Hezbollah night-vision gear manufactured in Britain

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

And none of them do it for political reasons?

Those are political reasons.

[Happy Monkey]

If you say so. How about:

And none of them do it for reasons based on US (and other) foreign policy in the Middle East?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I'll buy that's one of the prime motivating factors for the leaders but I doubt it causes many rank and file terrorists/homicide bombers to sign up.

I think you underestimate the effect of cultural globalization and what a powerful force it is.

Look at what lengths Indian culture goes to to simultaneously adopt(offshoring) and resist(Bollywood, Pepsi) western culture, for example...and in that case there not even as significant a religious dissonance or language barrier, although admittedly there still is something of a language barrier.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

If you say so. How about:

And none of them do it for reasons based on US (and other) foreign policy in the Middle East?

Which is a codeword for "supporting Israel". Which brings us back to "jihad" again.

I don't think we should give any group veto power over our foriegn policy just because they're willing to become terrorists. Once you pay the Danegeld, you'll never be rid of the Dane.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Which is a codeword for "supporting Israel".

No. Israel policy is a big part, but it's far from the only one. The Middle East has been a political laboratory for various western powers for decades.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Indeed the *title* of the fatwa was "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places". But *read* the fatwa--he demands much more than "no US troops in Saudi";

MaggieL conveniently forgets to list those demands. Make a proclamation and don't bother with details. Radio Moscow did exact same thing on shortwave. MaggieL posts right wing (Rush Limbaugh) propaganda.

US was not a target of Muslim Brotherhood extremists until America did what offended them. We promised to leave after rescuing Kuwait - and we did not as detailed accurately in another post that MaggieL would rather not respond to. We promised to leave Saudi Arabia and we did not. Offended Islamic extremists, in the name of Allah, took revenge. Only an American extremist would ignore that fact to proclaim the world in 'black and white'. Only an extremist would claim other reasons exist and not list those reasons. MaggieL posts soundbytes because she cannot defend her political agenda. MaggieL even approves of extraordinary rendition and torture - as if that also makes America safe.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

MaggieL conveniently forgets to list those demands.

Not at all. When I quote things you've referenced you don't even recognize them anyway, so that's pointless.

Go read them for yourself.


By the way, I'm not bound to respond every time you feel lonely and ignored enough to chain-post another 20k of calumny in hopes that if it's a personal-enough attack I'll respond to it. I have a job, a family and other activities that place higher-priority demands on my time than chasing you around the bush yet another time.

[Hippikos]

From the Horse´s mouth, MaggieL:

"In Lebanon, we covered entire villages with cluster bombs, what we did there was crazy and monstrous," testifies a commander in the Israel Defense Forces' MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) unit. Quoting his battalion commander, he said the IDF fired some 1,800 cluster rockets on Lebanon during the war and they contained over 1.2 million cluster bombs. The IDF also used cluster shells fired by 155 mm artillery cannons, so the number of cluster bombs fired on Lebanon is even higher. At the same time, soldiers in the artillery corps testified that the IDF used phosphorous shells, which many experts say is prohibited by international law. According to the claims, the overwhelming majority of the weapons mentioned were fired during the last ten days of the war.

The commander asserted that there was massive use of MLRS rockets despite the fact that they are known to be very inaccurate - the rockets' deviation from the target reaches to around 1,200 meters - and that a substantial percentage do not explode and become mines. Due to these facts, most experts view cluster ammunitions as a "non-discerning" weapon that is prohibited for use in a civilian environment. The percentage of duds among the rockets fired by the U.S. army in Iraq reached 30 percent and the United Nations' land mine removal team in Lebanon claims that the percentage of duds among the rockets fired by the IDF reaches some 40 percent. In light of these figures, the number of duds left behind by the Israeli cluster rockets in Lebanon is likely to reach half a million.

