Middle East erupts
So far it seems we have successfully avoiding a thread on the topic, so here it is.
FWIW, blogger Michael Totten foresaw this in
April, in his two-parter,
"Everything Could Explode at any Moment"
Lisa and I met Israeli Defense Forces Spokesman Zvika Golan at a base in the north near the border. He told us to follow him in his jeep as he drove to a lookout point next to an IDF watch tower that opened up over Lebanon.
“You aren’t safe here right now,” he said.
“I know,” I said. “The Lebanese army wouldn’t let me anywhere near the border two weeks ago. What’s going on?”
“Hezbollah is planning an operation,” he said.
“How do you know?” I said.
“We know,” he said and nodded.
I knew he was right. The Lebanese intelligence officer more or less told me the same thing. He didn’t say the threat was from Hezbollah, but he didn’t have to.
“What do you think about all this?” I said.
“We really want the Lebanese army on this border,” he said.
Lebanon and Israel technically have been at war for many decades. But Israel and Lebanon have never actually fought any battles. Israel has been involved in plenty of fighting in Lebanon, but none of it ever involved the Lebanese army or government. Neither side has ever actually fired on the other. Neither side wants to. All Israel’s Lebanon battles were waged against the PLO and Hezbollah.
“Are you in contact with the Lebanese government?” I said.
“We pass messages to the Lebanese army through the UN,” he said.
“How well are they received?” I said.
“Oh, they’re received very well,” he said. “The only problem is the Lebanese army can’t act against Hezbollah.”
A little W sponsored democracy/nation building sure helps a region's stability! [/sarcasm]
If you think everything has already exploded, what happens if Iran bought an off-the-shelf nuke from North Korea (think they're hungry enough to sell one?) and sticks it in a Raad like the one they just shot into Haifa from Lebanon?
A little W sponsored democracy/nation building sure helps a region's stability! [/sarcasm]
Oh, I keep forgetting: everything is Bush's fault.
I'm effin' pissed at Israel, that's for sure, but it's not TOTALLY their fault... no single person can really be blamed for all this, unless you go back a LONNNNNG way. Further back than i wanna think right now.
Certainly Israel has a siege mentality. But can you blame them?
Oh, I keep forgetting: everything is Bush's fault.
Things haven't quite gone according to his plan, have they?
Dammit, I'm with Maggs on this one. This is way beyond Bush, he was just a kid when this all started, and it wasnt HIM that set off this particular outburst, it was the kiddnappers.
Hey, anyone wanna make a wager with me? I'll bet all the money I have (all twenty dollars of it) that Israel's gonna be levelled (well, maybe not levelled, but pretty damn beat up) by the end of the year.
I'll take that bet. How about a side bet that Israel threatens Damascus by year end. Tell me W wouldn't be behind that all the way.
W didn't cause this current situation. But he and his neocon pals, wearing their republinders, thought that kicking some ass in Afghanistan and Iraq and setting up "democracies", would influence the region to become more western (?) human-rights-oriented (?) civilized (?). It hasn't. Like the anticipated flowers in the streets of Bagdad with Iraqis welcoming our military as saviors, he had a misconception of how his actions in the region would affect the people who live there. He point to Libya's change of heart (initiated by the Clinton administration) as an indication of his policies' effectiveness. The current mess, and the Palestinian elections have shown that he is clueless.
I'll bet all the money I have (all twenty dollars of it) that Israel's gonna be levelled (well, maybe not levelled, but pretty damn beat up) by the end of the year.
somebodys going to be leveled and it aint going to be us....and you know what? I am at the level of not caring. I think most of us Americans are just tired of the whole damn deal. Let's blow everyone away and just live in peace again.
:rolleyes: , or not
Spexxvet, that only shows that bush didn't make this NOT happen. Last time I checked, it wasn't the president's reponsibility to not let any country, ever, anywhere, fight anyone else. Bush didn't stop this from happening like he may or may not have been trying to do, but either way, you can't blame him for that.
Damn I sound stupid defending bush... but it is true.
I still think we should give the whole area to China. If these people (I use the term loosely) can't get their collective shit together, then the whole region should be run by as a-religious a goverment as we have available to us. China is a natural choice. The Chinese government could give a damn about the so called "Holy Land", they'd just use the wailing wall as a nice place to line up dissidents and feed them hot lead sandwiches. Hezbollah getting you down? Watch them disappear. Mossad keeping you up at nights? Guess who's carcasses we're using to fertilize the desert. Civil rights violations? Yes, have some. You want that with fried rice?
Buncha 'tards...
Spexxvet, that only shows that bush didn't make this NOT happen. Last time I checked, it wasn't the president's reponsibility to not let any country, ever, anywhere, fight anyone else. Bush didn't stop this from happening like he may or may not have been trying to do, but either way, you can't blame him for that.
Damn I sound stupid defending bush... but it is true.
Exactly. Read my posts. I never said it was W's fault. I sarcastically pointed out that W's plan has NOT stabilized the region, as he has at least insinuated it would. Can you show me where I said it was W's fault?
The Middle East will be unstable no matter what anyone does.
Like red Twizzlers being the superior product, it just is.
How can Armageddon start otherwise?
You brought him into it; there was no point in that in the first place.
It may have been pointless, but I didn't say he caused it.
Ethenol, wind, solar, nuke...
Does it still seem like a good idea to stick with fossil fuels and all the political implications of? (ow bad construction) We are presently caught up in this because our two political parties are profoundly corrupted by oil and military dollars. It seems to me that we could get the Feds out of our pockets and our people out of the mid-east with a few bold and inexpensive strokes.
With every explosion, $ signs are flashing in the eyes of Big Oil CEO's everywhere. New record profits to be reported next quarter.
It is only a matter of time before some strike on an American target of opportunity will occur in Lebanon. I think it is wise to get our people out. Wouldn't be nearly the first time that had happened in such a conflict.
"...political implications thereof."
"...and all their attending political implications."
etc...
It may have been pointless, but I didn't say he caused it.
Like much Bush-bashing, it turns out to not actually survive close examination. But it felt good to say it at the time, and created a feeling of warm, smug cameraderie amongst the True Beleivers.
snip~ Last time I checked, it wasn't the president's reponsibility to not let any country, ever, anywhere, fight anyone else.
It seems we've had some President's that didn't know that. ;)
Israel won't be flattened....they may all die of radiation poisoning but it won't be flattened. The west will step in before that happens. I don't know if they'll step in before the Israelis nuke their neighbors, though.
Like much Bush-bashing, it turns out to not actually survive close examination. But it felt good to say it at the time, and created a feeling of warm, smug cameraderie amongst the True Beleivers.
Actually, what I stated has held up. W wants to increase stabilty in the Middle East through democratization, and western influence. It hasn't worked (smugly). In fact, the middle east is less stable than it was before the invasion of Iraq.
I said my post may have been pointless. Let me rephrase, and say it may not have been germane to the thread. It had a point, which was Bush Bashing. It felt good to say it at the time, and created a feeling of warm, smug cameraderie amongst us True Beleivers. ;)
It sounds to me as if the Bush bashers are not the only ones with their ladles in the Kool-Ade.
I can't figure out what 25,000 Americans are doing in that God-forsaken place anyway.
This situation is escalating by the hour. Sure would be nice if we could just stay the hell out of it for once.
How can Armageddon start otherwise?
...... I could shoot you in the back of the head with a bb gun when you're not looking.......
Nonono, that would start ragnarok, funkykule. You know, when the Giants fight the Gods?
not familiar with that one...i'm assuming i'm the giant and wolf is the god, in which case, are you calling me fat?:D
It wouldn't just be both of you, it would escalate... it always does, doesnt it? she'll get her head-doctor buddies after you... you'll get your friends... etc.
Ragnarok is the North End Myth.
Oh. I thought it came from Dr. Who.
I still think we should give the whole area to China ... the whole region should be run by as a-religious a goverment as we have available to us.
Seems to me the Soviet Union tried that already in Afghanistan. Didn't work out so well.
So, I wonder what all the jews that moved in 2004 to escape all the hatred think about being in Israel now?
No, really, I have no idea why anyone would want to move from the US to that perpetual hotspot.
For Israel, it's a good thing. They're going to need a lot of people to populate the *New Expanded Israel*....now with 5 times the real estate. :cool:
They're going to need a lot of people to populate the *New Expanded Israel*....now with 5 times the real estate.
What goes around comes around.But that just gives them more border to defend, not solve the problem which is animosity toward them by the Muslims. There's nothing they can do about that. :(
I was watching the Americans in Lebanon bitching about the US not coming to get them immediately. They want Uncle Sam to drop everything and send a flying taxi, NOW.
When are people going to grasp, when you cross the US border, you're at risk. What's so hard to understand about going into another country puts you in their sandbox where they play their game by their rules.
Attention citizens, if they didn't haul your ass out of New Orleans during a flood, why do you think they'd haul your ass out of someplace there's shooting going on?
Don't send your kid to school in a potential war zone. Don't even get me started on that oxymoron "Dual Citizenship".
Attention citizens, if they didn't haul your ass out of New Orleans during a flood, why do you think they'd haul your ass out of someplace there's shooting going on?
Um, because they're rich and white? Let's not forget the Med school students in
Grenada.
A publicised tactical concern of the United States was the safe recovery of U.S. nationals enrolled at St. George's University.
That was bullshit. The Cubans building an airport was the concern, the rest just spin, PR, fluff, whatever you call it.....bullshit. :bs:
That was bullshit. The Cubans building an airport was the concern, the rest just spin, PR, fluff, whatever you call it.....bullshit. :bs:
What would a war be without Public Information Officers?
What would a war be without Public Information Officers?
A covert op. ;)
Dominique de Villepin , the French Prime Minister , was sent to the Lebanon yesterday . France is expressing its solidarity with the Lebanon very clearly .
So France is supporting those who initiated aggression? That seems a little inconsistent.
No, this is where it gets tricky, Lebanon didn't initiate. Lebanon is a bit more progressive than other area nations, and although they hate Israel to different degrees, it's not the core principle bloodlusty jihad type of hate. The problem is that Lebanon can't refuse Hisballah, a non-governmental, terroristic organization roughly run out of Syria and supported by Iran.
I think the real government and army can't deny Hisballah partly because Hisballah is liked (like the mob, they provide social services); partly because they are the common enemy of Israel; and mostly because leaders who fight Hisballah are
almost always assassinated.
So the Israeli actions are to try to disarm Hisballah, because Hisballah was clearly gearing up for more adventurous war, and a UN demand that Hisballah disarm was clearly ignored.
And if the Lebanese can manage to reduce Hisballah's power in their country, they will not fight Israel, and will continue to move ahead with their fledgling Democracy. Lebanon will become a really awesome nation and we will all go to Beruit on holiday. This is what I hope.
So France is supporting those who initiated aggression? That seems a little inconsistent.
France supports
Lebanon regaining control over its country and borders.
Gotcha - there's a difference between the legitimate government of Lebanon, which the French support, and the Hezballah, who militantly oppose Israel.
Yeah, it's all so extremely complicated and interwoven, that we really need some kind of scorecard to see all the different players.
Well, it doesn't appear to be complicated
for these kids that
want to send a special message.
:(
I'm going to drink, now.
How many times do we have to say it?
NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!!
How many times do we have to say it?
NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!!
You can say it all you like but I'd love to know what role oil plays in this conflict.
Hezbollah is a legitimate branch of government in Lebanon and even holds seats in their parliament although it's militant/terrorist arm was originally funded and supported by Iran and by association, Syria.
Hezbollah is an Islamic fundamentalist group and this 'war' has everything to do with religion and very little to do with oil.
Hezbollah is a legitimate branch of government in Lebanon...
That's an odd usage. A political party is not a "branch of government", even if they have candidates elected. Sinn Féin may have candidates in office, but this does not make the IRA a "branch of government".
... although it's militant/terrorist arm was originally funded and supported by Iran and by association, Syria.
...
Still is.
cross posted from favorite paranoid fantasy....
Heard on radio yesterday that the Administration feels that the impetus of the aggression by Hisbollah wrt to the captured Israeli soldiers was from *Iran* in an effort to distract attention from themselves during the upcoming G8 Summit.
Hmmm.
That's an odd usage. A political party is not a "branch of government", even if they have candidates elected. Sinn Féin may have candidates in office, but this does not make the IRA a "branch of government".
I'd argue the 'usage' of the phrase as semantics. In Lebanese politics there are many different terms for different areas of the political forum which are not used in the US political forum. Suffice to say that Hezbollah is a legitimate political party in Lebanese politics although their terrorist arm is not sanctioned officially.
Spex, you're 100% correct. The idea I was trying to get across is that it was during the 10 year war thanks to the Iranians that Hezbollah even exists, although it'd just be the same animal by some other name under other circumstances I guess.
Suffice to say that Hezbollah is a legitimate political party in Lebanese politics although their terrorist arm is not sanctioned officially.
Then what would constitute an *illigitimate* political party? Foreign funding?
This "unsanctioned terrorist arm" nonsense is bullshit: a huge shell game. Publically take credit for acts of charity, but when it's time to launch a barrage of unguided rockets targeting civilians or wear a semtex and ball-bearings vest into a pizza parlor...oh, gee...that must have been somebody else; we're all politicians here.
It's so legitimate that the
UN Security Council told them two years ago to pack up their guns and get out. They responded with a string of assassinations and continued arming.
I'd argue the 'usage' of the phrase as semantics.
"Semantics" isn't an argument. Semantics is the study of the meaning of words; if "semantics" is a reason to dismiss an argument then there's no point in arguing.
You know, I thought this wasn't going to escalate much beyond the skirmish that is going on right now and that cooler heads would prevail. Other countries in the area are holding firm and not getting directly involved and Israel doesn't seem too intent on involving anyone else at this time.
...and then Washington had to make it more interesting.
The nonbinding legislation, similar to a resolution passed by the Senate on Tuesday, also states Syria and Iran should be held accountable for providing Hezbollah with money and missile technology used to attack Israel.
...
"I certainly sympathize with the Lebanese people and the Lebanese government," Republican Senator John McCain told CBS' "The Early Show" on Thursday. But, he said, if Hezbollah is "going to launch attacks from the Lebanese territory, then tragically the Lebanese government and people pay a price for that."
Good to see
some people are happy about this war. (via Boing Boing)
I too am soooo excited!! I get goose bumps, literally, when I watch what's going on in the M.E.!! And Watcherboy, you were so right when saying it was quite a day yesterday, in the world news, and I add in local news here in the Boston area!! Tunnel ceiling collapsed on a car and killed a woman of faith, and we had the most terrifying storms I have ever seen here!! But, yes, oh happy day, like in your screen name , it is most indeed a time to be happy and excited, right there with ya!!
Sadly, I've never gotten "the glory bumps" while reading any Cellar threads. (maybe this
thread will do it for you?)
Of all the depressing things--the Boing Boing link Kitsune provided to the nuts waiting to be raptured is the most depressing.
For a reminder on just how sanitized US mass media is, go to Flickr, and do a tag search for Lebanon. Some pretty horrific images. Only do the search if you are numb to pictures of dead kids in rubble.
I know Israel's philosophy has always been to strike back 10 fold or more, but it's amazing how Lebanon civilians are really taking a beating.
Makes it hard for me to sympathize much with Israel. Ally or not.
Both the beeb and ITN have been showing the kids with shrapnel wounds all over them..... ITN claimed tonight that 1/3rd of fatalaties on both sides are children. Are you getting this in the US?
I'm harder on the IDF than on Hezbollah......
I'm kinda intrigued though by the american mindset that can condemm Hezbollah yet fund the IRA.
In the meantime, innocent Maronites, Shi'ites, and Druze are murdered because Israel blames everyone else - and somehow that murder of the innocents is justified as if protecting Jews. Clearly they are also evil only because they live in the same region.
How to end it? For every arab murdered, also murder a jew. Make sure that every race suffers in equal numbers. Even better, smuggle arms to all parties. Guess what. Extremists are not so smart anymore.
This conflict will not end until as least 10% from all sides are murdered. The more gross those deaths, then the better. Sorry. But history demonstrates this is the only way to drive intelligent people from the ranks of extremists. Make sure all arms are distributes so that deaths are equal on all sides. The faster we murder, then the faster peace will happen.
Shameful that no one even in the US Congress has any respect for the innocent citizens of Lebanon. But then America is no longer an honest broker. It is no accident that George Jr destroyed the Oslo Accords.
american mindset that can condemm Hezbollah yet fund the IRA.
I always found that to be a problem, too. When Bush said there's a war on terror, I immediately wondered when the US was going to invade Ireland and fight the IRA...
"Semantics" isn't an argument. Semantics is the study of the meaning of words; if "semantics" is a reason to dismiss an argument then there's no point in arguing.
It is semantics to question the 'usage' of a particular word when the actual word in isolation has naught to do with the actual message which was that Hezbollah is a legitimate political party in Lebanon.
BTW, if you felt your argument was being dismissed I'm sorry about that. What is your argument?
Brianna...I wondered the same thing.
Headline:
Hezbollah leader apologizes for attack's child victims
But not
all children:
Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah apologized for an attack that killed two Israeli Arab children in northern Israel, saying the youngsters were "martyrs for Palestine."
In a Thursday interview with Arabic-language news network Al-Jazeera, Nasrallah accepted responsibility for the Wednesday attack, while conceding that an apology to the family was not sufficient.
In a later interview, Nasrallah said, "OK, we weren't supposed to totally admit that we really only want to kill Jews, so to keep the world's 'anti-zionist' story straight. But in all this confusion, we just plum forgot. Hey it was Al-Jazeera, so the infidels weren't supposed to notice anyway. Thanks to CNN for at least correcting the mistake in the headline."
