So, what is the difference....
During WW2, the Nazi's in Occupied France would often, in reprisal for Resistance fighters' attacks, pull out a ranndom selection of French civillians, put them against a wall, and shooting them.
This became know as 'collective punishment', which was quickly banned by the newly-formed UN immediately after WW2 . The very same UN then instigated the Nuremberg trials for crimes against Humanity and set about creating the state of Israel.
During recent days, the Isreali Defence Force has carried out random attacks on the civilian popualation of Lebannon in reprisal for resistance attacks on its troops.....
Presumably, the fact that you cannot actually see the face of the innocent you are killing makes it more palatable, justifiable and indeed more random.....
And that, I guess is the difference between Israel and the Nazi's.....
Israel is less-selective in its death-dealing.
My understanding is that Israel is targeting a specific militant group that the Lebonese govt is considering attacking themselves.
The militant group is intertwined with the civillian population.
The road bridges, power-stations and Beirut airport are , not to my knowledge, owned or operated by Hezbollah.
Current figures put at least 107 dead in Lebannon. of which about 40% are women and children.
So, the Hezbollah use women and children as shields.
nah, the Israeli Defence Force use defective (yank made) missiles that can't tell the difference between men with guns and women with kids.
And that, I guess is the difference between Israel and the Nazi's.....
Israel is less-selective in its death-dealing.
If that's the difference you see between the Nazis and Israel in this situation, your myopia is truly profound. My diagnosis for you: chronic severe moral equivalance...probably terminal.
well, if your going to give out clinical diagnoses, why not go the whole doctor hog and cure me? Your comments, please, Dr. L .......
Some of the nastier Hisballah missiles were Syrian and Iranian in origin. So I can think of at least one very good reason to knock out the roads and airport.
As far as I know the French Resistance never staged any pre-war 1939 cross-border raids into Germany. They were a partisan group that sprang up during occupation and disbanded when the occupation was over. Unlike Hezbollah which stayed in business and grew.
mmmmmm......
@UT.....
where is that arguement going? Given that NY and Boston were the major financiers of the IRA (via the coillection tins 'for the cause') are you saying that HMG had every right to bomb NY and Boston?
Dr Z.......
perhaps your memory is better than mine....
were Hezbolah active before the creation of the Israeli state in 1948?
If those who are being targeted have not been proved to be active terrorists already, it is the same.
... were Hezbolah active before the creation of the Israeli state in 1948?
That fact is a Red Herring, meaning it is not relevant and is a distraction.
The following information is quoted under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License from Wikipedia, the free onliine encyclopedia.
The phrase red herring has a number of metaphorical senses that share the general sense of something being a diversion or distraction from the original objective:
* a type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one's point by means of irrelevant arguments. See Ignoratio elenchi.
* in politics, a minor or even phony issue trumped up as being of great importance, in order to influence voters to vote for one party or candidate and against the other, or distract from more important issues that might help the opposing party.
* in literature, a plot device intended to distract the reader from a more important event in the plot, usually a twist ending. See also MacGuffin.
* in detective work, mystery fiction, and puzzle-solving, a false clue which leads investigators, readers, or solvers towards an incorrect solution.
* in adventure games, an item or object of no practical use; its purpose may be to frustrate the gamer who tries to find the intended use for it.
The phrase may have originated from the practice of saving a hunted fox by dragging a red herring across its trail to cause the pursuing hounds to lose the true scent and follow the false trail of herring odour instead. In this context the Oxford English Dictionary records its first written use occurring in 1686 "To draw a red herring across the track".
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herringIf those who are being targeted have not been proved to be active terrorists already, it is the same.
Those that are targeted have been proven. The others are "colllateral damage". But, those that use human shields are the guilty parties here.
The other difference with the Nazis is sheer numbers, like 12,000,000 innocents verus 140.
It isn't unusual for insugents or guerillas in modern warfare to hide amongst their own people. It makes them harder to find, and then, when you kill a bunch of innocents in the attempt to squish the guerillas, they get to tell everyone what a bunch of monsters you are...then fire their own missles at civilian targets of the other side, claiming that the other guys started it anyway.
Those that are targeted have been proven. The others are "colllateral damage". But, those that use human shields are the guilty parties here.
The other difference with the Nazis is sheer numbers, like 12,000,000 innocents verus 140.
They have been previously tried in a neutral court of law as proof?
Collateral damage? Numbers of dead as a difference? ... no.
"Hey, Look!... That guys got a green hat on! Shoot a missile at that block"!!!
