Satan." Israel, to them, is "the Little Satan." If you think they're going to take out Israel and then not move on, you ought to have a nice little reality check coming not long after Israel disappears underneath an Iranian mushroom cloud. There's a reason conservative Christians like Coulter and Tancredo would like to see radical Islamic terrorist scum wiped off the face of the planet: the survival of Western civilization depends on it.

[TK-8252]

Lebanon was to disband and disarm all militias operating within its borders...including Hezbollah. Obviously, Lebanon has failed to do so.

 

Of COURSE they failed to disarm the militia. It's a MILITIA after all. As in not a part of the government. And if you think that a government is so competent that it can convince radical Muslims to lay down their arms, think again.

 

You seem to think, as so many neocons do, that governments can solve all problems. I do not think that. Holding the people of Lebanon responsible for their government's failure to disarm Hezbollah is wrong.

 

Democracy is not the be-all and end-all.

 

And yet that's what the neocons say.

 

If any nation wants to be treated like a civilized nation, then it has to act like a civilized nation.

 

Like Iraq, right? Oops...

 

That's why President Bush, the great touter of democracy, is supporting Israel in this case. Changing the form of government from Sha'ria to democracy, while a step in the right direction

 

No no, that's BAD. For example, we're much better off with Saudi Arabia being a monarchy than having it as a democracy. Why? Because they'd friggin' vote in al-Qaeda there or something similar. Democracy in the Middle East is not going to benefit us.

 

Any nation can have a democratically elected government, but if the citizens under that government elect terrorists such as HAMAS or Hezbollah into power, then there should be no reasonable expectation that the world should treat them as civilized nations just because they held elections.

 

Then why would you ever support Iraq? They voted in a bunch of Shi'ite Islamists who are turning it into an Islamic theocracy. That militia leader, al-Sadr, is wielding politicial power in Iraq. Why should be treat Iraq as a civilized nation just because they had elections?

 

This is why it's not only in the United States' best interests to have stable, democratic nations in the Middle East, but it's in the best interests of every other civilized nation on the planet (stable being the operative term).

 

No it is NOT in our best interests for democracy in the Middle East. That is BAD. They hate us in the Middle East. They vote in people who hate us, i.e. terrorists. The Saudis are evil, but they are friendly to us. Because they're not a democracy.

 

Only when people can prove that they are ready for democracy is it good for them to have it. When they're not ready, you get HAMAS, Iraq, Iran, etc...

 

When you see Islamic revolutions in Europe and the Americas, it'll be too late. But lest you forget, radical Islamists do refer to America as "the Great Satan." Israel, to them, is "the Little Satan." If you think they're going to take out Israel and then not move on, you ought to have a nice little reality check coming not long after Israel disappears underneath an Iranian mushroom cloud.

 

That Islamic revolutions line was more of a joke, but I guess it still holds some purpose. If I see movements to build Islamic states around the world, you're right, but until we see such movement, nuh-uh. I mean, would Muslims really try to turn say, Russia and Japan and other such nations into Muslim states?

 

There's a reason conservative Christians like Coulter and Tancredo would like to see radical Islamic terrorist scum wiped off the face of the planet: the survival of Western civilization depends on it.

 

They don't want just radical Islam destroyed. Coulter after 9/11 said that we should invade every Middle Eastern country, kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity. Tancredo said that bombing Muslim holy sites should be done if terrorists hit the U.S. with nukes. These are not anti-terrorist views... these are anti-Muslim views.

[Char Ell]

I think it's very unfortunate that this thread has somehow turned into a liberal vs. conservative debate...

 

A recount of some pertinent historical details for this issue:

-UN Resolution 181 was passed by the UN General Assembly on 1947 November 29 by a 33-13 vote with 10 abstentions.

In favour: 33

Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against: 13

Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

Abstained: 10

Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

- Resolution 181 called for the establishment of an Arab state and a Jewish state and outlined boundaries for both states. Resolution 181 also directed the city of Jerusalem be administered by the UN as a special regime.

 

If one evaluates the data from an objective viewpoint one can see that even in 1949 the vote markedly was nations having a Christian population in the majority favored the resolution while nations with a Muslim population in the majority were against. I believe the only reason the UK abstained was because it was overseeing Palestine under a UN mandate and wanted to maintain an official position of neutrality. Of course none of the Muslim countries ever recognized the right of Israel to exist.

 

Question: Why wasn't the Arab state created when the Jewish state of Israel was?