It is semantics to question the 'usage' of a particular word when the actual word in isolation has naught to do with the actual message which was that Hezbollah is a legitimate political party in Lebanon.
BTW, if you felt your argument was being dismissed I'm sorry about that. What is your argument?
If the actual message was that Hezbollah is a political party (not at all what was said), then I have no argument; having run candidates it is obviously a political party.
If the actual message was that it was a branch of government (which would seem to be the meaning of what was said), then I call bullshit; it is no such thing.
If the actual message was that it's "legitimate" (which seems to be the intended spin: to cast Hezbollah as something somehow "legitimate" rather than a gang of terrorists), then we come back to:
Then what would constitute an *illigitimate* political party? Foreign funding?
Are you so anxious to hang the (as far as I can see undeserved) "legitimate" tag on them that what noun the adjective modifies has become unimportant "semantics"?
I always found that to be a problem, too. When Bush said there's a war on terror, I immediately wondered when the US was going to invade Ireland and fight the IRA...
According to the IRA, the UK had already done that, no?
Whether the party is legitimate or not doesn't negate their illegal actions, so no, I'm not anxious to hang the tag on them. The legitimacy of Hezbollah doesn't change the number of lives that've been lost due to their actions, nor does it change the course of events which has surely changed history, especially if what has been reported here is true in that the US is funding/supplying Israel during the course of these events.
Considering that Hezbollah is, if not officially then certainly unofficially, supported by the likes of Iran and Syria, I would say that this will legitimize the US intent to drop something on Iran sooner or later during the course of this conflict, which of course, would enable the Bush government to feel quite justified I'm sure.
With this thought in mind, I'd suggest that Hezbollah has played straight into the hands of the US government.
Whether the party is legitimate or not doesn't negate their illegal actions, so no, I'm not anxious to hang the tag on them.
Which is really quite irrelevant. Hezbollah exists only because of Sharon's 'consolidation of positions' all the way to Beruit, the massacre of 5000 Palestinians arranged by Sharon, and the resulting Lebanon civil war. Hezbollah was created by Lebanonese as the only defense that Lebanon had against Israel. Hezbollah simply has not changed its founding and strategic objectives. An example of how one creates its own enemies.
They don't talk to one another. Therefore war is the only alternative. Make it real bad. Make the losses on all sides equal and high. Only then will parties in dispute finally decide that maybe talk (conducted by empowered centrists) is the only intelligent alternative. Currently everyone directly involved - including the US - only wants war. Don't fool yourself. Everyone is operating with illegal motives. Everyone directly involved only wants war - and is looking for cover to justify that war.
For a reminder on just how sanitized US mass media is, go to Flickr, and do a tag search for Lebanon. Some pretty horrific images. Only do the search if you are numb to pictures of dead kids in rubble.
I know Israel's philosophy has always been to strike back 10 fold or more, but it's amazing how Lebanon civilians are really taking a beating.
Makes it hard for me to sympathize much with Israel. Ally or not.
All they had to do was give the soldiers back.
Thanks for the history lesson tw. It's always interesting to get a different perspective on these things.
I think the most important questions here are; what motivated the capture of the Israeli soldiers in the first place? Who decided to create this situation? Who thinks they're going to gain something by it?
Everyone has their suspicions and individual thoughts on the matter. I don't think any of us will ever know the full truth of it. I think we'll all be lucky to survive it.
I think the most important questions here are; what motivated the capture of the Israeli soldiers in the first place? Who decided to create this situation? Who thinks they're going to gain something by it?
Apparently Hezbollah was doing what it had done previously to get large numbers of imprisioned (and uncharged) Palestinians out of prision in exchange for kidnapped soldiers. However, they did not 'feel the wind'. The resulting escalation is probably a major surprise to Hezbollah. They were probably only doing a deal and ended up with far more than they expected. Remember, no parties talk to one another. Israel does not even talk to Lebanon's government. Notes are only exchanged via the UN. Therefore war (and these minor and mostly irrelevant kidnapping) are situation normal.
Again, feel the air. The US administration wants war. A Cheney agenda whereby war is preferred over diplomacy as a quick, ultimate, and final solution. It is, BTW, a same concept promoted by Gen Curtis LeMay who said we were already at war with the USSR; American did not yet know it. This has a 'Cheney agenda' written all over it.
One more question. Will the Lebanonese government remain intact if Israel invades? Probably. But don't forget a previous Israel invasion that created a Lebanon civil war. Another civil war is remote - but still remains possible.
All they had to do was give the soldiers back.
All who had to do? Hezbollah wants this to happen.
With Lebanon being a country with fairly equal parts of Islamic and Christian values, it would seem fairly likely that civil war is exactly what will happen with the Christian population being funded by the Israelis et al and the Islamic population being funded by their old partners in crime.
I agree that this was a bad time for any 'deals' to occur for the militants. I agree that this situation has been anticipated avidly by some groups of the international community and I would even go as far as suggesting that these particular parties have orchestrated the entire incident in order to achieve their own goals.
Funny how everyone's forgotten Iraq for the time being huh?
However, they did not 'feel the wind'.
Michael Totten, April 28, 2006:
"Everything Could Explode at Any Moment"
Lisa and I met Israeli Defense Forces Spokesman Zvika Golan at a base in the north near the border. He told us to follow him in his jeep as he drove to a lookout point next to an IDF watch tower that opened up over Lebanon.
“You aren’t safe here right now,” he said.
“I know,” I said. “The Lebanese army wouldn’t let me anywhere near the border two weeks ago. What’s going on?”
“Hezbollah is planning an operation,” he said.
“How do you know?” I said.
“We know,” he said and nodded.
I knew he was right. The Lebanese intelligence officer more or less told me the same thing. He didn’t say the threat was from Hezbollah, but he didn’t have to.
...
The lieutenant was easily ten years younger than me. But he was so ground down from world-weariness he sounded like a man 30 years older who hadn't slept for three days.
“Any minute now something huge could break out," he said. "I am afraid to go home and leave my soldiers. When Hezbollah decides to do something, they do it. And they’re pretty good at it.”
"What do you think they'll do next?" I said.
“I have no idea," he said. "They could do anything. Kidnapping. Sniper.”
I was flipping around and watched a couple of reports on Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.
An idea started in my head, and I feel a need to express it, because, well, it's not a very nice idea, but I think it could use some kicking around.
Given the general instability in the Middle East ... Do you think that the Israelis would sacrifice themselves (and their country) if by doing so they could bring about the ultimate fall of Islam and the Arabic Countries? They know that Judaism would survive, as there are more Jews (by culture and by religion) in the rest of the world than there are in Israel.
Hmmm... that's a really interesting idea... I personally don't think they would do it, but I'm not exactly an expert on Israeli culture and such.
Hmmmm...Jewish people aren't martyrs are they? :rolleyes:
Hey, Jesus was a Jew!
Ooh boy.
Hmmmm...Jewish people aren't martyrs are they? :rolleyes:
You clearly never met my friend's grandmother ... she was one of the old fashioned, "I'll just sit here alone in the dark" type ...
I'm not saying that they want to die, or have the country turned into glass ... but if every last man, woman, and child is wiped off the map, they'll be 6 million more Jews from around the world ready to move in and start over.
I read in the paper today that the bunkers Hezbollah are hiding in must have taken YEARS to build. That's an interesting bit of information. This doesn't bode well at all.
I read in the paper today that the bunkers Hezbollah are hiding in must have taken YEARS to build.
Well, they've been occupying the area for decades. They didn't spend the time playing volleyball.
Hey, Jesus was a Jew!
Just saw Clerks 2, didja? :-)
Given the general instability in the Middle East ... Do you think that the Israelis would sacrifice themselves (and their country) if by doing so they could bring about the ultimate fall of Islam and the Arabic Countries?
Deja vue Vietnam. We only needed kill enough 'enemies' to win the war. Such tactics never work. They even violate fundamental military science. As a result, we killed every person in N Vietnam three times over, as Gen Westmoreland's own numbers proved. Meanwhile, he says we lost because we did not kill enough. Because he did not have enough troops. Because we were not willing to stick it out.
Only solution to such violence is actions that drive centrists out of extremist ranks. One method is to impose 10% casualties on all sides. Sell weapons freely so that all are suffering massacres. Only when centrists are driven back to a centrist political mindset, then a solution occurs - also called negotiation.
The entire purpose of war is only to get a conflict back to a negotiation table. If not obvious, then a proposal is nothing more than fiction. What is the largest number of books in the library? Fiction. Too many have ideas without first learning reality. Only solution is found in the purpose of war. The George Jr administration is chock full of fiction writers. Even worse, many Americans so hate this country as to believe their fiction.
One solution to Lebanon is to arm or to restrict arms to all sides so that 10% of each population is killed. Then centrists will obviously be regarded as the only solution.
Problem is not arabs or jews. Problem are the extremists in ranks of those populations. If you still belive myths about 'good and evil' then appreicate where the problem lies - in maybe 10% of the population. Therefore all jews and all arabs involved have become evil. They did not turn about and shoot the only evil ones among them. You tell me how that solution will be implemented. It will not. An only solution is found in this defintion - 'the purpose of war'.
I read in the paper today that the bunkers Hezbollah are hiding in must have taken YEARS to build. That's an interesting bit of information. This doesn't bode well at all.
It only says something relavent if you believe anything military will solve the problem. Cheney believes that (which is why he did not do his job in 1992). Bunkers only mean more jews may die in the invasion. That would be a good thing because then the losses on both sides might be high enough to address the only purpose of war.
Here is a very fine backgrounder on the entire situation.
Bunkers only mean more jews may die in the invasion.
I'm sure you meant to say "Zionists" or "Israelis".
Here is a very fine backgrounder on the entire situation.
Nice.
Money quote for the Internet crowd:
Meanwhile Hezbollah and its allies both in the region and in the West are and will be waging the mother of all propaganda wars. The task assigned to the propagandists is to stop military operations so that Hezbollah survives and to stop international intervention so that the Lebanese Government collapses. A war of images, photos, mudding, Internet, and media will explode in all directions. Operatives helping Hezbollah, including many with Christian names, will be waging an indiscriminate propaganda offensive against Lebanese, Arab, Western and obviously Israeli figures to spread confusion and psychological collapse in the international community. Objective: Obstruct the implementation of UNSCR 1559, trash the March 14 movement, criticize the Arab Government, and incite for Jihadi violence.
"World War III will be a guerilla information war with no division between civilian and military participation." --Marshall McLuhan
Hizballah understands that completely, and puts on a show for the cameras.
Howard Kurtz/Nic Robertson on "Reliable Sources"
KURTZ: To what extent do you feel like you're being used to put up the pictures that they want -- obviously, it's terrible that so many civilians have been killed -- without any ability, as you just outlined, to verify, because -- to verify Hezbollah's role, because this is a fighting force that is known to blend in among the civilian population and keep some of its weapons there?
ROBERTSON: Absolutely. And I think as we try and do our job, which is go out and see what's happened to the best of our ability, clearly, in that environment, in the southern suburbs of Beirut that Hezbollah controls, the only way we can get into those areas is with a Hezbollah escort. And absolutely, when you hear their claims they have to come with -- with a -- more than a grain of salt, that you have to put in some journalistic integrity. That you have to point out to the audience and let them know that this was a guided tour by Hezbollah press officials along with security, that it was a very rushed affair.
KURTZ: Right.
ROBERTSON: That there wasn't time to go and look through those buildings. The audience has to know the conditions of that tour. But again, if we didn't get all -- or we could not get access to those areas without Hezbollah compliance, they control those areas.
KURTZ: Right.
ROBERTSON: And I think to bring the audience the full picture of what's happening in Beirut, you have to go into those southern suburbs.
KURTZ: All right.
ROBERTSON: Because that's where the vast majority of bombs were falling.
KURTZ: I understand.
ROBERTSON: Again, they come with a health warning that we cannot vouch for everything that Hezbollah is saying. And I think the audience is sophisticated enough to appreciate that, Howard.
Let us be sophisticated.
Only solution to such violence is actions that drive centrists out of extremist ranks. One method is to impose 10% casualties on all sides. Sell weapons freely so that all are suffering massacres. Only when centrists are driven back to a centrist political mindset, then a solution occurs - also called negotiation.
tw, can you give an example where this scenario was attempted and succeeded?
tw, can you give an example where this scenario was attempted and succeeded?
Serbia. No their casulties did not get to 10%. A rapid rise in casulties on the Serbian side (to approach what others were suffering) resulted in Milosevik even negotiating himself out of leadership. Raising casulties that much and that fast empowered centrists to demand better government; to separate themselves from the ranks of extremists.
Israel as a proxy for US policy is hoping for a multinational force in that 20 miles inside Lebanon. Condi Rice is running interference for Israel to attack not just those 20 miles inland, but also any other innocents that might help Hezbollah anytime in the future. There is no other reason for 1 in 5 Lebanonese to now be homeless. It is now US policy to fix things with military pre-emption because the US has declared containment as a failed policy. Somehow we will fix things by killing off 'evil' people.
Condi Rice will go to Rome to recruit nations for that multinational force. Any nation that 'signs on' would be a fool. Interesting will be how much US strongarms some nations. Which leaders have the balls to stand up for their own nations and to oppose the 800 pound guerilla?
Why would anyone want to stop a war between the Hatfields and McCoys. Even worse, this Middle East war is also about religion - a worst type of war. Any nation entering as a peacekeeper will be attacked (even accidently) by both sides and maybe by so many innocent Lebanonese who also become embittered. There is no 'mind set' among any parties for peace. None.
Obviously, a peace keeping force can only work when all sides (there are far more than 2) want peace. That is not and will not be the condition between Hezbollah and Israel. Israel only wants to kill off Hezbollah - a creation of Israeli's most extremist zionists. Hezbollah is basically the only force in Lebanon defending Lebanon from Israeli attacks. You may not believe it. But your isolated perspective does not matter. Only matters is what those locals believe.
And so again, what nation would be so foolish as to enter as an international peacekeeper when both side are so wrong, so violent, and don't really want peace? Both sides want more of what they already have or cannot have.
Israel as a proxy for US politics says Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Literally everywhere in the Middle East - even in a US puppet government in Iraq - all others say otherwise. All others says this administration is wrong. And all others are telling this to US diplomats 'face to face' - because US bias of Hezbollah is considered so wrong in the Middle East - even in Saudi Arabia.
So what will happen in Rome? Will those potential peacekeepers understand the futility of peacekeeping? Most interesting will be which world leaders can stand up to an 800 pound guerilla that has a personal agenda. At this point, peacekeeping is asking for dead soldiers. Total foolishness would also be a peacekeeping force that is not at least 400,000 or 700,000 men. How stupid would a peacekeeping force be? No peacekeeping force of sufficient size will be deployed. Even the US refuses to participate. We will learn which world leaders don't represent the interests of their own countries; will 'sign on' to a fool's errand; can be manipulated to what only America wants.
You clearly never met my friend's grandmother ... she was one of the old fashioned, "I'll just sit here alone in the dark" type ...
I'm not saying that they want to die, or have the country turned into glass ... but if every last man, woman, and child is wiped off the map, they'll be 6 million more Jews from around the world ready to move in and start over.
Interesting thought, but it's hard to repopulate a radioactive wasteland.
If you're in an apocalyptic state of mind,
here's something to think over, a list of Israeli airbases.
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=-1]Meggido
Designated Shachar 7 by the IDF/AF. ICAO code: LLMG. Location coordinates: N32 35.0 E035 14.0, elevation 200 ft (61 m). One runway 09/27 degrees of 7710 ft (2350 m) length. Opened in 1942. Served as an auxiliary field to Ramat David. Currently home to a gliding club, a detachment from Unit 505 and some agricultural aircraft used in the Izre-el valley. Light aircraft/helicopter wartime foward operating base. During the Six Day War, a Tu-16 was shot down by a local AA battery and crashed directly on the field. The defecting Syrian MiG-23 landed here.[/SIZE][/FONT]
For anyone who knows their bible,
Armageddon is derived from Meggido.
The word Armageddon is thought to be derived from the Hebrew words Har Megido (הר מגידו), meaning "Mountain of Megiddo". The site referred to is a valley plain called Megiddo, the location of many decisive battles in ancient times, including the Battle of Megiddo. There is no literal "mountain of Megiddo" anywhere in the Promised Land, although there is an archaeological mound nearby, representing the ruins of at least 20 cities that flourished between 5,000 years ago and 650 BC. Some would argue that the word Armageddon is an early example of a mondegreen.
The only mention of the word Armageddon in the Bible appears in Revelation 16:16: "And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon" (KJV).[1]
If it had more than one runway, I'd say that's a great place to store nuclear weapons.:right:
Hezbollah is basically the only force in Lebanon defending Lebanon from Israeli attacks. You may not believe it. But your isolated perspective does not matter. Only matters is what those locals believe.
They believed that H was an effective defensive force last month, but surely they do not believe it now.
mmmmm..... I see the IDF have widened their horizons....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5215366.stmDo you really think that an organization that launches aggressive attacks such as the recent rocket bombings exists to protect Lebanon from 'Israeli attacks'??? OF COURSE ISRAEL IS GOING TO ATTACK!!! It's like hiring a bodyguard and telling him to puch random people in the face. Terrorist organization or not they are still the active trouble maker right now.
mmmmm..... I see the IDF have widened their horizons....
As Jay continues to prove the McLuhan quote in the other thread.
Here's one for you to chew on, Jay. :(
Interesting thought, but it's hard to repopulate a radioactive wasteland.
People seem to be living and thriving in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ...
IIRC, the residual radiation from a nuclear bombing is not the same sort of stuff that contaminated Chernobyl. Different half-lives.