"Hey, Look!... That guys got a green hat on! Shoot a missile at that block"!!!
Bullshit. There is more evidence than that. An international court of law is a fucking joke. France might as well change their flag to all white.
US Citizens deserve a fair trial under the US Constitution.
These international criminals should be shot on sight.
Just like any nation that invades another that was no threat to them killing lots of civilians?
where is that arguement going? Given that NY and Boston were the major financiers of the IRA (via the coillection tins 'for the cause') are you saying that HMG had every right to bomb NY and Boston?
In war against an enemy with limited resources, you take out the supply routes. Hisballah is using shells and missiles from Syria and Iran, therefore the roads from Syria and and airports from anywhere have been taken out.
That sounds like a "yes".
Try it another way. Hisballah can stop this whole thing within hours. All they need to do is give the two soldiers back.
Israel can stop this whole thing within hours as well. All they need to do is agree to cease to exist.
Just like any nation that invades another that was no threat to them killing lots of civilians?
No threat to them?????? You are seriously ignorant. Seriously.
I think the formation of Israel was a serious mistake. But, I can't blame them for defending themselves.
So, if some Indians told you that your house was built on top of a sacred burial ground, would you give your real estate title to them.
I think not.
We Eurpopians stole the land in the New Continent.
We Eurpopians stole the land in the New Continent.
No, the "Eurpopians" actually bought most of the land they settled, from the Indians.
The Americans, stole most of the "New Continent".;)
And that, I guess is the difference between Israel and the Nazi's.....
Israel is less-selective in its death-dealing.
One difference is that Israel drop leaflets in the week leading up to the bombing, telling the Lebanese people in the south to go north and disassociate from Hezbollah, if they wanted to stay safe. They were warned, and could have stayed alive, had they chosen to remove themselves from danger.
well, if your going to give out clinical diagnoses, why not go the whole doctor hog and cure me? Your comments, please, Dr. L .......
I told you the prognosis was terminal....what part of that didn't you understand? Some things Kant be cured.
No, the "Eurpopians" actually bought most of the land they settled, from the Indians.
The Americans, stole most of the "New Continent".;)
So which was Penn?
Heh, "Judeo-Christian moral values". I always hear that in Bill O'Reilly's voice: "JuuuuuDAYYYYYo-[SIZE=1]Christian[/SIZE] VALues". Is that supposed to be a long way to say Old Testament?
Is that supposed to be a long way to say Old Testament?
How about "a short way of saying 'there's a difference between right and wrong'"? If you are guided by moral equivalance in a case like this, I maintain you're willfully blind.
Oh, by the way: belated Godwin's Law call.
How about "a short way of saying 'there's a difference between right and wrong'"?
No, that would be "Moral absolutism". "Judeo-Christian" is orthogonal to that.
My gawd, you people use some big words sometimes. I had to go look up Happy Monkey's term, 'orthogonal'.
Main Entry: or·thog·o·nal
Pronunciation: or-'thä-g&-n&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin orthogonius, from Greek orthogOnios, from orth- + gOnia angle -- more at -GON
1 a : intersecting or lying at right angles b : having perpendicular slopes or tangents at the point of intersection <orthogonal curves>
2 : having a sum of products or an integral that is zero or sometimes one under specified conditions: as a of real-valued functions : having the integral of the product of each pair of functions over a specific interval equal to zero b of vectors : having the scalar product equal to zero c of a square matrix : having the sum of products of corresponding elements in any two rows or any two columns equal to one if the rows or columns are the same and equal to zero otherwise : having a transpose with which the product equals the identity matrix
3 of a linear transformation : having a matrix that is orthogonal : preserving length and distance
4 : composed of mutually orthogonal elements <an orthogonal basis of a vector space>
5 : statistically independent
- or·thog·o·nal·i·ty /-"thä-g&-'na-l&-tE/ noun
- or·thog·o·nal·ly /-'thä-g&-n&l-E/ adverb
Couldn't you have said 'different'? :p
Stormie
'orthogonal' is stronger than 'different'. It's a great word. It's the most concise way I know of saying "doesn't have anything to do with" or "you're not even in the right ballpark".
I was using definition 5, though perhaps not precisely. I would expect religious people to be statistically more likely to be moral absolutists, and people who self-identify as "Judeo-Christian" to be statistically more likely to be religious people. But all moral absolutists certainly aren't "Judeo-Christian" and all Jews and Christians aren't moral absolutists.