 

IMHO the whole Muslim Palestinians (PLO) vs. Jewish Palestinians (Israel) conflict is so deep rooted in the people in that region of the world that there is no way for the matter to be settled peaceably. I only see this millenias-old conflict ending one of three ways. 1) Arab Muslims completely eradicate Palestinian Jews, 2) Palestinian Jews eradicate all Arab Muslims, or 3) the end of the world as we know it. It's as simple as that for me.

So can the Palestinians come back and live on their land then? No? Why not?

Not while Israel is on it of course. Why not? [cowboy drawl]Cuz the town ain't big enuf fer the two of 'em![/cowboy drawl]

I thought it was the exact opposite... but who knows. Frankly, the actions of people 100s of years ago that bear no relation to the current people involved are irrelevant.

I was very disappointed to read this statement. If one considers the historical record one will realize the current Islamic Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iranians, et al. are descendents of the ancient Babylonians, Assyrians, Philistines, etc.. Palestinian Jews are of course descendents of the children of Israel who left Egypt as outlined in the Christian Bible. If one accepts the Bible's historical account then it was Joshua who led the Israelites (ancestors of current Palestinian Jews) into the modern-day Israel, driving out the existing occupants (ancestors of current Palestinian Muslims). So the attitudes of people hundreds and even thousands of years ago have continued to be passed down from generation to generation in this conflict. In essence what we're really talking about here is a 3,000+ years old land dispute. I honestly thought that was fairly common knowledge but I guess I was wrong.

Wait a second, it seems that the Israelis are the ones who believe that if it's their land it's theirs for all eternity. They left (diaspora), and then decided to come back because it's "their" god-given land. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians believe it's "their" land. The difference is, the Israelis were the ones who kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and off their land. All because they thought it is "their" land to begin with

But you seem to favor the idea that Palestine belongs to the Muslims.

In this case, I say to Israel - this is the inevitable consequence for occupying Muslim land.

I honestly think you would find few, if any, Israeli Jews who would say that their ancestors left Palestine by their own choice. The diaspora you refer to was not the Jews leaving because they wanted to. It was because the Jews had been conquered and exiled.

For example, we're much better off with Saudi Arabia being a monarchy than having it as a democracy. Why? Because they'd friggin' vote in al-Qaeda there or something similar. Democracy in the Middle East is not going to benefit us.

I think this is an excellent point and quite true. If the U.S.A. continues on its current campaign of promoting democratic governments in the Middle East it shouldn't complain (or be surprised) if it gets what it wants and newly elected Arab governments thumb their noses at America. On the contrary, American should expect this type of outcome.

[TK-8252]

But you seem to favor the idea that Palestine belongs to the Muslims.

 

Perhaps I do.

 

I honestly think you would find few, if any, Israeli Jews who would say that their ancestors left Palestine by their own choice. The diaspora you refer to was not the Jews leaving because they wanted to. It was because the Jews had been conquered and exiled.

 

I see it this way: you are living in a house on some land, but you lose your job and can't make the payments on it, and you're evicted. Then some new family moves into your house and is living in it. So can you come back and forcibly kick them out of "your" house? No, it's theirs now. You were kicked out, but that doesn't make it right to kick the new people out too.

[Char Ell]

I see it this way: you are living in a house on some land, but you lose your job and can't make the payments on it, and you're evicted. Then some new family moves into your house and is living in it. So can you come back and forcibly kick them out of "your" house? No, it's theirs now. You were kicked out, but that doesn't make it right to kick the new people out too.

Sounds like you're saying two wrongs don't make a right.

 

If this is the way you see it then that's not likely to change. However I don't think your analogy is an accurate representation of events.

 

Modifying your housing analogy to fit my interpretation of the Jewish/Palestinian Arab history of Palestine...

1) My ancestors and your ancestors both claimed ownership of a house.

2) For a time both my ancestors and your ancestors lived in the disputed house.

3) My ancestors of their own accord left the house for a time and lived elsewhere but never relinquished their claim to the house.

3) My ancestors returned to the house, found your ancestors living in it, and decided to kick your ancestors out of it.

4) Your ancestors did not forsake their claim to the house and returned to kick my ancestors out.

5) Repeat steps 3 and 4 two or three times.

5) Your ancestors kicked my ancestors out of the disputed house so far that they didn't return for a very long time.

6) A group of influential individuals took pity upon my homeless family. They decided to exert their influence and took upon themselves the authority to rule on the dispute between your family and mine. There are no records that can substantiate your family's claim to the house over my family's claim and vice versa.

