So, what is the difference....

[tw]

Originally Posted by Brianna

That's my confusion, too. tw says Washington ordered Israel to fight Hzb.

No it was not tw's exact words and it misrepresents - big time - the Israel / American relationship. You did not read carefully and you still do not yet understand that relationship.

The US may not have recommended it. But US permission to attack and invade Lebanon – complete with Condi Rice running interference for Israel – is obvious.

If not careful with such details, then Brianna could easily arrive at obviously erroneous conclusions such as:

... it is fucking stupid to ASSUME that the enemy (Israel) would do what it always did in response to kidnapped soldiers.

You see, Brianna, Israel did the reverse- traded kidnapped soldiers for prisoners. You apparently did not know basic details. Even the most militaristic Sharon authorized such trades. You assumed without first grasping details. What I said is also significantly different from what you summarized:

tw says Washington ordered Israel to fight Hzb.

Your mistake implies insufficient grasp of numerous details in this Middle East conflict and relationships. Had you a grasp of the relationships, then you would have better comprehended what was posted, not reposted what I wrote in such gross error - AND why Israel is proxy for a Cheney doctrine.

Somehow you know better and yet don't even understand basic details of a US / Israeli relationship? Credibility? Insufficient grasp of history and facts? Your post implies, at minimum, naivety. Not an insult. Just straight technical analysis. Somehow you know what I have posted is wrong, and yet don't even know basic and obvious facts of this American / Israeli relationship.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

So the fact he spoke in English to demand ceasefire at Rice is proof that this particular action is directed from Washington?

That he made those claims bluntly in English and let reporters know who he was talking too: Condi Rice is opposing any ceasefire.

OK UT. I put up facts. Your response is denial after denial without facts and without apparently knowledge of what Fouad Siniora said and intended. You know better than reporters on site? Fine. Then prove that Condi Rice wants a ceasefire. Prove to everyone that Fouad Siniora is wrong - that Condi Rice opposes a ceasefire. Prove to all that Fouad Siniora spoke in a foreign language - only to be cute?

It was not riddles then. You apparently did not learn what was common knowledge.

But you know something more? Let's hear it. Show us how the Cheney doctrine is not again showing its ugly head. Show me, UT.

Show me one example where the US even tried to stop this war? You cannot.

UT, you don’t even deny this previous post. According to your replies, then you must have facts. Show us these facts that somehow no one possesses. Show us how and why the US even tried to stop this war - and yet somehow bluntly refused to call for a ceasefire?

Somehow you know the George Jr administration wants to stop the annihilation of Hezbollah - in direct contradiction to a Cheney doctrine. Show us. Numerous examples already posted say otherwise. OK. Show us.

[Undertoad]

The Bush administration didn't move for a cease-fire. I never suggested that they did.

Denial after denial - are you insane?

Again, how is this proof this entire action is directed from Washington?

If we are so confused as to not understand, simply explain how you have deduced this.

Premise, premise, conclusion. Think in a straight line. You can do this.

[JayMcGee]

Whilst there is no proof that the action is directed by Washington, even the ostriches acknowledge that it has more than tacit approval from the self-same.

The USA see's no advantage in a cease-fire when the dead are mostly towel-heads (give Hezbollah some *really* effective rockets and then watch the US scream for a cease-fire).... at the mo, they can see the best of both worlds....


sell the IDF more smart bombs to knock down more buildings....


then sell the reconstruction rights....


America, doing what it does best...

protecting and promoting American interests...

[tw]

Originally Posted by JayMcGee

The USA see's no advantage in a cease-fire when the dead are mostly towel-heads (give Hezbollah some *really* effective rockets and then watch the US scream for a cease-fire).... at the mo, they can see the best of both worlds....

Now take Israel's perspective. What the hell is wrong with Israeli leadership? Having gotten into this mess, Israel should have been overloading the conflict with division after division. Ground troops as fast as delivered to the border. Who in Israel is so misguided as to think this conflict would be solved with airpower, limited forays, and time? Israel's own leadership acts as if someone else (Lebanon Army, US diplomacy, or an international peace force) will do hard work for them; as if airpower will cause a solution.