And speaking of definitions and mathematical etymologies, given the sets "Jewish values" and "Christian values", is "Judeo-Christian values" the union or the intersection of the sets?
No, that would be "Moral absolutism". "Judeo-Christian" is orthogonal to that.
I'd dispute both those claims. First off, "there's a difference between right and wrong" is not identical with "right and wrong are absolutes". How orthogonal "Judeo-christian" is to that depends on where you stand...so I'll embrace some relativism on *that* point. :-)
The "moral equivalance" I take issue with would hold that the actions of Hezbu'lah and those of Israel have equal moral standing, and I think that's totally bogus. Anyway, being neither Jewish nor Christian I'm not defending Chris Muir's use of "Judeo-christian" in pointing out the bankruptcy of "moral equivilance"...it just happened to be today's
Day-by-Day.
I'd dispute both those claims. First off, "there's a difference between right and wrong" is not identical with "right and wrong are absolutes".
Moral absolutism says that morals exist on an objective basis, outside of the minds of humans (often but not always as dictates from God). If that isn't the case, then morals are subjective.
Of course, even if there
are objective morals, there's still the question of how to discover what they are, since everyone disagrees.
The "moral equivalance" I take issue with would hold that the actions of Hezbu'lah and those of Israel have equal moral standing, and I think that's totally bogus.
Of course, after the philosophical discussion above, that stuff isn't really useful. Whether morals are objective, subjective, or relative is more suited to a philosophy class than politics, but when "moral relativists" becomes some sort of political insult it has to be dealt with to some extent.
On a practical level, however, I'd agree that Israel is better than Hezbu'lah, but that doesn't excuse any of the bad things they do.
Anyway, being neither Jewish nor Christian I'm not defending Chris Muir's use of "Judeo-christian" in pointing out the bankruptcy of "moral equivilance"...it just happened to be today's Day-by-Day.
Good, because I have a strong suspicion that people using the term "Judeo-Christian" are usually talking out of their ass.
classic avoidance berhaviour...... faced with moralistic issue you can't cope with, you turn the thread into a dictionary thread.
(PS The lebbonese death toll is now over 300 - how many fighters does Hezbollah have, and whats the minimum age?)
I guess you're having reading comprehension issues. No worries, I'm sure you'll catch up.
classic avoidance berhaviour...... faced with moralistic issue you can't cope with, you turn the thread into a dictionary thread.
I'm coping just fine. The Israelis have a right to defend themselves; that their attackers choose to hide among the (relatively) innocent is not their fault.
mmmm.... the attackers are hiding amongst the (relatively) innocent? But, presumably, not very well as the IDF seem able to find enough targets. Pedrhaps the IDF think Hezbollah are trolls, hiding under bridges.... or maybe hoodies, living in the inner-city apartment blocks....
and are you really sure you want to with that 'hiding amongst (relatively) innocent' remark? Think long before you answer.....
classic avoidance berhaviour...... faced with moralistic issue you can't cope with, you turn the thread into a dictionary thread.
I suspect you didn't realize when you wrote this, how much it revealed about you.
In any discussion intended to rise above the level of shouting-match, terms must be defined and agreed upon. Otherwise, you don't really understand what the other person is saying. To stop and define terms is the mark of reason.
Don't let me stop you, though. Shout away.
Perhaps, dar, but I'm not the one liviing in Neverland.
mmmm.... the attackers are hiding amongst the (relatively) innocent? But, presumably, not very well ...
Well enough to elicit maximum propiganda value, that being their pupose. But this time even Hezbullah's usual friends (as distinct from their direct patrons in Syria and Iran) in the region aren't so strongly behind them as they usually are.
Maybe they know something you don't. Or maybe they're just not as dogmatically encumbered...now wouldn't
that be ironic.
I'm sure the 100 plus Lebannese children kiilled and maimed appreciate the irony...
So which was Penn?
As I recall, Penn bought but there was a dispute later in that the distance West was described as how far a man walks in a day. White man walk with purpose. Indians just kind of moseyed along.
Another problem is the Iroquois sold the land because they said it was theirs....... unfortunately for the Pocopsens(sp?) and other tribes that the Iroquois felt were subservient.:(
I'm sure the 100 plus Lebannese children kiilled and maimed appreciate the irony...
Of course they are victims. The problem is you're confused as to who victimized them. Diagnosis is still terminal myopia. Prognosis not improving.
The only upside is that (as UT pointed out elsewhere), Hezbollah will say they are now eligible to be considered martyrs (albeit involuntary and retroactive) because they are not Jewish.