7) This influential group of outsiders determines that the only solution is a compromise. Your family will get half of the house and my family will get the other half.

8) Your family doesn't accept the outsiders' decision. My family of course is happy to get back into at least half of the house.

9) Your family gets some friends together to help them kick my family out of our half of the house.

10) My family not only repels your family's attempt but in the process is able to occupy somewhere between two-thirds to three-quarters of the house, leaving your family with the rest.

11) Your family is not willing to accept my family's presence in any part of the house and still works to find a way to kick my family out.

12) Your family appeals to the influential group of outsiders but the group is no longer to able find enough agreement among its members to make a ruling on the matter.

13) Your family continues in its attempts to harass my family. My family has superior weapons and your family does not currently have the ability to effect my family's eviction.

 

I think this is a fairly accurate analogy of the Palestinian situation.

 

So I pose the following question to you, TK-8252. Let's say tomorrow you woke up and found yourself the Supreme Overlord of Planet Earth. It's a cool title and all but you find that while you have the ability to make judgements you are forced to rely on other parties to enforce your judgements. How would you address the dispute between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews?

[swphreak]

Personally I'm of the opinion that all the major nations should bomb the mother effing crap out of the Middle East, and then split the oil down the middle. Because of the religious extremists and fanatics, there will never be peace in the Middle East.

 

As for the current situation, from what I understand, Hamas is some sort of government terrorist organization, which kidnapped Israeli soldiers. That certainly sounds like an act of war to me, and I applaud Israel for not just indiscriminately bombing the crap out of everything. They're supposedly taking out Hamas targets in civilian areas, not just suicide bombing schools and hospitals.

 

I just hope Bush keeps the U.S. out of it. Just execute the air bridge for U.S. citizens in the area, and watch the show from a distance.

[TK-8252]

How would you address the dispute between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews?

 

Pretty simple. Israel is turned over to the Palestinians.

 

As for the current situation, from what I understand, Hamas is some sort of government terrorist organization, which kidnapped Israeli soldiers. That certainly sounds like an act of war to me, and I applaud Israel for not just indiscriminately bombing the crap out of everything. They're supposedly taking out Hamas targets in civilian areas, not just suicide bombing schools and hospitals.

 

Except this isn't about HAMAS. It's about Israel bombing the **** out of civilian targets in Lebanon. This whole thing was started by HAMAS, but since Hezbollah got involved it seems that Israel decided to kill a bunch of innocent Lebanese civilians and destroy everything. Bomb gas stations, airports, disrupt medical supplies and food, etc. Their goal is to literally terrorize the Lebanese people until they denounce Hezbollah. Yeah like that's gonna happen.

[Char Ell]

Pretty simple. Israel is turned over to the Palestinians.

Yes, a simple solution indeed. But then what happens to the 6 million Palestinian Jews you just evicted? The Palestinian Arabs obviously aren't going to let them hang around. Where will the Israelis go to live out the rest of the miserable lives?

[TK-8252]

Yes, a simple solution indeed. But then what happens to the 6 million Palestinian Jews you just evicted? The Palestinian Arabs obviously aren't going to let them hang around. Where will the Israelis go to live out the rest of the miserable lives?

 

Divide up the Israeli government's wealth among the people and have the UN countries accept Israeli immigrants. 'Course this wouldn't happen, because pretty much all the UN can do is make condemnation statements. Sigh.

[Char Ell]

^^^

It is indeed fortunate for the Israelis that you're not Supreme Overlord of Planet Earth.

[swphreak]

Except this isn't about HAMAS. It's about Israel bombing the **** out of civilian targets in Lebanon. This whole thing was started by HAMAS, but since Hezbollah got involved it seems that Israel decided to kill a bunch of innocent Lebanese civilians and destroy everything. Bomb gas stations, airports, disrupt medical supplies and food, etc. Their goal is to literally terrorize the Lebanese people until they denounce Hezbollah. Yeah like that's gonna happen.

 

Terrorise the terrorist, oh my!

 

What about said terrorist organisations launching rockets at Israeli cities? It seems to me like they're just bombing the crap out of everything.

 

Israel is supposedly attacking terrorist locations. It just so happens that the terrorist are cowering behind civilians. So Israel has to shoot through them.

[TK-8252]

Terrorise the terrorist, oh my!

 

Innocent Lebanese civilians are not terrorists.