Indecision or stalling by Israeli leadership completely confuses me. It makes no sense for Israel to not attack with everything as fast as possible. Every day that Israel does not consolidate its position only works against Israel. And yet Israel just sits there without troops on the ground in mass numbers.

There must be more to this Israeli indecisiveness. And yet, that is what Israel is doing. Israel acts as if air power would solve their problems. That is either misguided leadership or wishful prayers. Every day this conflict progresses makes life for both Israel and its sponsor more difficult. Why is Israel not invading with everything ASAP? Only reason that makes sense is a leadership that thought airstrikes would somehow cause a solution to happen maybe because they tried to minimize Israeli casualties, or maybe due to promises made by Washington, or maybe because Israel's current leadership has not yet asked itself some damning questions.

Israel must say, "As many Israeli casualties as is necessary to purge the land of Hezbollah". Israel has not yet admitted that was necessary more than a week ago. Either move everything or do nothing. Currently, Israel is even recruiting for Hezbollah because Israeli military actions are that indecisive. Currently, Israel's ineffectiveness is also making both Israel and America look bad and making Hezbollah look good.

[xoxoxoBruce]

America, doing what it does best...protecting and promoting American interests...

What country does not put their interests first?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by JayMcGee

Whilst there is no proof that the action is directed by Washington, even the ostriches acknowledge that it has more than tacit approval from the self-same.

There's no particular reason to disapprove of it. Why shouldn't Israel defend itself? What other country would not under the same circumstances?

This is such bullshit..."you're being attacked by an army of terrorists but it's immoral for you to fight back". By giving Hizbulla special untouchable status since they claim to be b "a legitimate part of Lebanon" but when it comes to me to be accountable for thier military action suddenly all people in the war zone north of the border are magically "innocent civilians"...and that's somehow *Israel's* fault.

Youd better check the law by which you're claiming "war crimes"...hiding combatants amoing civilian populations is a war crime. It's exactly the same tactic as when Saddam put a civilian shelter on the floors above his command and control center in Baghdad during the first Gulf War.

[xoxoxoBruce]

TW, maybe be Jay, along who knows how many others, are confused because you misled them.

You said in post 124

But this time, word came from Washington to Israel - use the final solution. Attack and kill all Hezbollah and this problem will be solved.
Don't think for one minute that Washington did not either approve or recommend this solution.

First a damning statement of the US, then a slightly modified, but still damning, statement that the US ordered or gave permission, for this war.

When Brianna asked for proof, you, in post 128, tried to shift the burden of proof to others, then said

The US may not have recommended it. But US permission to attack and invade Lebanon – complete with Condi Rice running interference for Israel – is obvious.

Hmm..obvious...that implies anyone that asks for proof of your statement, isn't as smart as you and your sources....doesn't see the big picture....doesn't understand how the middle east works. But that's evading the fact you have no proof.

In post 134, UT said in response to your trying to shift the burden of proof;

So the fact he spoke in English to demand ceasefire at Rice is proof that this particular action is directed from Washington?

And Brianna in post 135 again asked;

That's my confusion, too. tw says Washington ordered Israel to fight Hzb. To enact a Final Solution--tw's words.
His proof of this is that the Lebanese PM spoke in English to demand a ceasefire to Condi. How does that equal orders FROM Washington TO Israel?

Fair questions, I think. But then you respond in post 136

No it was not tw's exact words and it misrepresents - big time - the Israel / American relationship. You did not read carefully
and you still do not yet understand that relationship.

If not careful with such details, then Brianna could easily arrive at obviously erroneous conclusions such as:

You see, Brianna, Israel did the reverse- traded kidnapped soldiers for prisoners. You apparently did not know basic details.
Even the most militaristic Sharon authorized such trades. You assumed without first grasping details. What I said is also significantly
different from what you summarized:

Your mistake implies insufficient grasp of numerous details in this Middle East conflict and relationships. Had you a grasp of the relationships, then you would have better comprehended what was posted, not reposted what I wrote in such gross error - AND why Israel is proxy for a Cheney doctrine.