If they aren't. Surely at least some of them are Christian, which presumably makes them "infidel Crusaders who deservered what they got".
you're all heart, maggiel...... and a stone one at that.
Are all Americans like you, reducing the deaths of non-American children to mere 'point-scorers' in an Interenet forum?
Lebannese children should not be harmed, because they are humans and humans should not be harmed.......except the ones on my list. ;)
you're all heart, maggiel...... and a stone one at that.
A heart is of no use without a brain.
Perhaps it makes
you feel all warm and morally superior, but if you're unable to see who is actually responsible for their pain, your no doubt deeply-felt liberal sympathy does
the victims no good...in fact it is an obstacle to preventing this from happening again.
The same applies to your shallowly-reasoned accusations of heartlessness.
No-one can do the victims any good, maggie, 'cos they're dead.
I'm just trying to stir you into some kind of action that may be can prevent more victims. Don't you have this 'megan's law' thingie over there in some of your states? If you can legislate and act over the death of one child, why can you not act over the death of hundreds of children?
You seem to be confused. Maggie, and many of us, are in the USA, not Israel. You, on the other hand, are considerably closer to Lebanon than we.
Maybe it's you that should be stirred to do something for the children. :eyebrow:
oxo, I 've tried kicking Tony's ass, but all I did was stub my toe.
Realistically, onyl the US can reign in Isreal, and Bush not only won't but has implicitely given Israel free reign for the next week or so. How many more kids will be killed in this next week?
As I recall, Penn bought but there was a dispute later in that the distance West was described as how far a man walks in a day. White man walk with purpose. Indians just kind of moseyed along.
Another problem is the Iroquois sold the land because they said it was theirs....... unfortunately for the Pocopsens(sp?) and other tribes that the Iroquois felt were subservient.:(
Ah yes, the
Walking Purchase. Not our finest hour.:right: William Penn's sons even cheated the guy who made the walk and got them the land. It just goes to show that honesty and decency are not necessarily inherited traits.
Why does Jay feel that we American's have any more influence over our leaders than he does? Why is everything on the face of the fuqing Earth the fault of the US? It's so easy to point fingers, isn't it? There are thousands of American's very, very distressed at what is going on--Lebanese AND Jewish children are being killed. Where does the blame lay? WITH THOSE WHO STARTED IT BY KIDNAPPING. Hizbollah. That's where your anger needs to point to.
It's funny how the US is supposed to police the world but NOT police the world, ya know? Like any country does ANYTHING the US asks. HA! What are we to do? Tell Israel, "hey, stop that!" and have them listen to us, just like Iran and NK and USSR all listen to what we say?
Bri, I disagree slightly... The blame doesnt lay with hezbollah. The blame can't be placed on anyone.
you're bombing our houses!
well you took our soldiers!
well you imprisoned our men!
well you are on our land!
well you TOOK the land from us!
well you tried to keep our holy land from us!
well it's our holy land too!
well we were persecuted for a long time!
BOTH sides are to blame. You'd have to go back thousands of years to figure out where this started, but it keeps being a problem because neither side is going to stop until the other one does.
yeah, it's gone on forever and probably always will. However, this Particular session is in response to what hezbollah did.
No threat to them?????? You are seriously ignorant. Seriously.
I think the formation of Israel was a serious mistake. But, I can't blame them for defending themselves.
So, if some Indians told you that your house was built on top of a sacred burial ground, would you give your real estate title to them.
I think not.
We Eurpopians stole the land in the New Continent.
I was talking about the US in Iraq.
yeah, it's gone on forever and probably always will. However, this Particular session is in response to what hezbollah did.
But they did
that in response to
this which israel did in response to
that... etc etc etc
But they did that in response to this which israel did in response to that... etc etc etc
That's funny--I thought that Israel was showing some major concessions to the aggrieved parties in that area. Guess not.
Its a shame that the US wasn't in exsistence when it all began...they could lay this one on us, too.
Realistically, onyl the US can reign in Isreal.
Here's where we see how important spelling can be.
The US won't reign in Israel.
It might rein-in Israel.
Words matter...in this case a homophone deeply changes the meaning of a sentence.
Its a shame that the US wasn't in exsistence when it all began...they could lay this one on us, too.
Why would that stop anyone?
No-one can do the victims any good, maggie, 'cos they're dead.
That's moronic. Not all the victims are dead.