 

What about said terrorist organisations launching rockets at Israeli cities? It seems to me like they're just bombing the crap out of everything.

 

That's why they're the bad guys. But everyone seems to think that Israel is doing nothing wrong when they do the exact same things that the bad guys do. Makes them worse in my eyes, because they are doing these things under the guise of legitimacy and being the "good guys" in all of this.

 

Israel is supposedly attacking terrorist locations.

 

Right, like gas stations, power plants, and airports right?

 

It just so happens that the terrorist are cowering behind civilians. So Israel has to shoot through them.

 

So the ends justify the means? If anything has been learned throughout history, it's that they don't.

 

It's called "special forces." If you know where the terrorists are, go CAPTURE them, rather than blowing them up along with the rest of the city. It's sad how they decide that it's okay to kill innocent children living next door to a suspected terrorist building. Raid the building, stop being lazy, sloppy soldiers. In Iraq we don't blow up all of Baghdad when there are suspected insurgents there, we raid their buildings and bring them into custody.

[Tinny]

I heard they drop pamphlets though on the civilian areas they plan to hit. Should we request the militant palestinians that they warn civilians living in areas of future terrorist attacks?

[Nancy Allen``]

Raid the building, stop being lazy, sloppy soldiers. In Iraq we don't blow up all of Baghdad when there are suspected insurgents there, we raid their buildings and bring them into custody.

 

Iraq proved this is one pf the most dangerous things you can do, but you're right, rather than resort to the methods they have been using Israel should used their much vaunted special forces to raid terrorist hideouts, rather than resort to the obsolete method of fighting that America utilises no matter how much shock and awe you dress it up with.

[Point Man]

It's called "special forces." If you know where the terrorists are, go CAPTURE them, rather than blowing them up along with the rest of the city. It's sad how they decide that it's okay to kill innocent children living next door to a suspected terrorist building. Raid the building, stop being lazy, sloppy soldiers. In Iraq we don't blow up all of Baghdad when there are suspected insurgents there, we raid their buildings and bring them into custody.

Okay, let someone with actual military experience step in here.

 

1) We are able to do that in Iraq because we are in the country. We can surround the insurgent's nests to prevent escape. Israel does not have a large presence there to do that.

 

2) These Hezbollah terrorists are highly mobile. You have to strike while the iron is hot. Missiles and artillery are much quicker than sending in special ops forces. If they could capture the terrorists, believe me, they would. You gain much more intelligence from captured enemies than dead enemies.

 

3) Every military leader has an obligation to protect his troops. If you can eliminate the enemy without placing your own soldiers at risk, you choose that option. As Nancy said, ground-based urban warfare is incredibly dangerous.

 

Choosing the most effective method to eliminate your enemy while protecting your troops is not "being lazy, sloppy soldiers". It's smart tactics.

[TK-8252]

1) We are able to do that in Iraq because we are in the country. We can surround the insurgent's nests to prevent escape. Israel does not have a large presence there to do that.

 

Then go in covertly, undercover. You don't need to roll out the tanks.

 

2) These Hezbollah terrorists are highly mobile. You have to strike while the iron is hot. Missiles and artillery are much quicker than sending in special ops forces. If they could capture the terrorists, believe me, they would. You gain much more intelligence from captured enemies than dead enemies.

 

Yes, it's quicker. It's also more likely to slaughter a bunch of Canadian citizens stranded in Lebanon (airport was bombed... twice). That just happened earlier today. I guess their lives don't matter, as long as you're kicking that terrorist ass!

 

If you can eliminate the enemy without placing your own soldiers at risk, you choose that option. As Nancy said, ground-based urban warfare is incredibly dangerous.

 

Using this logic, nuking an entire country to kill off its terrorists would be an option.

 

Would you say that the ends justify the means?

 

Choosing the most effective method to eliminate your enemy while protecting your troops is not "being lazy, sloppy soldiers". It's smart tactics.

 

Protecting your troops... have you ever thought about protecting innocent civilians? Children?

 

Frankly, your logic seems to be the exact same logic as suicide bombers. If you can eliminate or disrupt your enemy in the most efficient way possible, do it. And if that means strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up civilians on a bus or in a school, it gets the job done, right? Even if it's evil and destructive.

[Char Ell]

You make some valid points TK-8252 but you still turn a blind eye to the tactics used by Hamas and Hezbollah, e.g. suicide bombers.