Do you think there is truth to the stories about the "Sampson Option?"
Mentioning Seymour Hersh is probably a good way to trigger another tw epic. :-)
It sounds as though some of you think that Israel is/was/will be militarily offensive toward Lebanon. Israel has given up territory voluntarily and consolidated. Are you saying that they now want to annex some of Lebanon? I can see where they want Hizb'allah away from their border, since Hizb'allah's goal is to anhilate Israel. But to attack in order to gain territory? I don't know about that....
The only reason they want to be in South Lebanon is so Hizb'allah won't be. :(
I have a question.
Maybe I've missed a news report, but where in the hell are the terrorists getting so many hundreds of rockets, plus the hardware to launch them? I know they don't need a sophisticated launch platform but some kind of launcher is needed.
I think Israel would be better off cutting the supply lines and letting the terrorists wither from starvation and acute weapon shortages rather than trying to track down wach and every one and blast him/her from the air.
Sometimes, I hate being out of touch.
Brian
China and Russia, probably. Via Iran and Syria I expect.
The missile that hit the frigate was a radar guided, Iranian made variant of the Chinese 'silkworm' missile although there are some reports it was a newer also Chinese designed YJ-82. Most the of the rockets appear to come from Iran and are based on Chinese, Russian or DPRK variant designs. The most common, a soviet designed truck-mounted multi-rocket launcher dates back to WW2.
And these are just lying about the sand dunes waiting to be used?
Someone is giving lots of rockets to these nutcases in wholesale lots. Interdict the supply lines, even if it means taking on some tinhorn in a palace. Israel that is, not us...yet. We do more than our share of arming Israel already.
I think the middle east is headed for a showdown at high noon, loser leaves town. Or existance, whichever the winner decides.
Here's a graphic of the types of rockets believed being used. Kinda shows how missles are trickling down to become a everyday guerilla household item. The Katyusha made it's debut with the Red Army in WWII. It was usually fired in groups from racks on the back of flatbed trucks.
I think the middle east is headed for a showdown at high noon, loser leaves town. Or existance, whichever the winner decides.
Active parties are still playing 'feelers'. For example, watch as Condi Rice 'tests the waters' by blaming Syria and Iran for the violence. Remember, this started when Hezbollah did as they have done previously - kidnap some Israeli soldiers to exchange for prisoners - held without any judicial review. But Israel instead attacked even Beirut - attacked people completely unrelated to this event - Maronites, Druze, Shi'ites, etc. Are one in five homeless Lebanese also members of Hezbollah? Of course not.
It is a rather strange (and bold) strategy. Attack Lebanon so that the Lebanon army will attack and occupy Hezbollah controlled lands. It is why this war has so much attention from Saudi Arabia as to even result in a personal letter to George Jr complete with publicity.
Well the Lebanon army attacking Hezbollah did not work. The International Peace Force - a total joke - is not working. It will be curious what the White House (that is called the plays) does next. They don't want to get the entire Middle East involved. But they are repeatedly testing the waters for a new spin on this international peace force or some other strategy.
There are no innocents on Hezbollah or Israeli sides. There are simply the so many Lebanese who are victims of those two violent and uncompromising parties - Israel and Hezbollah. One will have to blink first. If it is Israel, the blinking will occur with spin so that you don't understand they blinked.
Meanwhile, notice the world did not fall for that ridiculous International Peace Force. Only a fool would have even suggested such is possible. So George Jr is again blaming Syria and Iran – the usual suspects – rather than addressing real reasons for this new war and without giving any consideration to its victims – innocent Lebanon. Even the US is being careful not to create another 1970s oil embargo - when gasoline then went to $7 per gallon in 2006 dollars.
And these are just lying about the sand dunes waiting to be used?
Almost, better hidden, but they have thousands and thousands of them stashed in Lebanon, from what I've read. :(
One would be daft to not understand why Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora said his words in English. He told Condi Rice to not even bother coming until the US demands (and therefore forces) an unconditional ceasefire on Israel. Look beyond all the pretty diplomatic language. The US said to Israel to eliminate Hezbollah. And Israel found out that the force created to protect Lebanon from Israelis is tough.
Meanwhile, Israel says those leaflets telling Lebanese to make themselves homeless is total justification for bombing anything that might be an observation tower or bunker. 60+ civilians killed by a bunker buster type bomb should be blamed for their own death. Same strategy also shelled a UN observation post (installed since 1948) about ten separate times and then later (and finally) bombed by a bunker buster bomb. I believe dead are a Chinese, an Austrian, a Canadian, and someone else. Israelis tried repeatedly to kill Indian troops sent to rescue those UN troops. Oh ... but it was an accident - just like the USS Liberty - 52 murdered Americans - was an accident.
Decent people demand a smoking gun to justify war. Hezbollah raid on an Israeli guard post is worse that 200 Americans ships sunk by Germans off the US east coast? 200 torpedoed ships are not a smoking gun. Either is a Hezbollah attack. But we are not talking about decent people here. Send in planes routinely to attack innocents? Such attacks routinely by Israeli are justified? We are talking about the enemies of mankind - extremists - ones who started this war by creating what could be a smoking gun. An unprovoked attack on Beirut.
Israel (actually George Jr administration) will never get a Lebanese Army to replace Hezbollah. Even Maronites (Christians) strongly favor Hezbollah and their defense of Lebanon. Only an idiot would not expect that response.
This can easily get nasty just like in 1970s. George Wills made valid comparisons to 1914 Europe. Events are spinning out of control because that is what your American administration wants - more violence so as to terminate Hezbollah. More violence - as if using even nuclear bombers (with conventional weapons) would force N Vietnam to peace talks. Same mentality from a White House that again demonstrates no grasp of Military Science 101.
What nation in this world would be so stupid as to put their armed forces between Israel and Lebanon now? And yet this administration is still talking about an international peace force - as if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Mental midgetry is alive and well in Washington DC which is why the Lebanese Prime Minister spoke his words in English. In English so you might hear who he defines as the obstacle to peace. "Unconditional Ceasefire" will only happen when your president (Cheney) says so.
Fouad Siniora has just thrown down a gauntlet that is clearly pointed at the US. He might be foolish to believe Americans even heard him. But his comments were directed at you and your president - in English. "Unconditional Ceasefire".
I heard the Israeli Foreign Minister this morning following the disaster in Qana, giving the excuse 'if we had known there were innocents there then we would never have attacked'. It just sounds hypocritical - turning the blind eye to the reality - of course there could be innocents there as the Israelis constantly proclaim that Hezbollah is using them as a shield. So when they attack a 'valid' target they have every reason to believe that innocents will be there. So based on the FM's words they shouldn't attack.
It seems good enough reason instead for Israel to continue their attacks, proclaiming that it is Hezbollah that is to blame for any casualties as it is they that are using innocents as shields. With this sort of justification what chance a long-term reduction in aggression. Behind this and ready to provide future justification, there is Israel's stated fear that any cease fire gives Hezbollah the chance to re-arm. Until someone from each's own side slaps their particular protagonist firmly around the head instead of sidling up to their respective rhetoric, there will be no real change.
Everyone,
If we see the impossible become the possible and a temporary ceasefire goes into effect today, what do you believe are the fairest concessions both sides should accept in order to achieve a true and lasting peace ?
... what do you believe are the fairest concessions both sides should accept in order to achieve a true and lasting peace ?
First and foremost - an honest broker. The United States - the only power in this region to be an honest broker - is power behind the aggressor and not honest. Why would anyone concede to the US as an honest broker? Oslo Accords by Norway were so fundamentally revolutionary when an honest broker could be found AND the US was supportive of negotiated (not military) solutions. This fear of a negotiated settlement is also why extremist Likud called for and got an assassination of Menachem Begin. They needed to murder the Oslo Accords.
Without an honest broker, then no peace settlement is possible. With the US, whose solution is to advocate final (military) solutions rather than negotiation, then another Norway deal also is not possible. No honest broker exists that both sides will concede to.
We are so far from solving any world violence because the 800 pound gorilla has a 'big dic' mentality. As long as the 800 pound gorilla declares war as a solution to everything (ie Axis of Evil), then an only other solution is massive death rates on all sides. Death rates so high that centrists return to where intelligence and logic survives.
How would the world fix this problem? One solution would be a massive embargo on everything into and out of any Middle East country. A US military isolated in Iraq would also address the problem. Address the problem? Yes. Scare Americans enough start voting for intelligent leaders and not for religious fanatical solutions. For example, a McCain might be a first step to making negotiations possible. Clearly wacko extremists from the 'Project for New American Century' who even advocated a possible 'attack India, Germany or Russia' solution also are not capable of unbiased and logical negotiations; necessary to start a peace process.
For those who need soundbyte reasons: we don't even talk to Hezbollah, Syria
Only honest brokers would be Russia or China....
no axe to grind, yet with their history it woulb unlikely that USA would accept them......
which begs the question......
who the hell appointed the USA as arbiters anyway?
You did....repeatedly.... don't you remember? :confused:
I did? jeez..... the power I wield.... frightens me sometimes.....
(but not as much as the Yanks frighten me......)
jeeeeeeeeezzzzzuuus,. man, why ya'do that.... nowe I's gone and pressed that big red button ..... oh., Lordy man, says your prayers.....
It does my heart good to see the mood lighten in this thread ..... slightly. :)
As a person that sees this issue with Network news eyes and lack of immediate personal connection, I view this thread with wonder while watching obviously intelligent gents and ladies lob verbal grenades at one another in hopes that the other's wits will be distracted briefly in order for their well informed point of view to inflict the fatal blow. I am impressed (absolutely no sarcasm) at each of your abilities at avoidance of each others salient points, but I am really, really interested in seeing if some one can solve this.
I appreciate the comments that the first step, "an honest broker", is not immediately apparent. Can we get further in a discussion if we go in reverse ? What if we start at the solution and work backward?
Let's say we start with our objective: A Lasting Peace between both Parties!
What is the step immediately before that? For the sake of discussion, I would offer the following general concept , but expect the experts to fill in the actual facts.
Goal: A lasting Peace between both parties.
Step 298: Each party agrees the other is not an insufferable bastard that is intent ONLY on annihilating the other.
step 297: Each part agrees the other is POSSIBLY not an insufferable bastard that is intent ONLY on annihilating the other.
step 296. etc...
Don't be silly, we can't solve anything. Even if we could come up with a viable solution, nobody would listen to us anyway.
The people who wield the power, the ones that can have meaningful influence on the situation, all have their own axes to grind, their own positions to defend.
They don't even care if we have a viable solution and may not even care if we have an opinion. I may be wrong on the opinion part, considering how Hezbollah has cranked up the spin machine to feed the media. Much better than the IDF has. :(
I would love to see the Magnificent Brits take over. They are so cultured, so fair, so very superior...one might even say they are the Master Race! It is glaringly apparent that a Brit, and ONLY a Brit (and I mean the REAL Brits, not the nasty, brutish Irish or silly Scots) can solve the worlds problems. Let's forget the fact that most of Africa's problems were caused by them via slicing up the continent to suit them and France, or that they had that little experiment with allowing Ireland to starve tp death and many, many more little, insignificant things. I'm sure they'll get right on it.
Right after tea, eh? You'll get right on fixing the world? Right?
I'll just sit back and wait for the Mighty British to come to their senses and SAVE the earth.
I would love to see the Magnificent Brits take over.
erm...Check your history. Didn't they have their turn already?
erm...Check your history. Didn't they have their turn already?
OH! But they are REfreshed! They are sooo ready to right the wrongs! Be the Morally Superior among us! Show the World the WAY!!!
or, haven't you read JAYMCGEE's posts?
Foul!
Condemning all Brits for the statements of a few is exactly what they were doing to us, that got your panties in a bunch in the first place.
Don't stoop to their level.
Chin up, chest out (Hmmm, my favorite part), now go forth unsullied and proud. :us:
well...only coz it's you, bruce...
You had your chance, brianna.....
if you''d paid the tea tax, you coluld still have been a brit....
Israeli children signing missiles to be dropped on Lebanon as a gift.
No, I don't have an attribution, it arrived in my email yesterday.
:mad: :( :worried: :evil3: :thepain: :angry: :cry:
Israeli children signing missiles to be dropped on Lebanon as a gift.
No, I don't have an attribution, it arrived in my email yesterday.
:mad: :( :worried: :evil3: :thepain: :angry: :cry:
Yeah, I can understand the rage and anger, but it's still very sad. Especially since, more than in any conventional war, some of these shells may be landing on other children.
It's like some bizarre party game. Instead of Coke and Pepsi, let's play artillery and missiles!:headshake
Aw, let 'em play. they could be dead tomorrow.:mad:
Hell, if someone had handed me a marker and a stack of shells after 911 I'd be writing till my hand cramped
if you''d paid the tea tax, you coluld still have been a brit....
"Brit" wouldn't be a status extended to Colonials...even though they were still HM's subjects.
Unless of course they were colonials of Brittania.
Scene 8 {scary music}
CENTURION: What's this, then? 'Romanes Eunt Domus'? 'People called Romanes they go the house'?
BRIAN: It-- it says, 'Romans, go home'.
CENTURION: No, it doesn't. What's Latin for 'Roman'? Come on!
BRIAN: Aah!
CENTURION: Come on!
BRIAN: 'R-- Romanus'?
CENTURION: Goes like...?
BRIAN: 'Annus'?
CENTURION: Vocative plural of 'annus' is...?
BRIAN: Eh. 'Anni'?
CENTURION: 'Romani'. 'Eunt'? What is 'eunt'?
BRIAN: 'Go'. Let--
CENTURION: Conjugate the verb 'to go'.
BRIAN: Uh. 'Ire'. Uh, 'eo'. 'Is'. 'It'. 'Imus'. 'Itis'. 'Eunt'.
CENTURION: So 'eunt' is...?
BRIAN: Ah, huh, third person plural, uh, present indicative. Uh, 'they go'.
CENTURION: But 'Romans, go home' is an order, so you must use the...?
BRIAN: The... imperative!
CENTURION: Which is...?
BRIAN: Umm! Oh. Oh. Um, 'i'. 'I'!
CENTURION: How many Romans?
BRIAN: Ah! 'I'-- Plural. Plural. 'Ite'. 'Ite'.
CENTURION: 'Ite'.
BRIAN: Ah. Eh.
CENTURION: 'Domus'?
BRIAN: Eh.
CENTURION: Nominative?
BRIAN: Oh.
CENTURION: 'Go home'? This is motion towards. Isn't it, boy?
BRIAN: Ah. Ah, dative, sir! Ahh! No, not dative! Not the dative, sir! No! Ah! Oh, the... accusative! Accusative! Ah! 'Domum', sir! 'Ad domum'! Ah! Oooh! Ah!
CENTURION: Except that 'domus' takes the...?
BRIAN: The locative, sir!
CENTURION: Which is...?!
BRIAN: 'Domum'.
CENTURION: 'Domum'.
BRIAN: Aaah! Ah.
CENTURION: 'Um'. Understand?
BRIAN: Yes, sir.
CENTURION: Now, write it out a hundred times.
BRIAN: Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Hail Caesar, sir.
CENTURION: Hail Caesar. If it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off.
Hell, if someone had handed me a marker and a stack of shells after 911 I'd be writing till my hand cramped
Would you have taken your
children and had them autograph them too? I will consider your answer carefully.
Would you have taken your children and had them autograph them too?
It's probably better than fitting them for toy suicide bomber vests.
Haven't seen many blonde suicide bombers. :rolleyes:
That's the first time I've seen the Reuters tag on that photo. Did they fall for the joke, too?
Haven't seen many blonde suicide bombers.
How many suicide bombers have you seen? You wouldn't be doing racial profiling now, would you?
Maybe blondes tend to filter themselves out early. ("Is *this* the right button?")
Or, considering how kiddie-porned up the pic is, maybe the child isn't as blonde as the pic is.
How many suicide bombers have you seen? You wouldn't be doing racial profiling now, would you?
No, not profiling. I've seen quite a few pictures of the remains. The heads are usually more intact than the rest of them. :greenface
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/06/28/baby.photo/index.html
"A party where they dressed the cutest baby as a suicide bomber..."
What the fuck is WRONG with these people?:mad:
What the fuck is WRONG with these people?:mad:
Same thing that's wrong with
this guy, I think. :confused:
Same thing that's wrong with this guy, I think.
Moral equivalance? I think not.
It's probably better than fitting them for toy suicide bomber vests.
I have considered your answer carefully, and I disagree. Both are reprehensible. Especially considering that the vest is almost certainly fake, and the artillery shells are almost certainly real. Additionally, I imagine what message is being sent to the children in each situation. For the "baby-bomber" it is no more than another dress-up, and certainly all the meaning is in the mind of the adult(s). For the kids signing the shells, at best they're being lied to, at worst they're being taught to hate. The baby is not being taught to hate, but those laughing at the unfunny joke have plenty of it.
My point is that it is wrong, in the worst possible way, to teach children to hate.
Moral equivalance? I think not.
Really? They were both simply joking.
The baby is not being taught to hate...
The hell sie isn't. Even if the lessons have begun before they can be completely understood, they surely will continue (at brainwashing intensity) throughout that baby's childhood. In fact, it's quite likely that baby will be issued a
working suicide vest before the lessons can be
completely understood.
Unless the whole area craters in the next 10 years.
The toy vest is reminicent of the cap-and-gown graduations they run for preschoolers these days. The diplomas aren't real working degrees, but they represent aspirations.
I weep for the victims of baby brainwashing. These kids all died of liver disease by age three.
I'll bite, MaggieL.
Tell me what you think the baby's learning from what you can glean from that picture, please.
Now tell me what you think the two young girls in the previous picture are learning, please.