Beyond those injured nonfatally or economically or by having their property destroyed or loved ones killed, there are other future victims who can yet be helped by preventing the status quo ante from continuing.
That is an opportunity that was lost once before...had it not been, even the now-dead fatalities of the current fighting might have been saved. Now you're working hard against the interests of the next set
stop with the spelling-flames and haire-splitting, maggie. You know full-well my meaning. The US can exercise enormous influence over Israel, and has done so in the past. The fact that it chooses not to do so now is saddening and demeans your great country. Yes, I know it's an Israeli matter, and that Hezbollah are no angels, but that does not justify the slaughter of innocents nor the desrtruction of the infrastructer of a sovereign (and I would point out, a West-friendly) state. The obligation is upon all of us to help stop the violence....... that the state with the most influence is shirking its obligations bodes ill for ultimate peace in that region.....
That assumes that the best way to end the current violence is through enforced cease-fire. I don't think you've been listening to what Iran/Hisballah has been saying. They have no reason to cease fire. They believe they will win. They also believe that negotiation is weakness.
Israel pulled back to the '67 borders in two places: Gaza and Lebanon. They have now been attacked on specifically those two borders. Why?
You claim to like peace but you want the terrorists to maintain control of the country they have hijacked, with the 10,000 missiles they have built up and the money of oil-rich Islamist fundamentalist dictators with nukes. I don't think this "peace" you have in mind is going to work out. Sure engagement hasn't solved many problems, but disengagement has to be on both sides bucky, especially in this nukular age where the worst case is unthinkable.
Tell me Jay, how much influence do you think we'll have after they've stopped fighting and it's still raining rocket in Israel? They would have to be psycho not to fire back when attacked.
@UT.....
first. drop the 'bucky' bit..... that alone is enough to set your post as antaganostic and agressive rather than debative.... as moderator/owner, you shoulld know better...
To your other points.....
The possiblilty of a voluntary cease fire is somewhat low, so an enforced one seems the best way to stop the killing of innocents on both sides.... and the US is about the only state that can enforce a cease-fire. That it won't do so is what gives me cause to castigate it. The Lebbonese govt/Hizbollah relationship is analogous to the Eire/IRA realtionship (cheap jibe number one: except that Hizbollah didn't get funded from collection tins in New York bars): the major differnce in policy is that the UK (Israel) did not bomb the crap out of Dublin (Beiruit). At that time, the IRA did not believe in a negotiated settlement. but long years of patience and diplomacy finally prevailled.
And, of course, Hizbollah have no more hi-jacked Lebbenon than the IRA hi-jacked Eire.... And at this point, I would like to point out that the Lebbonese Govt is one of the few pro-Western govts in the region.... we should be doing all we can to support it rather than turing a blind eye to its destruction at the hands of the IDF.
Oh, and yeah, the nuclear thing does worry me...... I see no fail-safe for Israel's nuclear force.
@nineth....
what happened to your much-vaunted patriots? Like the guns of Singapore, are they all pointed the wrong way?
Realistically, onyl the US can reign in Isreal, ...
I don't know Jay, you may be right, but sometimes I wonder which government is the other's sock puppet. Many Americans have a very strange sense of patriotism, valuing Likuds vision of what is good for Israel over what would be good for the US. The interesting thing is the arguments among Israelis about what is good for Israel appear, at least from here, to be much more open and realistic than the arguments in the States. If it makes you feel better, the neo-com crowd here thinks a wider war=peace and freedom. All you need to do is track down their Kool-Ade supplier and you'll be golden. That said, Israel is in a bad spot, which can only be improved by strengthening Lebanon's internal security, unfortunately that ship has probably already sailed.:(
The fact that it chooses not to do so now is saddening and demeans your great country.
What, that they're not crafting their foreign policy based on your world view?
I'm shocked. Truly. Your deep knowlege of foreign affairs and insight into human nature deserves the deepest respect. I shall write my Senator within a fortnight.
There will be no ceasefire. Israel will invade Lebanon. Israel is simply waiting for a right time (politically) and maybe for a good excuse. In fact, I expected them to start tonight (Sunday night) because it would create less hype - less adverse reaction than later in the week.
There is no doubt of Israel's intent to cleanse 20 miles into Lebanon. Drive out everyone - innocents and Hezbollah alike. Then withdraw only when Lebanon's army occupies the border. But Lebanon threw a monkey wrench (shrewdly) into Israel's plans. Lebanon said the army would have to attack invading Israelis according to constitutional requirements. That rather stunned the Israelis and may have delayed the Lebanon invasion.