 

I don't agree with how the Israelis are attacking the Beirut airport as I'm pretty sure Lebanon doesn't have any attack aircraft to speak of. I'm not sure they're using good intelligence when targeting their attacks in Lebanon. I do think the Israelis are using excessive force and are not helping their cause in the eyes of the international community.

 

The fact of the matter is that a state of war has opened up in Palestine and atrocities are occurring on both sides, like the indiscriminate rocket attack Hezbollah launched that killed 8 Israeli civilians. If Hezbollah thought it could pull a Hamas and kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers without retribution from the Israeli military, then Hezbollah was sorely mistaken. Of course it seems like you think Israel should just bend over and take it.

 

The old adage "all is fair in love and war" does have the ring of truth to it, does it not?

[TK-8252]

You make some valid points TK-8252 but you still turn a blind eye to the tactics used by Hamas and Hezbollah, e.g. suicide bombers.

 

I thought I mentioned such tactics in my last post...

 

The fact of the matter is that a state of war has opened up in Palestine

 

I'm talking about Lebanon, though.

 

Of course it seems like you think Israel should just bend over and take it.

 

It seems other people here seem to think that Lebanon should just bend over and take it. I've never suggested that Israel should take the **** that suicide bombers and kidnappers feed them. I've suggested that they not do things like, well, slaughter innocent people, destroy civilian infastructive, and generally **** up everything. The terrorists are good at doing those things... Israel has to be better than them if they want to remain the "good guys" in all of this. Resorting to their tactics = bad.

 

If you just look at the numbers, Israel has killed FAR more civilians in this than Hezbollah has. I think it's time they pull back on their bomb-the-****-out-of-everything operations.

 

The old adage "all is fair in love and war" does have the ring of truth to it, does it not?

 

Well, that was before we had things like Geneva Conventions and war crimes tribunals.

[Char Ell]

Yes, I understand you're talking about Lebanon. I most definitely intended my reference to Palestine being in a state of war to include Lebanon.

It seems other people here seem to think that Lebanon should just bend over and take it. I've never suggested that Israel should take the **** that suicide bombers and kidnappers feed them. I've suggested that they not do things like, well, slaughter innocent people, destroy civilian infastructive, and generally **** up everything. The terrorists are good at doing those things... Israel has to be better than them if they want to remain the "good guys" in all of this. Resorting to their tactics = bad.

I don't find anything I disagree with in this statement. Israel is definitely not taking the high road in this situation.

If you just look at the numbers, Israel has killed FAR more civilians in this than Hezbollah has. I think it's time they pull back on their bomb-the-****-out-of-everything operations.

From published media reports it does seem like Israeli attacks have killed a lot more civilians than Hezbollah attacks. However I think we would do well to remember that a member of Hezbollah doesn't exactly stand out in a crowd of Lebanese. As far as I can tell Hezbollah are members of the Lebanese community who have decided to fight against Israel. They live and work alongside Lebanese who aren't pursuing attacks against Israel. So it becomes difficult to discern if a death resulting from an Israeli attack is a true civilian death or a militant civilian death. This is one of the disadvantages of guerrilla warfare. Regardless I think Israel has crossed the justifiable line of response. I would be very surprised if it's captured soldiers are still alive at this point, both in Gaza and in Lebanon.

Well, that was before we had things like Geneva Conventions and war crimes tribunals.

Perhaps so but have you ever noticed that the victor is the one that convenes the war crime tribunal and rare is the occasion when a leader from the victorious side is tried for war crimes? A debate for a different thread, I suppose...

[TK-8252]

Here's something interesting: on Fox Faux News I just heard that eight Lebanese army soldiers were killed in an Israeli rocket attack... ON THEIR BASE. They bombed a Lebanese army base because they say they wanted to blow up a radar station in it.

 

Did they even bother to ask Lebanon, "hey guys, could you move your guys out of that base? We wanna blow the **** out of it."

[Nancy Allen``]

I thought this was rather appropriate, unlike the one on the Mohammed cartoons.

 

 

Also...

 

[Samnmax221]

I found the Mohammed cartoon very appropriate

[Nancy Allen``]

In terms of accurate criticism of Islam, certainly. In terms of continuing to attack the issue, such as the cartoon I posted of Miss Piggy, Porky Pig, Piglet and other cartoon pigs waving around the cartoons to upset Muslims (the same people who made that made the two Israel ones here) then no. I covered my feelings on it in the Muslim Outrage at Mohammed Cartoons thread.