Now compare those two learning experiences. I will concede that a baby that age in proximity of adults stoopid enough to create such a photo will be surrounded by hate and learn accordingly. But I wasn't hypothesing about the future of the subjects of the pictures, I was talking about what's happening during the snapshot.
Feel free to brandish your "moral equivalence" crutch if you're not afraid to have it kicked out from underneath you. I'll repeat: Both are reprehensible. When you say "but not as bad as this..." you sound like a child justifying their part in some petty quarrel. [whine]But he hit me *first*! waah waah waah...[/whine].
They're **both** fucked up. If you can't acknowledge that, you have earned my disdain. If you can't understand that, you have earned my pity.
Tell me what you think the baby's learning from what you can glean from that picture, please.
One word: madrassas.
I spoke of the child's entire trajectory until being issued a real vest. That he (if he is as is implied by the vest, male) will be groomed as a jihadi. doesn't take amazing insight.
I understand your position, I just think you're full of poop. And if you don't think you're leaning hard on "moral equivlance" with this line of yours, you don't earn my pity, because your blindness is wilful.
No, not profiling. I've seen quite a few pictures of the remains. The heads are usually more intact than the rest of them.
That's pretty amazing, considering how "intact" the heads must have been before detonating.
Would I take my child to sign artillery shells Bruce? Not if they were as young as the girls in the photo, I wouldn't ask my children no matter what age. But if I had a 16 or 17 year old that was suffering the same as I was and losing people they cared about, I would just quietly let them do as they wished. Those girls have been raised in a country haunted by bombings and terrorist killings, I'd imagine those girls know exactly what they want done with those shells and arn't afraid to make their sentiments known. Think of what it would be like if New York, Los Angeles, Miami, and other cities in the US were having buses blown up like what happens in Israel? How long do you think it would take the kids in those cities to go from wondering why it was happening, to wondering why people would do that, to hating the people responsible, to wanting them dead.
Can you imagine what it must be like to have to add a talk about "why did those men kill mommy/daddy/my best friend's dad/my best friend's mom" to the list of parental turning points?? I doubt you would give them a lecture on the history of Middle Eastern conflict. "They want us all dead dear" would be just as accurate.
Now, if I had to guess they probably aren't addressing those shells to the Lebonese in general. Israeli children by this point are probably savy enough to know their terrorist organizations by heart.:thepain:
You know, I did wonder why the hands off attitude towards the Middle East until it hit a flashpoint? Did Iraq use all of our diplomatic resources?
An ABCNEWS video report makes me wonder. Could large numbers of people really want a Mideast conflict and WWIII as a path to Heaven?
Would I take my child to sign artillery shells Bruce? ~snip
Whoa, man..... BigV asked that question, not me. :headshake
err, sorry about that little mixup:redface:
But if I had a 16 or 17 year old that was suffering the same as I was and losing people they cared about, I would just quietly let them do as they wished.
Considering that within a year they might be *firing* those shells.
You know, I did wonder why the hands off attitude towards the Middle East until it hit a flashpoint? Did Iraq use all of our diplomatic resources?
Our what? What year are you living in, man?
I think it's fairly safe to say that children who have been born into the sort of horror so many of these children have would unfortunately have had their innocence stolen from them many years before their time. So, I'd say that yeah, they know what they're doing. They've been taught that if you don't get them first, they'll get you soon. If that's hate then that's what they've been taught. I'd hazard a guess and say it's probably more likely a case of self preservation which is innate in most human beings.
Either way it's heart wrenching no matter which way you look at it. Arguing about it on a stupid website doesn't help and it's definitely not going to stop it happening.
The other pictures are just stupid set ups and the parents are simply brainless to think anything like that could be funny. What morons...
I think what the children are being taught is fear. The hate that just naturally follows the fear, doesn't have to be taught. :(
Post an opinion tjauh. We all know that most of the picks out of Lebanon are real.
tjauh has an agenda, not an opinion.
Our what? What year are you living in, man?
Apparently the last one for this planet.:right:
Thousands of civilians are fleeing the war northbound. The Israelis said this was Hezbollah transporting weapons into battle? The war is not about Hezbollah. It has exposed a racist and 'disproportionate' aggression unique to Israel. From the New York Times of 12 Aug 2006:
Before Attack, Mixed Messages on Convoy’s Right to Go
More than a thousand Lebanese civilians from several southern villages were driving bumper-to-bumper down a road near the wine-making village Kefraya when the missiles hit around 9 p.m., said Ronitte Daher, a newspaper reporter from the village of Qlayah.
The people were fleeing villages that Israeli troops had recently occupied, and believed they had permission from the Israeli military to pass.
The Israeli Army, in a statement, denied it had granted permission, and said it had acted on the mistaken suspicion that Hezbollah guerrillas were smuggling weapons in the vehicles. It reiterated that it had banned the movement of cars south of the Litani River, though the convoy was hit well north of it [itallics added].
“We saw the light and the sound of the bomb,” said Ms. Daher, who was traveling in the convoy with her sister. “I got out of the car and heard voices of people crying and shouting.”
Between two and three missiles hit the convoy, eyewitnesses and officials said. Among the dead were a Lebanese Army soldier, a baker and a Red Cross emergency worker. A Lebanese Army unit had traveled with the convoy, leaving a base the Israelis recently occupied.
An honest and moral Israeli army would have doubted cars headed north are Hezbollah weapons headed south. But this is a war where anything Arab is evil. Anyone fleeing the war must be the enemy. Even the Red Cross is often attacked only because it
might be Hezbollah. 90% of innocent Lebanese are justifiable targets - even in the most northern town of Tripoli.
Moral Israelis that some here routinely assume are the good guys?
Indeed.
If it's moving. it's Hezbollah fighters re-deploying..
If it's not moving, it's Hezbollah fighters digging in...
send in the clowns^h^h^h^h^h^h^h bombers
Hez is the target, and anything Arab believes Israel is evil. Remember that Hezbollah is a political party in Lebanon and operates with official status, so Israelies probably don't see the Lebanese and Hezbollah as two completely separate groups. I think that the many of them don't draw much of a line between the two at all, much as if Canada invaded the US and said they were going after republicans. It's a war between Israel and Lebanon, Lebanese are going to die.
and you're comfortable with this?
Sure. These people had no problem with Hezbollah killing Israelies, they gave them legitimate status and became complicit in the party's actions. If Hezbollah was ruling the nation under martial law and the Lebanese were protesting the terrorist attacks against Israel, then it would be inappropriate to involve them.
Sure. These people had no problem with Hezbollah killing Israelies,
Now learn perspective. Hezbollah and Israel were slapping each others face. It was that normal and that irrelevant. How many times did you learn about Hezbollah kidnapping Israeli soldiers only to have them exchanged for prisoners? 5? I will bet you did not even know this occurred repeatedly without any military action. So why did you not know this? Because killing a few on the other side is routine. Why did you not know this? Why suddenly do you have veins hanging from your teeth with each post? Maybe the local extremists have you all emotional. That would be the accurate answer.
Posted elsewhere were some basic questions that you knew every answer to ... if you had basic knowledge of the region.
Instead you have this 'they want to kill everyone' attitude - which is exactly what Cheney and Limbaugh want you to believe.
The honest interpretation is both Israelis and Hezbollah deserve to suffer deaths because neither is good. And the Lebanese people are 100% victims.
Why did Lebanon break down into civil war last time? Because Israel invaded with no reason - no justification. Why did those we now call Hezbollah welcome Israelis with flowers and rice? And most important, why did you not know this ... but somehow know who is good and who is evil.
We know one fact. Those 90% of Lebanese are 100% victims of Israel. Israel has no problem killing anyone who is not Israeli or Jews. Just ask the crew of the USS Liberty. Oh, that too was an accident? Just ask the people of Lebanon about accidents all the way up to Tripoli. Or maybe you forget this same nation took the world closest ever to nuclear holocaust - even closer than the Cuban Missile crisis? Oh. You don't know that fact either? Do you forget history or do you just automatically know who is good and who is evil?
9th Engineer - you are, I assume 18. Therefore you entire knowledge of the world is only two years. Suddenly you know who is good and who is evil? A convoy of thousands moving north and north of the Latani river is attacked by Israel - because they thought this was Hezbollah weapons moving south. These are repeatedly not accidents.
As a maint Man said recently
" Fuck-em and feed em fish heads !!!!!
Those stupid bastardes have been killin each other off for centerurys ,
and even if we can take ALL their weapons away from them they will be killing each other off with rocks and sticks !!!!!!!"
There's a war going on over there. People die in wars...always.
Remember when the Marines rolled into Iraq....we killed a whole bunch of Marines by mistake....2nd company if I remember correctly.
Occam's Razor.... Never blame an evil plan when plain snafu is likely. ;)
C'mon Zippy, let us know how you feel about Arabs.
Fuck-em !!!!!!!!
" Fuck-em and feed em fish heads !!!!!
Those stupid bastardes have been killin each other off for centerurys ,
and even if we can take ALL their weapons away from them they will be killing each other off with rocks and sticks !!!!!!!"
Same shit different dialect !!!!
It is as STUPID as if the Cathlics and the Babtist were killing each other off over their own spin on religion !!!
There IS a God , weather his ( or Her ) name in Jesus , Allah , Budda , or Oden !!!
They NEED to understand that every body sees things differently , but it it ALL the same when you break it down to the BASICS !!!!!!
Fuck-em !!!!!!!!
" Fuck-em and feed em fish heads !!!!!
Those stupid bastardes have been killin each other off for centerurys ,
and even if we can take ALL their weapons away from them they will be killing each other off with rocks and sticks !!!!!!!"
Same shit different dialect !!!!
It is as STUPID as if the Cathlics and the Babtist were killing each other off over their own spin on religion !!!
There IS a God , weather his ( or Her ) name in Jesus , Allah , Budda , or Oden !!!
They NEED to understand that every body sees things differently , but it it ALL the same when you break it down to the BASICS !!!!!!
This attitude has merit. If American and European bombers bombed each side so that Israeli and Arab deaths were equally proportional, then all would sue for peace. In such conflicts, human life has no value. Until the underlying principles are solved (addressed), humans will continue to die uselessly and anyway.
Massive death rates on all sides means centrists - the intelligent people - are driven from the ranks of extremists. Only then can peace happen. It solved the Balkans quickly when suddenly Serbians were dying in numbers equal to or higher than Croatians. It forced centrists to rise up and expell extremists from power. It solved the problem.
There is merit to what zippyt posts. However do we have the balls to attempt it? No. Because there is this other fact - our future relations with all those parties.
As so often happens, The Economist again provided another perspective. From The Economist of 5 Aug 2006 entitled "The war beyond the war":
It is sometimes no bad thing to end with a draw. Lopsided victories, like the ones Israel won in 1948 and 1967, can leave a residue of hubris on one side and shattered pride on the other that block peacemaking for decades. By contrast, the war of 1973, which both Israel and Egypt claimed to have won, restored Egyptian honour and persuaded Israel that it was worth exchanging the Sinai peninsula for peace with its strongest neighbour. The Palestinian intifada of the late 1980s also ended in a draw of sorts. The Palestinians could not push Israel out of the West Bank and Gaza but nor could Israel suppress the Palestinian fever for an end to occupation. This was one of the things that helped convince Yitzhak Rabin of the need to give Yasser Arafat the embryo of what should have become an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza. ...
Despite the hundreds of dead, most of them Lebanese civilians, this has not yet been one of the more lethal regional wars. Yet it has already added disproportionately to the brimming pot of hatred. ...
These two countries do not in fact have much to quarrel about. There is between them no painful land-for-peace deal that has to be made, of the sort that Israel made with Egypt and must one day make with the Palestinians. (The “disputed” scrap of land known as the Shebaa Farms is at most a pretext Hizbullah uses to justify its fighting.) Indeed, a case can be made that this particular conflict is not primarily between Israel and Lebanon at all so much as it is between Israel and Iran, Hizbullah's mentor—and between America and Iran. That makes it much harder to resolve, not least because the superpower, so far from being a mediator, is in effect a protagonist, [boldface added] competing with Iran for domination of the post-Saddam Middle East, and to some extent tempted in this war to use Israel as a proxy.
This is a dreadful new turn. The century-long conflict between Zionism and the Arabs of Palestine has been hard enough to settle on its own, without additional global and regional rivalries superimposed.
Once again, tw is unable to support the democracy that's in the battle, and sides with the anti-democracy, by what seems to be emotional preference. Commie much? Definitely scummy.
tw has information, facts, statistics to back up what he's saying.
YOU have... McCarthian anti-leftism? "He's leaning towards the left! He must be a commie!"
Ibram, you'll find that his notions of what is fact, and what is righteous, are heavily influenced by his documentably communist beliefs. They are all over his writings, and evident in what he opposes and in what he supports. He makes no denial of being a communist -- he knows I've got his number too well.
He can't spell or edit. He particularly cannot get foreign terms correct. He handles written English like someone not born to it, as is particularly evidenced in the absence of articles. This is not someone to respect.
It's not that he leans towards the left so far as to be horizontal; it's that communists are going to fight with me anyway. They don't want to answer for the butcher's bill their habitual genocides have run up over the past ninety years. Between forty-one million and upwards of one hundred million folks killed off that don't seem to have particularly done anything to make them need killing tells me I'm right to tell tw where to get off and stay off. Check out the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership sometime -- they can give good information on the lethal habits of the un-democracies.
Sen. McCarthy had a brain tumor. I don't.
Just for the sake of making a good argument UG, if tw is so wrong you should be able to debunk him easier without insinuating anything about communism whatsoever.
I dont agree with everything he says, maybe not even the majority of what he says, but you give nothing for me to agree or disagree with. All you do is spout off bullshit about how "communists are going to fight with me anyway" (meaning that anyone who fights with you is a commie?) and that only a communist could possibly think the US is wrong in any way.
Did you know that back in the cold war, being gay used by the McCarthyists as proof of liberalism and therefore communism?
And I'm not even going to start on that little anticommunist rant of yours. I'm definitely not going to defend the communist regimes, but what the FUCK does that have to do with the Israel/Lebanon conflict?
To sum up, so you can't bullshit out of this one like you did with your last post...
TW IS NOT A COMMUNIST, capitalized for effect.
Show me a SINGLE thing tw has said that is remotely communist. Prove it, like you completely failed to do with your useless 'tw is a communist!!!!11!one!!!eleven' thread.
[SIZE="1"]...tool.[/SIZE]
Did you know that back in the cold war, being gay used by the McCarthyists as proof of liberalism and therefore communism?
Not anymore?
No, but UG's argument that being liberal and not agreeing with him equalling communism is just as ridiculous.
Ah... them naughty pinkoliberalcommietreehuggin bastards...
If the cease-fire doesn't hold, whose fault will it be: Israel's, or the US? Time to pay attention, and keep your scorecards handy.
Times (UK)
TODAY was supposed to be the day when the much maligned army of Lebanon took control of its borders and policed the UN ceasefire.
Instead, its military commanders were left humiliated and its troops stranded as Hezbollah told them not to try to disarm its fighters.
The first infantry units were preparing to head south yesterday when Hezbollah demonstrated who exercised the real control by announcing that it had no intention of surrendering a single weapon.
^^I am sure we, the Great Satan, are at fault for this and I am breathlessly awaiting some Brit to spell it all out for me.
Why does zippyt get to say "Fuck 'em" and nobody cares but when I say it...
If the cease-fire doesn't hold, whose fault will it be: Israel's, or the US? Time to pay attention, and keep your scorecards handy.
Well this morning the French announced they would not disarm Hezbullah by force, so I guess we know what to expect.
the French announced they would not disarm Hezbullah by force
This is a surprise?
Ok I got to page two and decided not to read any further. So....forgive me if I repeat something someone else has said later in the thread.
What the hell is all this crap about what Israel being flattened? Have you seen what they've done to The Lebanon? Israel is probably the only country in that region who ISNT going to be flattened. Quite apart from anything else, Israel is a nuclear nation, yep that'right they gots the bomb. They are the regional superpower. Why are they the regional superpower? Because they have the absolute and total support of their 'allies' the USA.
Why is Bush in any way responsible for what's going on over there? Well, giving Israel permission to flatten the fuck out of Southern Lebanon and vetoing calls for an immediate ceasefire spring to mind. The neo-con American govt. has its part to play in this, as does my own cowardly govt.
When the arabs launch an attack (of any kind) our governments condemn them in the strongest possible terms. When Israel launches an attack we are silent. When they respond to arab attacks disproportionately and destroy whole towns, a country's infrastructure and kill civilians indiscriminately, we don't condemn, we 'urge restraint'.
We are happy in the West to name Hezbollah as guilty of warcrimes when they hide their people and weapons amongst civilians. We are much less keen to name Israel guilty of warcrimes when they engage in collective punishment (as they did with the Palestinians just prior to Hezbollah's entry into the fray)
This is why my government and the American government are partly responsible for the current crisis. We have dealt with the region so unevenly, that we no longer have any voice with the Arab side, meanwhile we waste what voice we have with Israel by being complicit in the scale of their response.
I love by the way, that Israel calls its army a 'Defense Force'. That's so cute. The way they defend their country by tramping through someone elses. I remember seeing a great picture of an israeli soldier defending his country by holding a gun to palestinian child's head, in palestine:P
tw does not give facts as much as he asks questions. I tracked down the answers to a bunch of his questions regarding Hamas and Hezbollah expecting the them to have an effect on my opinion, they turned out to be irrelevent. Plus, I think he's gone off the deep end with all the apocalyptic
shit he's been throwing around. I don't care how much someone disagrees with me, if they accuse me of wanting to bring about the End of Days and the return of Christ I'm not going to take them seriously.