Israel is simply looking for cover to justify their obvious strategic objective - cleanse 20 miles into Lebanon. Literally drive all Lebanonese residents - Hezbollah and innocent civilians alike - for a 20 mile DMZ.
Israel can do so. The United States has told Israel to do just this and is running cover for an Israeli invasion. US is not playing honest broker. We have already declared Hezbollah as our enemy (like Saddam) - just not so publicly. Unlike all previous administrations, this one has defined the entire world in terms of 'good and evil'. No negotiation. As soon as time is right, we will either attack or send a proxy to attack that party, region, minority, or nation. We even play games with words such as nation and terrorist organization just to confuse a mostly ill informed American public with Rush Limbaugh type rhetoric.
No longer is anything to be solved by negotiation. This administration has decided to fix the world whether the world likes it or not - first with military solutions and unilateral attacks.
Only a matter of time before Israel invades. There will be no political or negotiated settlement. Welcome to a new world order that George Sr never envisioned and yet was defined in the Wolfovich paper that also defined unilateral attacks on India, Russia, or Germany. Do you understand why Putin in Russia is becoming so uncooperative and cautious? Why he is reinforcing his 'energy' weapons? Why free speech and the two houses of Parliament in Russia must be subverted?
The unanswerable question is whether Israel will also use this attack to 'soften' Syrian forces. To accidentally execute a major pre-emptive strike on Syria. Remember, the only adjacent nations that Israel will not attack are Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia - and only because America says who they must and cannot attack. Don't for one minute think these leaders are reacting to world events. They now have specific intentions that they would rather you do not understand.
Feel the wind. Something has clearly changed. If you don't feel it, then you are not paying attention to current events.
We have already declared Hezbollah as our enemy (like Saddam) - just not so publicly.
Tell that to the Marines.
Aiyyo Chief, you'll know antagonistic and aggressive when you feel my steel-toe in your nuggets! Why I oughta ----
-- *koff* *koff* *koff* --
-- my inhaler! --
-- HOO00ooooONK --
-- snuffle snuffle snuffle --
a-haha-hem- a-ahah-hem! Aaaaanyway - As owner, I reserve the right to behave any way I see fit as long as everyone else does the same.
In fact, I asked everyone whether they wanted me to exhibit some sort of senatorial decorum, for the purposes of the Cellar, which otherwise would clearly be much more popular and be a greater source of wisdom and reason;
And they all said I should just stay the grizzly opinionated bastard that I am, so that when I'm particularly incorrect, as I am at least 50% of the time, they can laugh at me and get some enjoyment out of life.
Shrug. I figure, at least I'm providing a service.
Oh, and yeah, the nuclear thing does worry me...... I see no fail-safe for Israel's nuclear force.
And yet it remains completely unused. Not even
tested. Perhaps there are forces in the world you are not privy to.
Tell that to the marines?
Your lack of insight is truly amazing, maggie.
Tw's post was extremley though-provoking: I believe he/she has analysed this situation to at least one level beyond my own efforts.
But, this is democratic board,. at least in principle., and you are entitled to your say...
So, maggie, just how would you you stop the jews killing arab children?
you got a frog in your throat there, UT?
(emails a couple of Fishermens' Friends... that should sort you out...)
You provide a good service..... just don't confuse sardonic with sincere.
I'm not Maggie, but... tell them to give the soldiers back and point their missiles somewhere else.
Otherwise, they have nothing to be surprised about.
but..... who's they, 'rken?
"Tell that to the marines?"
Your lack of insight is truly amazing, maggie.
If she is referring to a Beruit Marine Barrack attack and another upon the French, well many forget the Marines all but protected Maronites as Maronites shelled Druze and Shi'ite positions. Somehow this then gets blamed on Hezbollah rather than on Druze or Shi'ites? Otherwise I have not a clue what her post implied since Hezbollah was elsewhere.
just how would you you stop the jews killing arab children?
I know you posed this particular query to maggie, but ... just how would you stop (mostly Arab) suicide bombers from killing Jews?
These events do not occur in isolation.
You provide a good service..... just don't confuse sardonic with sincere.
I don't service you; you might have me confused with your mama.
oxo, I 've tried kicking Tony's ass, but all I did was stub my toe.
Realistically, onyl the US can reign in Isreal, and Bush not only won't but has implicitely given Israel free reign for the next week or so. How many more kids will be killed in this next week?