Somehow you know better and yet don't even understand basic details of a US / Israeli relationship? Credibility? Insufficient grasp of history and facts? Your post implies, at minimum, naivety. Not an insult. Just straight technical analysis. Somehow you know what I have posted is wrong, and yet don't even know basic and obvious facts of this American / Israeli relationship.

Still no proof, just a tap dance worthy of the Apollo Theater, attacking the questioner and trying to direct the discourse to other issues.

Might I suggest, when asked for proof of your indictment of the US, if you had just said,..... OK, I misspoke in that first comment by saying, "But this time, word came from Washington to Israel - use the final solution. Attack and kill all Hezbollah and this problem will be solved." but, it's a reasonable assumption because, blah, blah, blah.
I think that, by explaining the statement was not a fact, but was a logical conclusion on your part from the information available, would have been a better solution.

Sure, I'm nit picking. Because damning statements like that stick in people's minds as fact. That's misleading the great unwashed that look up to you as the definitive trusted source of what's right and wrong in the universe. You owe it to your disciples, to lead them unerringly to the ultimate truth.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by JayMcGee

Whilst there is no proof that the action is directed by Washington, even the ostriches acknowledge that it has more than tacit approval from the self-same.

The USA see's no advantage in a cease-fire when the dead are mostly towel-heads (give Hezbollah some *really* effective rockets and then watch the US scream for a cease-fire).... at the mo, they can see the best of both worlds....


sell the IDF more smart bombs to knock down more buildings....


then sell the reconstruction rights....


America, doing what it does best...

protecting and promoting American interests...

color mine for emphasis
I do acknowlege that the present administration would seem to wrongly conflate personal with national interests, in general if not specific to this. tw has a point about the complexity of this situation. It pushes me further into the camp of those who would pull back from a world which will damn us no matter what we attempt. Nurturing hate world-wide isn't good for our people or our business. Bailing Europe out three times has cost us our soul, now we are becoming what we fought.

[Hippikos]

Mags, do you have moral equivalency police duty this week?

I'm sorry, how could I forget y'all live on moral highground.

Meanwhile Hezbollah rains down rockets quite literally randomly on Israel without the vaguest pretense of attacking anything military thereby. All IDF is doing is trying to stop them, which is their right.

Meanwhile the IDF is killing Lebanese civillians randomly with a rate of 40:1. Reminds me of Lidice.

IDF is not targeting civilians, nor would it be to their advantage to do so. They are doing their best to attack only military targets. Note that the convention states

This remark shows that either the IDF is making a complete mess of it, or you eat all propaganda the Israeli government is spooning you...

The IDF "precision" bombs a place from where it thinks Katusha rockets has been fired, no matter if and how many civillians are killed. Not only the Arabs but especially Israel has a long list of collateral damage.

[glatt]

A neighborhood in Beruit. Images taken two weeks apart.

Stolen from Washington Post.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by glatt

A neighborhood in Beruit. Images taken two weeks apart.

Are you claiming that image is representative of the entire city? Or is that the site of a military target cherrypicked from available data?

I note that the surrounding area appears to be untouched.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by glatt

A neighborhood in Beruit. Images taken two weeks apart.

...

C'mon! That's on the back lot of a hollywood studio, right beside the Tranquilty Base and holocaust sets [/sarcasm]

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Meanwhile the IDF is killing Lebanese civillians randomly with a rate of 40:1. Reminds me of Lidice.

Source please? Especially for the claim of "randomness". Speaking of eating propaganda.

Of course if there's 80 civilians clustered around every rocket launcher with a crew of two that wouldn't be surprising. The "60 civilians" at Quana turned out to be actually 20 women and children. Curiously enough there were *no* men killed. I'm sure that's the IDF's fault too; they obviously have a weapon that preferentially kills women and children.

Maybe that launcher only needed one terrorist to load it and 20 women and children to shield it.

[Ibby]

I'm actually impressed with -- nay, in awe of -- tw's ability to dance this mess around (I mean, uh, dance around this mess) like that.