If the cease-fire doesn't hold, whose fault will it be: Israel's, or the US? Time to pay attention, and keep your scorecards handy.
UT asks an important question. Whereas this conflict once threatened to draw others into a big war, it now appears to be getting a logical response.
However the ceasefire is grossly flawed. It mostly ignores underlying reasons and threatens to put a too small and too lightly armed international peace force between two sides who have not yet been hurt sufficient to want peace. Hurt enough only to want a pause. A pause that still does not address the underlying disagreement.
From the New York Times:
U.N. Council Backs Measure to Halt War in Lebanon
A senior administration official in Crawford, Tex., where Mr. Bush is on vacation, said that it increasingly seemed that Israel would not be able to achieve a military victory, a realization that led the Americans to get behind a cease-fire.
Which answers how long Condi Rice could run interference for Israel. NY Times continues:
The Lebanese are also likely to be unhappy with the resolution’s failure to order Israel to relinquish control of Shebaa Farms, an area of the border that it seized in 1967 and that, while declared to be part of Syria by the United Nations, is claimed by Lebanon.
The resolution simply asks the secretary general to develop ideas on how to solve the dispute and report back on his findings in 30 days.
The resolution does not order the return of abducted Israeli soldiers, an original reason Israel cited for going to war, nor does it meet Hezbollah requests for release of prisoners held by Israel. The measure says it is “mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging of the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel.”
The Washington Post adds further background:
Annan said the United Nations' failure to act sooner has "badly shaken the world's faith" in the body. "I would be remiss if I did not tell you how profoundly disappointed I am that the council did not reach this point much, much earlier," he said.
The United States and France dismissed Lebanese demands for an immediate cease-fire that would prohibit Israel from carrying out even defensive military actions. Instead, the resolution requires Hezbollah to immediately cease all attacks, while calling on Israel to immediately cease only its "offensive military operations."
Ceasefire is a flawed compromise. It will be enough in the short term. But the world needed a long term solution. Ceasefire may have been too early for all sides to address real reasons for conflict - including too many Israeli centrist still thinking like extremists.
One more problem. Israel has done about 20 years of damage to Lebanon. The country is $40billion in debt due to the last unjustified Israeli attack on Lebanon. As Dr Landis of U of Oklahoma notes, who in their right mind is going to loan any money to Lebanon? That makes Lebanon unstable and a festering pool of extremism. It makes the Lebanon government unstable and weak. Another wound that was healing until Israel tore that wound wide open again. This so that the Israeli government could brag to its extremist that it too had a 'big dic'.
The entire conflict was unnecessary - a classic result of leaders with too much ego and too little respect for why healing takes 30+ years. They simply put the Middle East right back to 1980s.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government will fall as Israelis learn how weak this man was. He is a pathetically weak leader. He took a cheap and knee jerk reaction to appear strong and politically correct rather than act like a leader. He is weak and not leadership material - which is obvious once this latest war is analyzed from a logical and unemotional perspective. Sharon's and Arafat's leadership skills both were so superior to Olmert - who has about as much leadership ability as Gerald Ford.
That's a shame because it puts Likud right back in power.
Dana, parts of that post above don't even sound like you. I know how emotional all this is...it pisses me off, too.
I see all your points. I also see that hzblh was the first to muddy the waters by kidnapping the Israeli soldiers, that hzblh uses women and children as shields and hzblh has NO interest in a peaceful co-exsistance with Israel. It is very hard for me to see where the fault lies with Israel. It is tantamount to declaring someone 'bad' for defending themselves. Arabs are masters of victimization--just ask them. OBL is pissed about things that happened 600 years ago. Hzblh, hammas and the palestinians will never never be satisfied with ANY concession Israel makes because their aim is the destruction of an entire people. Pres. of Iran has said the Holocaust was 'blown out of proportion'---what a laugh. The Holocaust is blown out of proportion but the suffering of Arabs is real. You don't see any jaundice in that?
Israel doesn't give a crap about Shebaa Farms. Sharon's final policy seems the most sensible of all: withdraw to defendable borders. They would gladly give up that land, but they need to give it up in a way that doesn't seem to grant a victory that empowers the wrong assholes.
When figuring out which side is aggressive and which defensive, the tie-breaker should be in favor of the side that doesn't have an AK47 on its flag.
(And a globe.)
I tracked down the answers to a bunch of his questions regarding Hamas and Hezbollah expecting the them to have an effect on my opinion,
Answer was never intended to affect your opinion. Answer was to teach you about yourself. The difference between Hamas and Hezbollah are so massive that the difference should have been common knowledge. Since you had to 'track down the answer', then your knowledge of the Middle East - of facts and trends most relevant - is near zero. You don’t yet have about one decade worth of learning to have a grasp of the Middle East. It is fabulously complex. You have a vast ignorance of the entire region if you did not know, immediately, the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah. You have a Daily News, Fox News perspective which means you have not yet started to learn.
Imagine someone who claims to know all about America and yet does not even know who Abraham Lincoln is. That is 9th Engineer in the Middle East.
Someone who does not even know the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah is then fodder for propagandists - ie AIPAC. Do you see AIPAC spin every week? Or again, is your grasp of the region so minimal that you don't even know the difference between AIPAC spin verses reality? Not knowing the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah also means you have no idea why, for example, kidnapping two Israeli soldiers is no different from a crash on the mid-town expressway. Welcome to a region where all parties are that immoral or that jaded. Where lies (political spin) is normal because all sides are so far apart.
Politicians in the region are so far apart as to speak even nonsense rhetoric - for example Israel should be moved to Europe. They don't really think this. It is how you measure your political adversary - how you measure whether he wants to talk or instead wants to hype on that political fiction. Welcome to the Middle East where so many Americans cannot even see through the Hezbollah propaganda of 'destruction of Israel' which is nothing more than a bargaining chip and rhetoric to hype your less intelligent extremist supporters. And yet those in America who have no grasp – don’t even know the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah – could never understand what is an honest point of conflict and what his propaganda hype. Everyone in the Middle East – even Israel – routinely hypes nonsense.
The fact that you had to look up Hamas and Hezbollah means you can not even see through propaganda from AIPAC – or even know what is AIPAC and Christian Zionist spin. The fact that you had to look up Hamas and Hezbollah says you don’t yet have a clue about mostly everything in the region.
Try learning some perspective. You have about 10 years of learning ahead of you. Robert Baer’s books might be a good beginning. Or read the Economist – every issue every week. You have not yet started to learn about the Middle East – because you did not even know something as fundamentally equivalent as “the House of Representatives verses the Senate”.
Israel doesn't give a crap about Shebaa Farms. Sharon's final policy seems the most sensible of all: withdraw to defendable borders.
If Israel does not car about Sheeba Farms, then why does the problem remain? Those defensible borders were defined in 1967. Sharon instead represented zionists who literally deny Palestinians have any right to land. And so the massive West Bank land grab. Meanwhile, Sharon that was dying suddenly reversed himself.
When figuring out which side is aggressive and which defensive, the tie-breaker should be in favor of the side that doesn't have an AK47 on its flag.
Classic 'big dic' thinking also used by Gen Curtis LeMay to destroy the United States. "We are already at war with the Soviet Union and the American public does not know it yet".
UT - your solutions are constantly found in a 'big dic' perspective - as if pre-emption solves everything. Only mental midget extremists such as George Jr believe such rediculous childish notions. I can routinely count on you to promote AIPAC rhetoric. I can always count on you to call for military solutions rather than negotiated settlements. Even your believe in WMDs was based in pre-emptive and militarist emotion - not in any viable facts. Same people that also want to fight in a bar.
Same people who did not even know the only purpose of war - a negotiated settlement.
Solution:
Rock the Casbah - the Clash
Only solution.
A cultural war. I bet we win.
PS-- I bet more than me alone skips tw's posts. No one prolly has the balls to admit it though.
I don't care what you think I write, because you routinely misinterpret and misstate what I write. A few times you've even boldly assumed what I've written and took sides against it -- when I didn't write anything at all.
A few times, I wrote "A" and you assumed I wrote "B", and took positions against it in favor of "A".
And I'm not here to convince you, because you're not here to be convinced or to discuss things honestly and openly.
Most of the time you're a wedge to me, a means to move the conversation around.
I don't care what you think I write, because you routinely misinterpret and misstate what I write.
It's called indentifying the spin - misdirected reality - and confronting it with facts. One reality, UT, is your blind support for Israel. Your support for Lebanon could not condemn Israel for attacking innocet Lebanese civilians - even in Tripoli - because that would accurately identify Israel as the aggressor. It is correct to blame Israel as the aggressor. And it would demonstrate a pro-Lebanon attitude. You did not do that. That is reality - for others here to judge.
PS-- I bet more than me alone skips tw's posts. No one prolly has the balls to admit it though.
I skip them most of the time. I think anybody who posts here at all has to, just on a time-consumed basis.
I still think
the "wonton acceleration" post was funny, though...especially coming from somebody who's such a pretentiously stuffy Cassandra de le Noir all the time.
Listen to yourself tw, you constantly blame people for 'spin' anytime a position is taken other than that where everyone is equally to blame. You say that we cannot acknowledge acts of aggression on the part of Israel, which we usually do, because of our 'need' to see Israel as blameless (which is not what anyone here has been saying). However, look carefully at what you are saying:
...because that would accurately identify Israel as the aggressor. It is correct to blame Israel as the aggressor. And it would demonstrate a pro-Lebanon attitude. You did not do that. That is reality - for others here to judge.
You are simply taking the stance exactly opposite to what you blame us of saying. You see Israel as the unilateral aggressor,
the aggressor, not
an aggressor. You then make the single biggest mistake, you state your opionion and call it the
reality. Throw in an assortment of personal attacks and a few cliches like 'mental midget extremests' and you have a tw post.
I skip most of them, although they provide a bit of entertainment. Kind of like X-Files, except 'I want to believe' turns into 'I'm right your stupid'.
I'm really happy to let others judge what I write. All I ask is that they read it first.
I skip them most of the time. I think anybody who posts here at all has to, just on a time-consumed basis.
I tend to skip them because I enjoy the discussion here and posts that sound like lecturing while not inviting input or opinion don't serve a point.
You know, someone ought to ask the same question in a poll...
...no, wait, that'd be mean.
I skip them most of the time. I think anybody who posts here at all has to, just on a time-consumed basis.
From what I've read here from tw is a little pedantic, but he hits the nail firmly on the head most of the time.
Brianna. Do a quick head count of how many people have died in Israel to arab attacks ( including all those dead to palestinian suicide bombs) and then do a quick count on the death toll in the Lebanon and Palestine in the same period, then tell me the Arabs are good at playing victim.
Israel is illegally occupying someone else's country. It is recognised by the United Nations as being engaged in an illegal occupation. Goliath is camped out in David's back yard and the world is feeling sorry for Goliath.
That last post didn't sound like me? Well, it was. This issue is one I feel very strongly about. It's also a subject I know quite a bit about. I have friends who make regular trips of months or years at a time, to Gaza. I have letters and videos brought back by them. I know the names of people they've lost. I know what they have borne witness to (in the name of peace, they are a Christian Mission).
Like I said, through the looking glass, straight through the rabbit hole, turn left and watch out for cluster bombs. The world's turned upside down. The victims are held to full account and the ones with the biggest guns get to wail their losses.
And how do we justify this? That some voices in the Arab world decry the presence of a Jewish state. Well. I know in the past the Israelis had to fight for their survival, but those days are long gone. They are now the power and the voices crying for their destruction are really spouting the rhetoric of the defeated. It is a willful misunderstanding of that fact which allows the Israeli state to unleash such unrestrained and bloody slaughter on those enemies.
This is an unevan struggle. Even with a war on two fronts they are a lion swatting at mice. With each night of rockets the Hezbolla attacks kill or maim a few unlucky souls. Meanwhile Israel destroys utterly any semblance of civilisation amongst the Lebanese in order to strike at Hezbolla, even though most of the casualties have nothing to do with Hezbolla.
And before people point at hezbollah and say,that they are drawing israeli
fire upon the civilians and that makes them guilty of war crimes, Israel has a choice as to whether to launch such a devastating response.
They could have considered other responses. For instance they could have done a prison exchange as Hezbollah wanted and as has been done in the past.
On a side note: do you know how many Arab women and children the Israelis hold in their jails these days? Betyou don't. These of course being jails under a system in which torture is legal.
Brianna. Do a quick head count of how many people have died in Israel to arab attacks ( including all those dead to palestinian suicide bombs) and then do a quick count on the death toll in the Lebanon and Palestine in the same period, then tell me the Arabs are good at playing victim.
Considering that when they "play" victim they don't give a rat's ass about the body count, as long as it advances their cause?
They're good at it.
After all, it worked on you, didn't it?
And the Israelis do give a rats ass about body count? They certainly don't make much of an effort to minimise civilian deaths. Given that they're supposed to be the civilised one in this war.
So basically Maggie what you are saying is that its the arabs own fault that their death toll is so high? and that theyve willingly allowed many of their people to be brutally slaughtered just to fool the likes of me?
Wasn't anything to do with any of that that made me see the injustices of that region. It was something much smaller and far removed from Hamas or Hezbollah fighters. A tiny incident, an instance amongst many in an ordinary daily life.
The looking glass logic is truly in effect here. Just as it is when we look at Iraq. An American president who cannot conscience the murder of feotuses to save lives but will happily preside over an initial assault on Baghdad that took nigh on 30,000 civilian lives.
We make up our morality on the fly. We twist it to suit our agendas and to fit the faces of our friends.
Body count:
Israel: 43 civillian, 112 soldiers
Lebanon 1043, mostly civillian (or actors?)
I think you'll find they're mostly actors, hippy K..... in the biggest snuff movie ever made....
You look at the news... this buliding down, that one a pile of rubble...
but there's dead people in that oh so surgically struck wreckage....
Tw invariably supports antidemocracies, and downs democracies -- we all know that. Draw your own conclusions about whether this man is worth the powder to blow his nose.
Just for the sake of making a good argument UG, if tw is so wrong you should be able to debunk him easier without insinuating anything about communism whatsoever.
Jeb, the short answer is that aside from his having the kind of emotionally immature personality the Left attracts -- I've seen it elsewhere -- the man's communism is the fundamental cause of him being wrong. I insinuate nothing:
j'accuse.We all know that Israel is being defensive.....not offensive, no matter how aggressive their defense is.
*checks thread for previous germane posts by townie hoodie*
NONE FOUND! (sirens wail)
TROLL ALERT! TAKE COVER!
All you do is spout off bullshit about how "communists are going to fight with me anyway" (meaning that anyone who fights with you is a commie?) and that only a communist could possibly think the US is wrong in any way.
Don't try indulging in ignorant caricature -- I end up bending the people who try it over a picket fence and sandbagging them. They end up being made fools of. It is not, after all, necessary to be a communist to "disagree" with us, but it's extremely likely that communists/socialists will do that, because our libertarian sort of social order is a standing reproach to their markedly poorer and visibly inferior approach to just plain life, let alone prosperity. It is routine for communists to rail against the best capitalist example, and it is equally routine for communists to desire that we be defeated. Has tw at any time evinced a desire that we, the democracy, win? AFAIK he hasn't. Tw's behavior is remarkably consistent in this regard.
And I'm not even going to start on that little anticommunist rant of yours. I'm definitely not going to defend the communist regimes, but what the FUCK does that have to do with the Israel/Lebanon conflict?
This is a reasonably fair question, but I
am surprised you don't see the connection. Socialism is -- what? -- communism dilute? Both are collectivist, right? Is there even any particular line with distinctively pure socialism on one side, and a pure communism on the other? It is also my experience that totalitarianisms are more alike than they are different. They exist to oppress; the good thing about democracies is that they aren't in the oppression business. Add secure property rights to a democratic social order and you've got something no totalitarian society can match: mighty wealth, nurtured in a society congenial to it, which is not seen under the rule of an oppressor. In Israel/Lebanon we have a battle between the socialist Ba'ath ruling party of Syria and the oppressive regime of mullahs in Iran on one side and the most successful and established democracy anywhere in the Middle East on the other.
To sum up, so you can't bullshit out of this one like you did with your last post...
TW IS NOT A COMMUNIST, capitalized for effect.
Show me a SINGLE thing tw has said that is remotely communist. Prove it, like you completely failed to do with your useless 'tw is a communist!!!!11!one!!!eleven' thread.
Capitalized to demonstrate your inability to recognize a devoted communist, you mean, Ibbie. Sorry, not impressed. Your education has a huge hole in it. For the proof of tw's communist views, you need only to do two easy things -- okay, fairly easy: recall every communist propaganda trope you've ever heard or heard of, even if you have to research them first, and see if you can find them in what tw writes. If he's not a communist, he does an incredibly precise imitation of one. Communist takes on world history pop up in his historical comments all the time -- he's a mess on Vietnam, being visibly happy our cause was lost. At first I thought tw was simply irrational, but when he invoked that popular communist boogeyman Pinochet -- as a boogeyman -- there was my first clue. Then I saw all the other left/communist stuff sprinkled through his posts and the lightbulb came on. I've remarked in the thread you refer to that he makes no denial to any effect of my findings -- he knows he's a communist too, and his last shreds of personal integrity cause him to tacitly admit that. You can't have personal integrity and communism at the same time -- either it will drive you nuts or the other communists will shoot you.
Communism has no understanding of human nature or of economics, as its record of grandiose failure shows. It was the work of a crank, and it produced, apparently inherently, only waste. Communism itself being without worth, what does that make the communists?
It makes them something to avoid, or better, to destroy. Absent any other brand of totalitarianism, the anti-Communist is in my experience the pro-Human. I urge all of us to be pro-Human. Some, alas, will not respond to this call, perhaps because they imagine me to be anti-human or something.