That's bullshit, as a matter of fact there's a lot of people in this country that believe it's the other way around.....that Israel is Geppetto.
At least you stubbed your toe, nobody here is getting close to Bush.
Oh, and another thing, you sound like an ass blaming the US for your IRA problems just because the ex-pats and their decendants kicked into the tins in the NY/Boston bars. By that reasoning all black people should hate the Irish because the majority of slave owners here were of Irish decent.:rolleyes:
What are you doing for the children that will die next week?
but..... who's they, 'rken?
Hezbullah, be done with it. I think Israel is done with being targeted and the kidnapping of the soldiers was the last straw.
If the soldiers are dead then they are screwed and it is their own fault.
Israel has just been pushed too far. They are a nation, end of story and the rest of that region is going to have to get over it.
As for kidnapping soldiers &/or supporting/financing it.... just stupid.
What are you doing for the children that will die next week?
Blaming it on the Jews, evidently.
. By that reasoning all black people should hate the Irish because the majority of slave owners here were of Irish decent.:rolleyes:
:flamer: Scotch Irish not real Irish. ;)
What? It doesn't count because they drink top shelf?:lol:
I stand corrected.
Jay is just another sniffy Brit. Why isn't he concerned with the children of Darfur? After all, it was the Brits and the French who sliced Africa up to their liking, ignoring tribal lines. I guess the children in Darfur just aren't as compelling somehow, right, Jay?
Hezbollah knew what kind of response it would get by provoking Israel. They knew, yet, they did not care that innocent Lebanese would die because of their actions. The blame for the deaths of the innocents is on Hezbollah.
The tall story we Europeans now tell ourselves about Israel
See, Jay, the Europeans are confused here. Finally in the Telegraph, a moment of realization when the longest-running Tory MP compares current Lebanon to "a war crime grimly reminiscent of the Nazi atrocity on the Jewish quarter in Warsaw". Of course it isn't, but why would he say such a thing?
What is happening in Lebanon? After the kidnapping of two of its soldiers and the firing of hundreds of rockets against its people from across the Lebanese border, Israel is trying to crush the Hizbollah fighters who have perpetrated these acts. In doing so, it has also killed civilians. Some 500 people have died in Lebanon as a result.
What was the "Nazi atrocity on the Jewish quarter in Warsaw"? There were many, of course. But Sir Peter was probably referring to the events of April-May 1943. The Nazis had earlier deported 300,000 Polish Jews to Treblinka. As news of their fate reached Jews in Warsaw, they decided to revolt against further round-ups. For about a month, they resisted. They were subdued: 7,000 of them were killed and 56,000 were sent to the camps.
Sir Peter surely knew this, yet he chose to speak as he did. Here is a man who has been in public life for more than 50 years (he was an assistant to Anthony Eden in the general election of 1955), and yet he compared Israel's attack to the most famous genocide of the 20th century. What possessed him?
...
You could criticise Israel's recent attack for many things. Some argue that it is disproportionate, or too indiscriminate. Others think that it is ill-planned militarily. Others hold that it will give more power to extremists in the Arab world, and will hamper a wider peace settlement. These are all reasonable, though not necessarily correct positions to hold. But European discourse on the subject seems to have been overwhelmed by something else - a narrative, told most powerfully by the way television pictures are selected, that makes Israel out as a senseless, imperialist, mass-murdering, racist bully.
The UN Charter specifically inderdicts 'collective punishment' as a war crime.
No if's, but' s, or because's......
Actually, I'm somewhat flattered, that six days after my last post, I've gotten under your skin so much that you just had to scratch.....
That's all I want you folk to do... scratch the surface, see under the propoganda (on both sides) and decide just where the line lies.
(as an aside..... 2 weeks back, when Condi was about to visit the region, Bush said she 'would not be visting with an empty satchel' . I remarked to my mate, that proballly means she has some kind of reconstruction plan whereby US companies will rebuild Beruit. Georgie boy confirmed this the other day....
.... actually, it was on the same day they shipped thru the UK the bombs to flatten the very self same real-estate they are going to rebuild.... I guess that's what you might call a 'circular economy')
I believe what they were shipping were more accurate munitions to try to prevent as much collateral damage as possible. :cool:
mmmm...... says it all......
god'damit..... those ayrab towelheads.... all the same.....
I somehow missed the place where when you're attacked you're required to only defend yourself "proportionately"...and when combatants hide among civilians you're guilty of a "collective punishment" war crime when you defend yourself. You'd better do some more detailed investigation of the Law of War, because you're talking out your ass on this one.