According to the commander, in order to compensate for the rockets' imprecision, the order was to "flood" the area with them. "We have no option of striking an isolated target, and the commanders know this very well," he said. He also stated that the reserve soldiers were surprised by the use of MLRS rockets, because during their regular army service, they were told these are the IDF's "judgment day weapons" and intended for use in a full-scale war.

The commander also said that at least in one case, they were asked to fire cluster rockets toward "a village's outskirts" in the early morning: "They told us that this is a good time because people are coming out of the mosques and the rockets would deter them." In other cases, they fired the rockets at a range of less than 15 kilometers, even though the manufacturer's guidelines state that firing at this range considerably increases the number of duds. The commander further related that during IDF training exercises hardly any live rockets are fired, for fear that they would leave duds behind and fill the IDF's firing grounds with mines.
"

More here...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Hippikos, I deleted the duplicate post.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

From the Horse´s mouth...

An unattributed, anonymous quote isn't exactly "the horses mouth". And a Google search of Meron Rappaport's work casts serious doubt on his objectivity.

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

An unattributed, anonymous quote isn't exactly "the horses mouth". And a Google search of Meron Rappaport's work casts serious doubt on his objectivity.

Your reference to objectivity makes me laugh. And as usual you're attacking the writer and not the article itself. Haaretz is a respected long lasting paper. What has been written connects seamlessly with what has been found in Lebanon, or do you deny cluster bombs have been found?

[MaggieL]

[quote=Hippikos]And as usual you're attacking the writer and not the article itself. QUOTE]Pointing out that the quote is anonymous is about *the article*...and this makes the writer's motivations germane. That cluster munitions were used is not in dispute...the dispute is *how*--for which we have only Rappaport's anonymous source along with the source's hearsay about what his superior said.

That cluster munitions were used doesn't make the quote from Rappaport's anonymous source "fit seamlessly". If the anonymous source claimed an IDF soldier executed a pregnant 14-year old Lebanese girl with a point-blank pistol shot to the head, would you then say that charge "fit seamlessly" with the fact that IDF troops carry pistols?

You can laugh if you like, but I think objectivity is important in a journalist. You may be more interested in the political usefulness of sources like Rappaport and Fisk, who seem to beleve their job is enforcing their morality rather than reporting facts.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by jay

...but we do truely believe that you are heading down the wrong path. Each of your actions makes more enemies and reduces the numbers of your friends.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

May I ask, which three actions are the most offending?

Didn't get an answer to this Jay?

[Hippikos]

So MaggieL, all you did was googling on Meron Rapaport in order to confirm your own bias against all news that was negative against Israel and the IDF. Indeed you found that Rapaport has written more information about Israel and the IDF that was negative and immediately decided that he was making the story up. You know as much as I do how military who bring out this kind of information are being treated.

Dragging a pregnant 14 yeat old Lebanese girl into the discussion is useless and only mudding the water.

Finally, it became hilarious seeing you accusing Rapaport and Fisk about enforcing their morality. Isn't that exactly what you did all these pages? Do you have the exclusivity for enforcing morality?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

You know as much as I do how military who bring out this kind of information are being treated.

Of course I do. But you claimed it was "the horse's mouth"; I was pointing out we have only the reporter's assurance that it was in fact a horse, much less his mouth.

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Dragging a pregnant 14 yeat old Lebanese girl into the discussion is useless and only mudding the water.

Not at all, it points out what a logically bankrupt move it is to say "IDF had this weapon, therefore it supports the claim that it must have been used in the heineous way described by an anonymous source". That's called "affrirming the consequent".

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Finally, it became hilarious seeing you accusing Rapaport and Fisk about enforcing their morality. Isn't that exactly what you did all these pages? Do you have the exclusivity for enforcing morality?

But you see, I'm not a journalist, tasked with objectively reporting the facts. If I were, I'd have an obligation to be objective. Although Fisk has already discliamed that; he unblushingly admits he's an advocate...and Rappaport's reporting seems to me to speak for itself on that score as well.

So when one advocate simply quotes another advocate, it's a circular argument. It's not evidence.