You can dislike things the US has done without being communist.
You can misunderstand human nature without being communist.
You can agree with things that commies have said without being communist.
You can think that democracies are not automatically right without being communist.
In fact, you can easily do all of those without being communist.
Show me where tw has ever said anything about wanting socialism, communism, totalitarianism, or anything of the sort. You logic is along the lines of 'He runs fast, has a big wang, is strong, wears baggy clothes, and wears hats, so he must be black!' It's nothing but stereotypes and incomplete assumptions.
And I thought McCarthy was dead for years...
UG wrote:
He can't spell or edit. He particularly cannot get foreign terms correct. He handles written English like someone not born to it, as is particularly evidenced in the absence of articles. This is not someone to respect.
I am finding it hard to know just where to begin on this one. It does say a lot though doesn't it?
There can be no democracy without communism anyway. Everything needs a paradox; an equal and opposite force. It's one of the principal laws of physics. What makes communism so evil anyway? (can't wait for this)
*Hands Aliantha a hardhat and tucks in behind the sandbags, damp ciggie hanging from lips*
Well this should be entertaining.
(Incidentally and appropos of nothing: is that Aliantha as in the berry?)
Yeah...big Stephen Donaldson fan here. ;) Being a lefty, I spend a lot of time in fantasy land. :)
note: I do realize the definition of paradox is not 'an equal and opposite force', so don't bother correcting me. It'd be fairly easy to argue that communism is a paradox of democracy though.
ps. That note wasn't for your benefit Dana. ;)
Ahhh.....The Land:) I spent many happy hours there:P well, alright not exactly happy.....more tense as fuck and often harrowing, but hey not all fantasies are fun :)
(Have you read Runes of the Earth by the way?)
Don't try indulging in ignorant caricature -- I end up bending the people who try it over a picket fence and sandbagging them. They end up being made fools of.
Note to any new readers: None of the above is actually true.
I think that's a very interesting strategy UG is employing there. I can see how in a battle of intellects, being bent over a fence and sandbagged must be the ultimate riposte. Gosh, they must feel so silly. Egg in their faces really.
Dana, you say that Israel should 'do like hzblh wants' and do a prisoner exchange. why on earth should Israel do what hzblh wants? Your crying foul because Israel didn't respond "correctly" to these thugs? then you ask for a fair fight. I say don't pick on someone who can squash you.
Why is it that if someone is big and burly they are called upon to show restraint when provoked? "Look, I know that little guy keeps hitting you and hitting you and spitting on you, but, you're so big...just take it, ok? Let him do whatever he wants to you coz you are big and rich. Let him piss on you if he wants, ok?" Rubbish.
That's the new theory - and it may be right, that if Israel allowed the attacks to go on and did nothing about it, they would eventually be seen as the highly moral actor.
To get there, all a culture needs to do is to collectively reach a Gandhi-esque level of moral development in over 50% of its population, before it reaches a level of learned helplessness in same, by thoroughly accepting the occasional citizen killed by potshot or lobbed missile as somehow a good thing.
All the while the team doing the lobbing grows exponentially in strength.
Look, the Palestinians have a reasonable cause, even if they do not always follow a reasonable path to get there. Hezbollah, however, does not. I would like to see them all dead, in big dic fashion, instead of just the 25% who were offed in the last month. But I realize this may not be able to be accomplished and may have an unreasonable level of "blowback" amongst people who actually like the highly violent, islamofascist, thugs who assassinate anyone who disagrees with them. (Not only opposition leaders, but TV commentators who disagree with them.)
And so the current action may not actually be a good idea, but I don't know, which is why I must be content to let history be the judge.
Breast implants save Israeli woman's life in rocket attack
At last a lighter side. via Fark of course.
Now all she has to worry about is the toxicity of the silicone. Presumably they removed the damaged implant and as much of the silicone as possible.
I'm so glad I opted *not* to get implants. I'll wear external body armor when necessary, thanks.
that if Israel allowed the attacks to go on and did nothing about it, they would eventually be seen as the highly moral actor.
To remind you, below the timeline of the beginning of this conflicts. Now who attacked? Do you consider the kidnapping an attack? Kidnappings happened all the time. BTW Chief of Staff Dan Halutz sold his stocks hours before the start of the Israeli attacks, he knew that something big was coming long time before...
July 12
Hezbollah fighters seize two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid. Three Israeli soldiers are also killed in the attack.
It says it will release them if Israel frees Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails.
"Fulfilling its pledge to liberate the prisoners and detainees, the Islamic Resistance ... captured two Israeli soldiers at the border with occupied Palestine," a Hezbollah statement said.
Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister, said the attack was an "act of war" by Lebanon and said he would make the country pay a "heavy price".
July 13
Israeli jets bomb the runway of Lebanon's only international airport, the Rafiq Hariri Airport in Beirut, at dawn. The airport is closed and flights are diverted.
Israel announces an air and sea blockade of Lebanon, and says that Hezbollah will not be allowed to return to its former position along the border.
[B]July 14[/B]
Israel bombs targets across Lebanon including bridges, roads and power stations. Israeli aircraft also hits Hezbollah's headquarters in Beirut.
Israel also attacks broadcasting facilities belonging to Hezbollah's Al-Manar television channel.
Hezbollah fires an Iranian-made anti-shipping rocket at an Israeli naval vessel off Beirut. The attack kills four Israeli sailors. Israeli accuses the Lebanese army of assisting Hezbollah.
July 15
Israeli aircraft destroy Hezbollah's headquarters in southern Beirut in an attempt to kill Hasan Nasrallah, the group's leader.
Israel bombs Lebanon's ports and other sites across Lebanon. The attacks kill at least 35 people.
Eighteen Lebanese civilians die when an Israeli rockets hit their van near the southern city of Saida.
Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, promises "open war" against Israel.
Hezbollah rockets hit Tiberias, an Israeli city in Galilee. The attacks are the deepest so far.
Walking past one of the many televisions now perpetually tuned to CNN in my office (complete with never-ending 'breaking news' ticker) I noticed that they were discussing "who won the war?" in post football game-style analysis.
I repeat: I hate the news.
The correct timeline goes back six years, to 2000, and includes about 25 Hez potshots, kidnappings, and missile firings. I posted it earlier.
Yes, everyone knew this was coming. I posted a Michael Totten entry where he visited the borders in April and it was obvious. And when you put 13,000 missiles into an area, you are sort of telegraphing your moves.
It is more true colors that these things were happening all the time and the world shrugged. This is why the "patient moral actor" theory doesn't apply. The world has constructed a different set of rules for Israel, rules which if applied to your own country, would be obvious nonsense. If an armed, UN-outlawed, illegal militia in Mexico started lobbing missiles at LA from Tijuana, we wouldn't be asking about proportionate reponse. We'd be asking what to rename Tijuana since we took it over yesterday, with extreme violence and tank shelling of innocents. And if A.N.S.W.E.R. showed up in LA to demand a peace really, they'd be met by guys with tire irons to explain reality to them.
If Dover were being bombed by an illegal UN-outlawed armed militia in Calais, we would be loading up the troop transports and nobody would be wailing about French babies occasionally taking one up the gut.
Yes, everyone knew this was coming. I posted a Michael Totten entry where he visited the borders in April and it was obvious. And when you put 13,000 missiles into an area, you are sort of telegraphing your moves.
Yes, everyone knew this was coming. When he visited the mid-west in April, it was obvious. And when you put 1054 nuclear tipped missiles into silos, you are sort of telegraphing your moves.
Clearly that shows why the United States started WWIII.
UT, concede. Israel started this. Israel even overtly attacked and killed innocent Lebanese all over the country in some myth about only attacking Hezbollah. When you concede to the reality, then we can move on to more interesting and realistic curiosities about this Israeli started war. Questions such as who won - being asked without first defining fundamental concepts - asked from so many different perspectives.
Then we can ask how good or bad is Olmert's leadership. What happened to make those kidnapped Israelis irrelevant. Then we can ask why this ceasefire is flawed or why it miraculously accomplishes something.
You are now grasping at six years ago when Hezbollah was doing what is precisely Hezbollah's only reason to exist: to defend Lebanon from Israel. Your pro-Israeli bias is badly exposed.
Using the term 'reality' in your posts to describe your opinion doesn't make it true tw. Cut the bombastic language from your pleas for people to take you seriously (not happening) and just debate like everyone else here, don't just repeatedly tell people they are denying reality.
Quiz questions for tw
1. According to the UN, who was supposed to disarm Hezbollah?
2. Who said about Jews, "If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide?"
3. When you
watch this February 2006 video of Nasrallah calling the crowd to chant Death to America, do you A) secretly get a hard-on, or B) secretly wish that neighborhood was the first in Beirut to be hit?
4. As you watch that video, aren't you embarrassed that you
claimed that Beirut is, and I quote, "devoid of Hezbollah"?
Using the term 'reality' in your posts to describe your opinion doesn't make it true tw.
9th Engineer. You proved to all that you don't yet have a grasp. You did not even know the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah. You could acknowledge your limited grasp of the world, or respond more like UG - like a child. I am losing respect for your opinions because 1) you don't yet grasp the lessons of history, and 2) you are now responding more like a hurt child rather than like an adult that would keep learning.
It is a reality, 9th Engineer. In this war, Israel started it. Israel also (for reasons that still befuddle) attacked innocent Lebanese all over Lebanon. Those are facts. They are provided with supporting evidence. If you have a problem with 'reality', you can post other evidence (as an adult) or you can nag like an old hag. Your last post does not even state an opinion or provide a useful fact. It is only a personal attack.
Currently, you did not even know most basic knowledge: the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah. That void should have been informative. Instead you nag like a hag - starting to sound more like Urbane Guerrilla. Admit the reality. You do not have a grasp of the situation because you did not even know basic facts. Instead you took personal insult for what is a fact - you did not even know the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah.
5. Since the beginning of hostilities in Lebanon, there is one other country that experienced more deaths, yet did not receive any sort of UN cease-fire demand, media attention, or spin of any kind. Name it
And if you get less than 3 out of 5 on my quiz you are not allowed to speak on the middle east any longer.
1. According to the UN, who was supposed to disarm Hezbollah?
In reality - no one. That is remains the problem with 1559. It really makes no one responsible for disarming because it even demands what could not be accomplished:
UN Resolution 1559
Your other questions are from those who need to see 'good and evil' everywhere. Those citations are no different than what Rush Limbaugh does for the White House. Rhetoric for those without enough grasp to even sit through a Kristol/Holbrook/Rose interview. Classic of what the AIPAC promotes to successfully promote hype.
Do you also take Geobel's type propaganda as if it represents the actual thinking of Hitler? But that is what you do. You look for fake pictures to justify your extreme pro-Israel bias rather than step back and ask what the hell is going on. Had you first stepped back, then embarrassing questions would have been asked - such as why is Israel attacking innocent people even in Akkar and the Beirut Airport - the crown jewel of all Lebanese people?
Unlike you, UT, I see nothing of factual value in those videos. I don't see anything but propaganda for the cannon fodder. Rush Limbaugh hype for the masses. Little different from Goebel's propaganda. And just like Krushchev banging his show on the podium in the UN, I did not for one minute see a madman. You would. The difference: I want facts; not rhetoric for the cannon fodder (people too short sighted to see through to reality). You see Krushchev banging his shoe on the UN podium as proof final that Krushchev is a madman. You do not see through the rhetoric.
I know, UT, that you are very capable of seeing through that rhetoric. But for reasons that again befuddle me, you don't. You refuse. I just don't know why you refuse to look beyond the fog to find a structure.
What causes us to have sharp disagreements? You will not even admit that Israel was targeting innocent Lebanese through out Lebanon. And even when Hippikos provides the time line, you still deny. We are right back to those aluminum tubes again where you just knew - all facts be damned. You knew only because you 'felt' you knew. Meanwhile, facts back then said those aluminum tubes were just not good for WMDs. You even grabbed on irrelevant facts (such as those tubes were anodized) as proof that you must be right. IOW you deny facts when it does not fit your agenda. That is lying.
And again, UT, Israel started this war. That is a fact. Israel even attacked Beirut airport where there was no Hezbollah and attacked it over 15 times. Another fact. You refuse to acknowledge that reality. That denial - just like those aluminum tubes - is why we have sharp disagreements.
If you have facts, then post those facts. Don't waste waste bandwidth with another Rush Limbaugh type tirade as if that proves anything. Those videos demonstrate to me that you cannot see through propaganda – therefore grasp reality. Those videos tell us nothing useful. Those videos only demonstrate how to hype the cannon fodder – as Limbaugh also does.
Schools of thought are why very smart people disagree. I've been considering starting a post on it in Philosophy, and maybe this is the ideal time.
Schools of thought are why very smart people disagree.
My word for it is "perspective". As I have said often, there is no 'good and evil'. There are so many perspectives.
The correct timeline goes back six years, to 2000, and includes about 25 Hez potshots, kidnappings, and missile firings. I posted it earlier.
And in the meantime Israel was planting olive trees in S Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley, right?
Some timelines you might be in terested in:
1982:
Founding of Hizbollah, after Israel invaded Lebanon and killed thousands of civillians.
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely, Arthur James Balfour
1897, Basl, Switzerland
Theodore Herzl called the first Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland, in 1897. The Zionist aim was to re-establish the ancient Jewish homeland in the area now known as Palestine. Their program was succinctly captured in the phrase: "a people without a land for a land without people." It was a simple and catchy slogan, but it was also false; Palestine had people, the descendents of the Arab conquerers who had been on the land since the seventh century.
The ancestral homeland of the Jews, where they had constructed the first and second temples, was in the ancient land of Israel with its capital at Jerusalem, but this polity existed as an established state under Kings David and Solomon for only about 80 years between 1010 and 930 BC.
Quiz questions for tw
1. According to the UN, who was supposed to disarm Hezbollah?
tw answers "nobody" because UN1559 doesn't specify anyone. He is partly correct and gets half credit. In fact, a previous resolution 425 directs the creation of UNIFIL and makes part of its mandate to return control to the Government of Lebanon.
3. Decides, in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon, to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, the Force to be composed of personnel drawn from Member States;
How'd that work out? Well, in 2000 the UN certified that Israel had in fact withdrawn. But UNIFIL didn't go away, as its mandate had not been fulfilled. Did they go on to fulfill the mandate? Let's see:
2006 image showing Hezbollah and UN flags flying side by side.
2. Who said about Jews, "If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide?"
Answer:
Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah.
Tw answers: UT is being overly rhetorical, one-sided, and propagandist for pointing this out. Sorry, that answer is incorrect.
3. When you watch this February 2006 video of Nasrallah calling the crowd to chant Death to America, do you A) secretly get a hard-on, or B) secretly wish that neighborhood was the first in Beirut to be hit?
Tw answers: the video is propaganda for the cannon fodder. It's not clear whether he means Hezbollah, Israeli, or American cannon fodder. In any case, the answer is correct. My question was a silly setup to get people to watch the video.
4. As you watch that video, aren't you embarrassed that you claimed that Beirut is, and I quote, "devoid of Hezbollah"?
Tw's answer: UT is being overly rhetorical, one-sided, and propagandist for pointing this out. Sorry, that answer is incorrect. The correct answer is "Yes, I didn't understand the situation, and given your video, this is as devastating a lack of understanding as failing to interpret those aluminum tubes correctly."
5. Since the beginning of hostilities in Lebanon, there is one other country that experienced more deaths, yet did not receive any sort of UN cease-fire demand, media attention, or spin of any kind. Name it
Tw's answer: UT is being overly rhetorical, one-sided, and propagandist for pointing this out. Sorry, that answer is incorrect. However, this is a trick question. There are not one but two locations seeing more violence and deaths this month, than Lebanon. Those two locations: Iraq and Darfur.
Tw's final score is 1.5 out of 5 and therefore he is not knowledgeable enough to continue to discuss the middle east.
I kid of course!
Tw is an avowed enemy of extremism and big-dic-ism. But not
really, right? Because a speech like
Nasrallah's Death To America speech is
100%, undeniably, extremism and big-dic-ism.
Israel, in his position, dare not use any level of force to achieve its goal, because it is theoretically the 800 pound gorilla in the region and has the general support and backing of the 1600 pound gorilla across the ocean.
(When Hez is being equipped with anti-tank and long-range munitions by its own 400-pound gorilla... well we overlook that part, for some reason.)
The expression of that power is scary, because simply holding power and authority, the worst anyone can do is to exercise it without restraint. As we sometimes note, to have power means to have responsibility. But you know, the responsibility is in the hands of the citizens. Because in a democracy, the restraint created by a voting citizenry exercizing its decisions and representing its interests does count.
As is often pointed out by the neo-cons, there has never been a war between two democratic countries.
But I guess what the voters say this time doesn't matter. The votes are "manipulated" by propaganda from the side they don't agree with - usually called the minority, but never mind all that. Even the peace movement in Israel is somehow manipulated this time, but never mind all that.
(And the people in the square, being addressed by Nasrallah and chanting Death to America, are not being manipulated?)
To that side, to have nuclear weapons and not ever brandish or test them is still unacceptable... and to not have them and suggest that once you do have them, the state of Israel will be wiped off the map, is acceptable. Not extreme, not big dic.
Is the expression of ANY power, by a powerful country, "extreme"? Is there ALWAYS a diplomatic answer?
The answer to that one, is an exercise once again left for the reader. But one last historical note. When we last left tw he was saying that it's all good for an armed, dangerous, extreme, big-dic militia to take over in Lebanon because after all Israel invaded earlier and was far too harsh in the expression of its power. (though not as harsh as the sectarian factions in Lebanon, who committed far worse massacres...)
He has a case, I admit, if you accept this notion of "original sin" in international relations. Of course, if you do, there is no action that Israel can take whatsoever except to negotiate with an organization whose stated goal is the termination of its existence, and who derives most of its power from its willingness to commit violence in the name of Shia Islam.
Yeah I don't think that will work out so well.
He must of course be against the overthrow of the Taliban, because plenty of "original sin" can be found in the history of the US actions as well.
Nobody can denie that with the last military action by Israel, Hizbollah's authority has been increased tremendously.
They are currently winning hearts and minds amongst the Lebanon people by helping those who lost their homes by giving them cash on the spot, where it would take weeks if not months for the official Lebanese government to be able to help themselves.
As I 've mentioned before, pre-emptive wars serve no purpose if you don't have reliable intelligence, a clear objectiv and a proper exit strategy, as been shown in Iraq and now in Lebanon. The Mossad has underestimated the strength of Hizbollah and you cannot fight an a-symetric army from the air.
Israel clearly has lost the war by letting Hizbollah not having lost.
Isreal not only lost the war military but also politically, as it has underestimated the influence of civillian casualties.
Israel has lost the war because it lost many support in the free World as well.
Israel has lost the war as it's aura of invincibility and Mossad's intelligence qualities has taken a heavy blow. This war has all the qualities of a Keystone Cops action, unworthy of earlier Israeli actions.
The Lebanese Cedar revolution has lost the war, as their country is in ruins and it allows Hizbollah to gain political power.
I agree with almost all of that, but be sure to save your ticket stub so you can return to your seat. The boxers are in their corners and the bell is about to ring for round two.
The world has a front seat when the Guns of August thunder and drown the voices of reason. Your metaphor is very appropriate, but I'm not sure the result will be as many think...
Helpful advance hint: if you want to convince people you're not simply propagandist, it's probably a bad idea to blame Israel for the end of the cease fire until the cease fire actually breaks.
Never mind to speculate about an inevitable loss no matter what occurs.
I agree with almost all of that, but be sure to save your ticket stub so you can return to your seat. The boxers are in their corners and the bell is about to ring for round two.
This made apparently because the points of that ceasefire do not address any issues from both sides. The resolution does not order the return of abducted Israeli soldiers, an original reason Israel cited for going to war, nor does it meet Hezbollah requests for release of prisoners held by Israel. It does not even address Sheeba Farms which even Prime Minister Fouad Siniora listed as one point of the conflict.
Neither side is really ready for peace. How will a pathetic force - not even empowered with UN Chapter 7 authority - achieve peace? It will be interesting. No country wants to put their soldiers into battle without purpose. As a result, the UN is even having difficulty get commitments for a trivial 15,000 men.
The problems have not been addressed. Attitudes have not changed. Nothing was accomplished. Neither Israeli help prisoners nor two kidnapped Israeli soldiers have been returned. Nor does the resolution even address that basic and earliest issue.
However stranger things have happened. When Egypt did a surprise attack on Israel and so severely destroyed the Israeli air force, well, what eventually resulted was enough respect by each side for the other as to result in a peace treaty. Hezbollah, if nothing else, has repeatedly earned respect by causing Israel's six invasion of Lebanon to terminate and having fought Israel to a stalemate. Question remains whether this turns into respect for Hezbollah or an end of Prime Minister Olmert's government. Olmert displayed poor leadership. Will Israeli's blame him or did they gain respect for Hezbollah?
When Egypt did a surprise attack on Israel and so severely destroyed the Israeli air force...
Erm... is this the war you're talking about:
Yom Kippur War
In the Yom Kippur War, the IAF suffered heavy casualties from Soviet anti-aircraft surface-to-air missiles but managed to regroup and assist IDF's ground forces and later bomb infrastructure targets in Syria and Egypt. One of the first battles in the war's air front was 2-28 Air Battle. IAF helicopters proved to be highly useful in logistics and rescue efforts (MedEvac). According to Israel, during that war, the IAF lost 102 planes while the Egyptian Air Force lost 235 and the Syrian Air Force lost 135.
I know how much Pearl Harbor made us respect the Japanese, I'm sure Yom Kuppur had the same effect on the Israelis re: the Egyptians.
Erm... is this the war you're talking about:
I know how much Pearl Harbor made us respect the Japanese, I'm sure Yom Kuppur had the same effect on the Israelis re: the Egyptians.
Egyptians surprised the Israeli air force with successful air defense units attached (I believe) at the battalion level. Israelis suffered massive aircraft losses and were desperate for American emergency aid. During that period, Europe refused to allow American resupply through Europe. So the US set up a series of ships (navigation beacons) through the Med and tanker refueling so that massive American military aid could rearm Israel's air force. I believe Golda Meir was Prime minister and Moshe Dyan was Defense minister. Eventually Israel drove the Egyptians back to the Suez Canal where Sharon tried to create WWIII.
This alone did not result in respect and peace. But military success by both sides earned enough respect that both side could eventually go to Camp David with heads held high. Other events then had to occur before Camp David could happen. But the point is that both side had enough pride and respect that they were able to consider peace.
Although not likely, we have a similar situation. Hezbollah has proven itself worthy. Will this set a tone where Israel and Lebanon can finally talk peace? I doubt it. But a similar situation exists.
Sidebar: one reason why the current Israeli administration will be so roundly criticized and may have to call for elections. They tried to use air force power only to accomplish what only ground forces can do. Israeli pilot talking in confidence complained how they could not even see or identify missile they were suppose to attack. Israel's government (and I have to assume it was in direct contradiction to what generals were saying) tried to conquer an enemy with air power. Naive and foolish. Air power is essential to supporting ground troops as even Patton demonstrated in WWII.
Egyptian ground to air defensive missiles virtually destroyed the Israeli air force in that first week of Yon Kippur. It was a shining moment for the Egyptian arm forces (Egypt even named a naval ship after that day) and one of the darkest moments in IDF history. Not like respect after Peral Harbor. After Yon Kippur, both sides demonstrated enough self respect and enough respect for their enemy that both could negotiate earnestly many years later.
Hezbollah has proven itself worthy.
For some very strange values of "worthy".
They're puppets of a regime that has announced publically that it wants to see Israel annihilated. When someone announces deadly intent, you should believe them, and act accordingly.
What if the person announcing deadly intent is armed only with a very sharp piece of fruit ? :P (a concept shamelessly stolen from Black Adder Goes Forth)
They're puppets of a regime that has announced publically that it wants to see Israel annihilated.
And the IRA were puppets of the United States. Same logic.
Meanwhile Hezbollah was created for and again demonstrated what is Hezbollah's purpose: protection of Lebanan from Israel. If Israel was attacking the US, and I was a member of HizPA_NJ (an east coast militia), then I too would be calling for the destruction of Israel. That would be my propaganda. But my real intention is to destroy every Israeli that invades PA, NJ, NY, CT, DE, MD, VA, etc.
Hezbollah drove out Israel after 1982. Hezbollah, only a militia, again held off Israel. Hezbollah accomplished its purpose. Where others (ie Europe) sees Hezbollah for what it really is, then Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization. Only a mental midget propaganist (and we know who that is) would declare Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
The question is whether Hezbollah was that worthy - or Israel's government so subverted the IDF battle plan. One way to overwhelm a milita is to conduct a battle that required Division level responses. Hezbollah is only a milita and should have been overwhelmed at division level combat. But Israel never conducted division sized operations (except maybe in the last week). I'm sure generals wanted to, which means I have serious doubts about Israel's leadership - Olmert in particular. To better know, many details are still missing. Currently Hezbollah looks like it was worthy of its purpose - the defense of Lebanon only from Israel.
And the IRA were puppets of the United States. Same logic.
Sorry...must have had my tinfoil hat mistuned when *that* theory went by.
What if the person announcing deadly intent is armed only with a very sharp piece of fruit ? :P (a concept shamelessly stolen from Black Adder Goes Forth)
I thought that was
Monty Python?
:) Nope. Blackadder goes forth, in which the British Empires strategy of only attacking countries whose people had no weaponry and stealing all their land was discussed:P
Your other questions are from those who need to see 'good and evil' everywhere. Those citations are no different than what Rush Limbaugh does for the White House. Rhetoric for those without enough grasp to even sit through a Kristol/Holbrook/Rose interview. Classic of what the AIPAC promotes to successfully promote hype.
Yet another ejaculation of pus from the sick, fascistic mind of an evil little fucktard and naturally despicable communist. You continue to support the antidemocracies against the democracy, you scum. The only person who can love someone like you is Adolf Hitler. And he had syphilis. What's more, that crack about AIPAC says you're an anti-semite.
What do you do for an encore, visit Thailand in search of sex slaves who look like JonBenet Ramsey? I see your antidemocracy penchant keeps you bottomlessly depraved.
Get a grip UG. You've just spewed out a rather disturbing part of your psyche on a public board.
Why did those we now call Hezbollah welcome Israelis with flowers and rice?
And who did it this time?
Lebanese general arrested after being filmed with IDF soldiers
A Lebanese general was ordered arrested Wednesday for appearing in a videotape drinking tea with Israeli soldiers who had occupied his south Lebanon barracks during their incursion of the country.
Brig. Adnan Daoud was summoned and ordered held for questioning, Interior Minister Ahmed Fatfat said in a statement. Daoud is commanding officer of the 1,000-strong joint police-army force that had positions in southern Lebanon and was based in Marjayoun.
Israeli troops seized the barracks there last week and held him and 350 soldiers for a day before allowing them to leave the occupied zone. The Lebanese garrison, which is lightly armed, did not resist the Israeli force which moved in armor into the base.
In the videotape, aired on Israeli television and carried by a Lebanese TV station Wednesday, Daoud was shown having tea with smiling Israeli soldiers and walking with them in the base courtyard.
Saw some of this friendly tea service video. No hatred was visible. I have the same glass mugs that the Lebanese used. I will serve tea to anyone who comes to my house.
Some of the video can be seen here:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/17/mideast.main/
In the video, the reporter roughly translates an exchange between the Lebanese general and the Israeli forces, in which they both ask whether they should notify their people. "Notify whomever you want," says one of the IDFers. "We'll notify Bush." "We'll notify Bush too," the general laughs.
But CNN did not include the general's last line in their story, without which the entire thing narrates as a complete political fireball.
You see, the story came to them via their International bureau, which is produced in Britain.
Why did those we now call Hezbollah welcome Israelis with flowers and rice?
And who welcomed whom this time?
story
A Lebanese woman throws rice and rose petals at Lebanese soldiers after their arrival to the southern town of Marjayoun, Lebanon, Thursday, Aug. 17, 2006.
Abu Hussein Awad, a 58-year-old Shiite, claims the distinction of being the Lebanese civilian who lives closest to Israel. His house backs up against the Fatima Gate where Israeli troops withdrew in 2000, ending an 18-year occupation of south Lebanon.
"The army is good, I'm glad they're here," said Awad, who has lived here for 50 years - most of the time Israel has been in existence.
He was asked if he supported Hezbollah.
"I'm Lebanese. I don't like Hezbollah ... . I love Lebanon only - not America, not Iran and not Syria - just Lebanon," he said, listing the key backers of the combatants in the war.
The area of Lebanon's border with Israel was in ruins. In the towns of Adaisse and Taibeh, south and west of Kfar Kila respectively, it was difficult to find a building that was not blackened, pockmarked by artillery or flattened altogether.
Wreckage was strewn through the streets, but new Hezbollah flags flapped in the wind over piles
of rubble. In Kfar Kila, young men hung giant yellow banners above intersections. They read: "Rice, they will not see your new Mideast" and "The Great Lebanon has defeated the murderers." Both were signed, Hezbollah.
Get a grip UG. You've just spewed out a rather disturbing part of your psyche on a public board.
My grip is firmly on tw's throat. The man is a communist, on the evidence of his own writing on this forum, and he's an anti-democrat. He's going to hurt until he renounces communism and embraces democracy. Which apparently means he will hurt forever, and be forever rejected of all decent men.
Do not our foreign-policy troubles spring from the non-democracies? Tw visibly does not wish that democracies should win out, nor prevail in conflicts between the free and the unfree. How can you yourself, DanaC, not be rather disturbed at the butcher's bill the communists have rung up worldwide, just adhering to their, well, their religion, and whoring after their false prophet Marx? Depending on which numbers you believe, the casualties of communism run from eighty to one hundred million lives cut short, and a billion-odd lives stunted. Decent people reject shit like this. Indecent people object to the rejection. You figure out where you are (it's better if you come down on the side of the decent).
It is my experience that the anti-communist, the anti-totalitarian, is the pro-human. I am very pro-human. Some here are weak in that department, and willing to say so in cold print.
"For the death of such sluts I go rejoicing;
Yea, I fill all the air with my music."
--Ezra Pound,
AltaforteDecent people reject shit like this. Indecent people object to the rejection. You figure out where you are (it's better if you come down on the side of the decent).
Mr. President? Is that you?
Oh UG....I just don't know where to start. Hang on....did a vein just pop in your temple?
Do not our foreign-policy troubles spring from the non-democracies?
I would argue the well spring is firmly located in the White House.
He's going to hurt until he renounces communism and embraces democracy
This I find particularlry chucklesome. tw has on numerous occassions demonstrated his belief in democracy. You on the other hand seem to have a problem with anybody who disagrees with the current administration, or America's foreign policy. I suggest that is just the teensiest bit anti-democratic.
Tw visibly does not wish that democracies should win out, nor prevail in conflicts between the free and the unfree.
The conflicts tw has referred to are not conflicts to decide between the free and the unfree, they are conflicts primarily based on land disputes and historic enmities. It is entirely possible for an 'unfree' people to have a genuine grievance against a 'free' people. The fact that a nation is democratised, does not automatically mean that it is always in the right. But then that's the great thing about democracies.....different opinions are welcomed and debates ensue.
How can you yourself, DanaC, not be rather disturbed at the butcher's bill the communists have rung up worldwide, just adhering to their, well, their religion, and whoring after their false prophet Marx?
This I found quite amusing, since I would say that I hold a marxist analysis on the world :P As to the butcher's bill. That bill goes firmly to several deeply flawed individuals who chose to instill themselves as all-powerful dictators. Dictators of course are to be found throughout history and across the globe in many cultures. It is not a feature of 'communism' it is a feature of misrule. Your average communist ( which as I have said elsewhere I am not) does not seek dictatorship. The fact that various countries have called themseves 'communist' and then proceeded to employ the tactics of dictatorship and violence does not mena that they actually were communist. There are nations now, who claim to be democratic, but which are patently not. These are labels nations/parties/peoples apply to themselves.
Whilst we're on to death tolls. How many people died in WW1? When the world was rocked by the clash of empires? How many died to the Nuclear devastation of Hiroshima? How many died when Britain firebombed whole cities? How many died in Vietnam to Western flames? Shall we say that such a deathtoll renders 20th century democracies evil?
Millions died in China, to the excesses of Mao and many still suffer today to the human rights abuses of the Chinese government ( not least the Falun Gong practitioners). As a socialist and a Marxist, I see this as tragic and unnecessary. That is not the result of communism, it is the result of misrule.
I also suspect you have included the dead from Germany's Holocaust in that figure. I'd like to remind you that when the fascist were building their base and the brown shirts were stalking the streets, the communist party fought pitched battles with them. There is historic and bitter enmity between fascism and communism, they are polar opposites.
It has never come to my attention that tw is in any visible or meaningful way pro-democracy. Couple this with his hostility towards the oldest and most successful (both politically and economically) democracy in the Middle East and what conclusion do you draw? Add to this his visible belief that the United States should not prevail in this war -- with people seeking to make unfreedom, I might point out! -- and where does the evidence of his own words lead? Chucklesome, quotha!
My veins are just fine, thanks.
umm.....which war are we talking about again? Is that the one where America and its allies(my own country included) chose to slaughter somewhere in the region of 30,000 civilians in the opening sally, on the strict understanding that they were in some way a threat? Is that what 'free' nations do then? Launch unprovoked attacks on other sovereign nations?
DanaC, now here is where you exhibit a terrible blindness: Iraq is not a separate war, as the defeat-America-now pundits have it, but a campaign within the wider war. Major efforts in international terrorism don't happen without national sponsorship. Shadowy terrorist groups may have no vital assets they need defend, but their national sponsors are vulnerable there. We are to teach the nations that it is very harmful to them to support anti-American bigots, or to conduct war against America by proxy means -- that in the end, it all comes out the same, and not how they wanted: that their country gets gone over by a disc harrow and plowed into fragments and dust. Then we do the Marshall Plan thing and rebuild them more in our image, whereupon they succeed in a fashion previously undreamable.
Wars are like dynamite. They do their work by smashing things. It's bootless to complain, and more constructive to clear the resulting rubble of what had previously been an objectionable obstacle.
For generations, Dana, we've been the target of every foreign idiot with a bomb and a grudge, and a few native-born idiots too (but that's a side issue), and I say we have suffered too long and too much at the hands of destructive, anti-human fools. Time for them to pay for their fun with their lives. Our antidemocracy/antihuman, totalitarian and therefore evil foes talk a lot of guff about how happy they will be to be shahidim -- well, if all of these would-be martyrs were to immediately and simultaneously fall dead and be taken up to their heaven, where they might get seventy-two Virginians instead of seventy-two virgins -- uh oh, the great bulk of our troubles in the world's Islamic regions would vanish as suddenly.
Tell me: are we in any way obliged to have petroleum resources hostage to unfriendlies? I think we are not. Anti-Americans think we should be. If these people really need something to complain about, I suppose I could always come up and pee into one or more of their pockets. I don't have much patience with the antis.
It is unfortunate that the largest supplies of oil in the world are found in such an ass-backward area, but they have nothing else. The end of world reliance on oil will be the doom of the Arab world, as all they export is crude. It will be the most pleasurable victory the day we can get by on alternate fuels and rely only on local production for oil. The Iranians, Iraqis, and Sauds can then go back to their nomadic ways and stop being such an international eyesore.
Reading UG´s above diatribe almost made me think he´s just ironic and making a caricature of the
Ugly American, but then I realised he´s dead serious...
For generations, Dana, we've been the target of every foreign idiot with a bomb and a grudge, and a few native-born idiots too (but that's a side issue), and I say we have suffered too long and too much at the hands of destructive, anti-human fools.
Um....what? You've had a handful of terrorist attacks on your country. One of them was absoluetly horrific, most of them were smallfry compared to what practically every other country in the world experiences on a semi-regular basis.
Reading UG´s above diatribe almost made me think he´s just ironic and making a caricature of the Ugly American, but then I realised he´s dead serious...
Sometimes I just look at the screen and my jaw drops. I just don't know where to start. I really don't:P
Tell me: are we in any way obliged to have petroleum resources hostage to unfriendlies?
Their resources.
Then we do the Marshall Plan thing and rebuild them more in our image, whereupon they succeed in a fashion previously undreamable
Oh right. I can see how well that's working in Iraq.
Sometimes I just look at the screen and my jaw drops. I just don't know where to start. I really don't:P
At the bottom of the screen is a dropdown menu that says "forum jump".
:cool:
At the bottom of the screen is a dropdown menu that says "forum jump".
....I know. I know, I really should.....but...it's utterly compelling. LIke when you are sitting in a bus station and the guy who's been muttering to himself and picking up tin cans, sits down right next to you and says with conviction: "I wouldn't. She never did." (yes that has happened to me:P)
You know you should just leave him to it, but something compels you to enquire.....to delve into his particular brand of madness. Sometimes, that leads to some interesting snippets; other times it all just unravels and leaves you staring horrified into someone else's abyss.
Hmmm. The train wreck.
I know.
The conflicts tw has referred to are not conflicts to decide between the free and the unfree, they are conflicts primarily based on land disputes and historic enmities. It is entirely possible for an 'unfree' people to have a genuine grievance against a 'free' people. The fact that a nation is democratised, does not automatically mean that it is always in the right. But then that's the great thing about democracies.....different opinions are welcomed and debates ensue.
Thank you so much. I've been trying to figure out how to say that for a while. A democratic nation of psycopaths would be much worse off than a nation led by a benevolent dictator, would it not? It's not the form of government that matters, its what the government does. Being a democracy does not make you right, and being a dictatorship or oligarchy or monarchy or tyranny does not make you wrong.
Even being a communist doesn't make you wrong...
A democratic nation of psycopaths would be much worse off than a nation led by a benevolent dictator, would it not? It's not the form of government that matters, its what the government does. Being a democracy does not make you right, and being a dictatorship or oligarchy or monarchy or tyranny does not make you wrong.
A succinct and well-argued point.
Even being a communist doesn't make you wrong...
Depends on what the topic under discussion is.
And the problem with "benevolent dictators" is so few of them can stay benevolent for long enough. That kind of power distorts the mind utterly.
There are many problems with dictators, benevolent or otherwise. But it's important to keep reminding ourselves that just because a country is (or claims to be) a 'free' nation or democracy, does not automatically make it right in all things. The assumption that a country is right in all things is one step along a very dangerous path.
Personally, I would rather live in a Western Democracy than in any other system. But then again, I was born and have always lived in such a system. I like my culture. I like many of the assumptions that are made within liberal democracies. I am a feminist and find many other cultures difficult to understand when it comes to the role of women within them.
This does not mean that I am 'right' and they are 'wrong'. This is my culture. That is their culture. I do not fully understand their culture, so I am not in a position to judge it fully. It may be that we are 'ahead' of them. Or, it may be that we are all on entirely different trajectories and heading to very different places. Who are we to say that our trajectory is right? It is right for us....I might even think that it is probably right for them. But that's a thought in the head of a Western woman in a Western Liberal democracy. I am a product of my environment as is my thinking.
This does not mean that I am 'right' and they are 'wrong'. This is my culture. That is their culture. I do not fully understand their culture, so I am not in a position to judge it fully.
How admirably relativist. No, really...
WARNING : Free Association Ramble to Follow
Tangentally, there were concerns with unleashing the passions of the mob when our own government was formed. Unfortunately W doesn't have the education to apply that concern to his Arab democracy project. How powerful does the US Presidency have to become beore corruption is inevitable? All governmental systems are horribly flawed, so we hope for other checks whether cultural, religious, or systematic. I'm hoping W's recent judicial setback isn't overthrown and I'd like to see Congess grow up. Unfortunately, even our chosen masters are cowed.
How admirably relativist. No, really...
Alright. explain to me why what I said was incorrect.
Alright. explain to me why what I said was incorrect.
It was incorrect because Maggie doesn't agree with you. :rolleyes:
I knew I was making a mess but I wrote it
anyway.
Just keep in mind that once they come into OUR culture they have to abide by our rules.
Depends on what the topic under discussion is.
And the problem with "benevolent dictators" is so few of them can stay benevolent for long enough. That kind of power distorts the mind utterly.
So why is everyone trying so hard to make one in this country?
Just keep in mind that once they come into OUR culture they have to abide by our rules.
Agreed. But the main thrust of this thread has turned into the merits of transplanting (by force if necessary) western democratic cultures into other nation states.
So why is everyone trying so hard to make one in this country?
Because the problem with being a liberal lately is after a while you start to beleive your own hyperbole. I still don't think it's a winning strategy.
Agreed. But the main thrust of this thread has turned into the merits of transplanting (by force if necessary) western democratic cultures into other nation states.
I thought the last time this went around, the Sin of the West was
tolerating dictators?
I thought the last time this went around, the Sin of the West was tolerating dictators?
To which dictator are you referring?
perm any one of ten backed by the CIA /NSA over past 3 decades...
To which dictator are you referring?
All of them...quite a list, really. The Shah of Iran comes to mind first. Then there's Saddam. A whole raft of them who were thought "better than Communisim" at the time, including a fair number in South America. How about the Saudi royals? We kept hearing that a "root cause" of islamofascistic terrorism is the Western-supported "oppressive regimes" so many live under.
Depends on what the topic under discussion is.
And the problem with "benevolent dictators" is so few of them can stay benevolent for long enough. That kind of power distorts the mind utterly.
One doesn't have to be a benevolent dictator to be a communist. A communist isn't a leader. A communist is a person who works for the good of the whole society. A benevolent dictator is not a communist. A benevolent dictator is a benevolent dictator.
Alright. explain to me why what I said was incorrect.
I didn't say it was "incorrect". But I am rather reminded of Wolfgang Pauli, who once said "That theory is so worthless, it isn't even wrong."
Are you then so paralyzed by guilt over your ignorance of a culture that you can't evaluate it at all? Are you allowed to have an opinion about, say, female genital mutiliation? Remeber, it occurs in a culture you don't understand fully, so I guess the jury's still out on that one. Or do you judge it partially, rather than fully? If so..what does that mean?
And what cultures *do* you understand fully? Are you sure? I mean, there's something you might have missed. :-)
The whole spiel just seemed to be soaked in such a no-fault relativism that it could find an excuse for anything it wanted to.
I'd like to recommend
Richard Mitchell's writings to you.
One doesn't have to be a benevolent dictator to be a communist.
Did somebody say that?
A communist is a person who works for the good of the whole society.
That's certainly debatable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha
Even being a communist doesn't make you wrong...
MaggieL said:
Depends on what the topic under discussion is.
And the problem with "benevolent dictators" is so few of them can stay benevolent for long enough. That kind of power distorts the mind utterly.
I'd say you inferred it. Prior to your post, no one had mentioned benevolent dictators.
As to your second response, I don't think it's debatable at all. If you're not working for the good of the whole society you're not a communist, and that's the end of it. Certainly, many 'communist' societies and their structure can be argued as to whether they are in fact true communist societies, but definitely not the basic tenet of communism.
Remember that the good of society is different than the good of all individuals. Many communist idealists end up fighting the individuals they are trying to help in order to protect a construct. Society is not something that exists outside of people, it isn't something higher or greater than the sum worth of the people it consists of either. So to say that people are working for the good of society is impossible, you can only work for the good of people.
Well said, Engineer.
The essential property of a "benevolent dictatorship" seems to be that it doesn't care to single out a group or groups for oppression, which is one good way to keep coup attempts from developing momentum. There is nothing in dictatorship to keep one benevolent, though.
So why is everyone trying so hard to make one in this country?
Rich, the only people who believe we are are habitants of the fever swamps of conspiracy theory. We are not remotely trying to do that; we remain in the American habit of making power limited in scope and in time. GWB will finish two terms of a Presidency better than his opposition will ever give him credit for, though objective historians will, and pass along.
This is the kind of thing out of you that gives me the Mario Cuomo flashbacks I've mentioned before.
I'd say you inferred it. Prior to your post, no one had mentioned benevolent dictators.
Ok, first off I didn't "infer". You are the one inferring....you are inferring that I implied something. Inference and implication are different.
But what you inferred, I didn't imply. Because
someone did mention benevolent dictators before I did.
OK?
As to your second response, I don't think it's debatable at all.
You don't think it's debatable that communisim is good for a society? I do. I'd stand behind a much stronger statement than "debatable", but since you don't think it's even debatable, there wouldn't be much point.
OK, this is why I fucking *love* the cellar.
The above post and also, where else can I *ensconce* my verbs with asterisks?
*grins*
I too like the use of asterisks (as indeed has been pointed out by people who dislike it :P)
In much of the gaming community, that is used both as a way of adding emphasis as you did above and as a way of communicating 'emotes'. Sometimes they can get quite elaborate.
*Nips off to make a cup of, then returns, blowing on it to cool it before sipping cautiously*
*Nips off to make a cup of, then returns, blowing on it to cool it before sipping cautiously*
*nips off the ferret around in the fridge for a beer and *frowns* finding none.*
hahahahahahah *laughs heartily*
Well, we can get much richer text than the flatness of gamerspeak. But back in the Waffle days, it was all flat ASCII, so asterisks, underscores curly braces and other ASCII decorations were the order of the day.
Here, a zillion fonts in eight sizes, colors, italics, underscore and boldface. There should be ample means for emphasis.
Twist it any way you like Maggie. If you were refering to someone else's post then you should have noted it. My post did not refer to benevolent dictators, so pardon me for attempting to respond to a post which was clearly not well thought out.
I don't care to debate anything with you Maggie. You seem more interested in trying to wow everyone with your spelling and grammar than you are in discussing the issue.
Enjoy your day.
GWB will finish two terms of a Presidency better than his opposition will ever give him credit for, though objective historians will, and pass along.
:rotflol::rotflol:
Twist it any way you like Maggie. If you were refering to someone else's post then you should have noted it. My post did not refer to benevolent dictators, so pardon me for attempting to respond to a post which was clearly not well thought out.
You said "no one" had mentioned benevolent dictators, but apparently you meant "no one you were paying attention to". Sorry, my post wasn't designed for someone who thinks everything is about her...I'm sure you find it distracting, but you'll just have to cope.
Spelling and grammar are nice, but I'm just elitist enough to beleive that actually using the right word to mean the right thing is important.
then your different from mosy of your fellows, Maggie, who use 'freedom' to mean demoracy, and 'democracy' to mean the american way.
believe?
I said they were nice. But the difference between inference and implication is neither spelling nor grammar.
then your different from mosy of your fellows...
Could be. We are a rather diverse nation. If that's what you meant by "mosy of your fellows".
Are you then so paralyzed by guilt over your ignorance of a culture that you can't evaluate it at all? Are you allowed to have an opinion about, say, female genital mutiliation? Remeber, it occurs in a culture you don't understand fully, so I guess the jury's still out on that one. Or do you judge it partially, rather than fully? If so..what does that mean?
My point was in response to Urbane's desire to remodel the world. I can and do have opinions on female genital mutilation, I also have opinions on gendercide.
The point I was trying to make is that it is dangerous to place ourselves as arbiter and judge of another culture. It is dangerous to assume that our culture is 'right' and that true progress will automatically lead to something that looks and sounds like a western style democracy.
I don't care to debate anything with you Maggie. You seem more interested in trying to wow everyone with your spelling and grammar than you are in discussing the issue.
Enjoy your day.
I think you just proved Aliantha's point...
"Could be. We are a rather diverse nation. If that's what you meant by "mosy of your fellows"."
believe?
guffaw and snigger
I think you just proved Aliantha's point...
Well there wasn't much else I could say to your non-sequitor. I had to assume "mosy" was a typo for "many" and "your fellows" meant my countrymen.
Did you expect serious discussion to arise from a snide comment expressing surprise that three hundred million people spread over nine million square kilometers (most of whom I don't particularly think of as "my fellows") might not actually all think the same way?
Sorry to disappoint.
You can't imagine how desolated I am that Aliantha will not deign to debate the undebateable with me because I'm too picky about words. Really, I am stricken...
Actually I think 'mosy' was a typo for 'most.'
and: undebateable= undebatable
Whilst we're in a picky mood in The Cellar. :-)
One must applaud Israel for being energetic to create a commission within weeks which will investigate why the Lebanese War failed to obtain its objectives. This could eventully lead to the fall of the Israeli government.
The US could learn something from that. The Iraq War has failed to obtain its objectives in most cases and in fact has weakened US homeland security. All it resulted were yawns...
For those who want to avoid the spelling-Taliban:
WordWeb:rotflol::rotflol:
And that bit of idiotic repartee, Rich, is why I figure you misuse your intellect to an almost legally actionable degree. I simply cannot believe your opinions coincide with reality.
No, he gave the only appropriate response to that statement.
And that bit of idiotic repartee, Rich, is why I figure you misuse your intellect to an almost legally actionable degree. I simply cannot believe your opinions coincide with reality.
Indeed, he should have said: "I simply cannot believe your opinions coincide with reality"...
Actually I think 'mosy' was a typo for 'most.'
Whilst we're in a picky mood in The Cellar. :-)
I don't regard as "picky" being uncertain what word is intended by a tetragram in which at least 25% of the letters are incorrect. :-) In fact I was prepared to accept that 50% of the letters were wrong rather than assume that the statement was even more egregiously hyperbolic than I thought it was.
Next time I'll try to avoid being that charitable with that speaker.
*does the spock thing with the eyebrows*
charitable?
charitable?
Yes, I assumed the loony statement you were making was incrementally less loony than it actually turned out to be, at the cost of assuming you'd gotten 50% of the letters in the word wrong rather than only 25%.
Next time, I'll try to remeber that the benefit of the doubt was misplaced in that case.
so, its still about spellimg, then.....
snip~ The Iraq War has failed to obtain its objectives in most cases and in fact has weakened US homeland security.
WRONG! Bush doesn't have any objectives, he's just bumbling around over there. :lol:
WRONG! Bush doesn't have any objectives, he's just bumbling around over there. :lol:
Actually he's on a golf holiday now with Poppy Bush. Like nothing's wrong in the world... ;)
...
Next time, I'll try to remeber that the benefit of the doubt was misplaced in that case.
remeber? :p
so, its still about spellimg, then.....
Transposing two vowels is one thing. Solving a cryptogram yet another...and there's damn little context to mine for a nonsequitor. After all, Vs V unir gb thrff jung lbh fnvq, vg'f uneq gb pbzzrag ba vg ng nyy.
remeber? :p
"Remeber" is one of my favorite typos. But only 12.5% of the letters are missing.
... Vs V unir gb thrff jung lbh fnvq, vg'f uneq gb pbzzrag ba vg ng nyy.
That's the most sensible thing you've ever posted.;) :devil:
That's the most sensible thing you've ever posted.;)
That conclusion is probably inevitable coming from someone who could simultaneously maintain your politics and yet self-describe as "In the real world, just left of center". But the apparent gibberish does in fact contain meaning, and it is not even deeply concealed.
Indeed, he should have said: "I simply cannot believe your opinions coincide with reality"...
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own." --not an original Adam Savage quote
Ooooo, so it's a crytogram challenge then? Fun
Ooooo, so it's a crytogram challenge then? Fun
To be a challenge, it would have to be challenging. It isn't.
Just what we need, more obfuscation. :right:
Just what we need, more obfuscation.
My point exactly.
The purpose of war is negotiations at a peace table. One can fight a war to get to that table. Or those not using 'big dic' reasoning go there without war. After the ninth Lebanon invasion, nothing was accomplished. Until now. From BBC of 1 Nov 2006:
Hezbollah confirms Israel talks
Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said a United Nations mediator had been meeting officials from both sides, but he provided no further details.
Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers in July sparked 34 days of fierce fighting in Lebanon.
A UN-brokered truce ended the conflict, in which more than 1,200 people died.
"They are serious negotiations... this issue is on track. We are moving ahead," Sheikh Nasrallah told Hezbollah's TV station. ...
Hezbollah guerrillas captured the two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on 12 July.
The group has offered to exchange the two Israeli soldiers for Arab prisoners in Israel, but Israel has repeatedly refused.
The UN resolution that ended the fighting called for the soldiers' unconditional release.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan then appointed an envoy to follow up the issue.
When Hezbollah captured Israeli soldiers in 2000, it took four years before talks succeeded and the soldiers were swapped for some 400 Palestinian and 35 Lebanese prisoners, our correspondent says.
The purpose of war is negotiations at a peace table.
You mean we have to fight WWII in Europe over again. :(
Hezbollah confirms Israel talks
Don't you also hate say: "told you so"...