What a load of "moral equivalance" bullshit. When you are attacked with deadly force, you are entiitled to defend yourself with deadly force, and you need not stop until you are no longer threatened.
I somehow missed the place where when you're attacked you're required to only defend yourself "proportionately"...and when combatants hide among civilians you're guilty of a "collective punishment" war crime when you defend yourself. You'd better do some more detailed investigation of the Law of War, because you're talking out your ass on this one.
What a load of "moral equivalance" bullshit. When you are attacked with deadly force, you are entiitled to defend yourself with deadly force, and you need not stop until you are no longer threatened.
I agree. After 911, we took care of Afghanistan. And then, after Iraq attacked us, we.......wait a minute.....:D
There is no justification for this, maggie.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5228224.stm
Go on, defend the indefensible.....
I believe what they were shipping were more accurate munitions to try to prevent as much collateral damage as possible. :cool:
That worked , then......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5228224.stmI agree. After 911, we took care of Afghanistan. And then, after Iraq attacked us, we.......wait a minute.....
Yes, we are right back to what is necessary to justify any war - the smoking gun. None existed. But when did that stop Cheney from promoting war as a final solution in Iraq, Iran, N Korea, S Lebanon, Syria, Sudan .... Oh. Sudan has nothing we want. Therefore where genocide does exist, is one sided, and is acceptable by any standards; instead, Cheney has no interest. Clearly Hezbollah is more evil than genocide in Sudan.
200 sunk ships off east coast US was not justification for war. Yes, a country does have the right to defend itself. But even 200 sunk ships is not justification. A trivial kidnapping of some soldiers also does not meet that 'smoking gun' criteria. By now, everyone who was here when we discussed Iraq in 2002 should have no doubt about that history lesson. War without a smoking gun is not justified.
What a load of "moral equivalance" bullshit.
Any chance the right can give up the phoney moral equivelency card? Maybe as a trade for the left's bullshit righteous indignation card? I've read about enough crap from two utterly failed statist systems.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5228224.stm
Go on, defend the indefensible.....
For starters, let's wait until all the information is in.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3283816,00.html#n
An IDF investigation has found that the building in Qana struck by the Air Force fell around eight hours after being hit by the IDF.
"The attack on the structure in the Qana village took place between midnight and one in the morning. The gap between the timing of the collapse of the building and the time of the strike on it is unclear," Brigadier General Amir Eshel, Head of the Air Force Headquarters told journalists at the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv, following the incidents at Qana.
Eshel and the head of the IDF's Operational Branch, Major General Gadi Eisnkot said the structure was not being attacked when it collapsed, at around 8:00 in the morning.
The IDF believes that Hizbullah explosives in the building were behind the explosion that caused the collapse.
Another possibility is that the rickety building remained standing for a few hours, but eventually collapsed. "It could be that inside the building, things that could eventually cause an explosion were being housed, things that we could not blow up in the attack, and maybe remained there, Brigadier General Eshel said.
Now then.
Aussie Herald Sun, under the headline
"Photos that Damn Hisbullah". It's a bit of overstatement but here are their two shots, smuggled out of the area, of un-uniformed Hez fighters, dressed to walk away and blend in, moving mobile cannons and launchers and firing right out of a suburban zone.
When irregulars move strategically in and out of civilian areas and are fired upon, killing the civilians, this is a war crime. Jay, it is a war crime for the irregulars. And this is very clear.
Hezbollah is the operational government in the area. It is their job to defend and protect civilians. Instead they intentionally ensure that civilian targets will be fired upon. There is no excuse for this sort of behavior. You can't defend it - it is indefensible.
Any chance the right can give up the phoney moral equivelency card?
Only if the left stops playing it. When someone defends themselves from a terrorist attack, they're just plain not morally equivalant. This mindless relativism is intellectually bankrupt. Jay's drivel in this thread is a prime example.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2006/Incident+in+Qana+-+IDF+Spokesman+30-Jul-2006.htm
This page contains four videos of actual Hezbollah rocket launches from the middle of towns, right next to residential buildings and homes.
It also contains a copy of the leaflet dropped telling the citizens to abandon the war zone.
This 30-foot-high banner of Condi appeared on the streets on Beirut hours after the Qana attack, protesting it. Translation:
"The massacre of children in Qana 2, is the gift of Rice. The clever bombs... Stupid"
Powerline asks the leading question
What seems odd about this is that the banner was unfurled within hours after the Qana attack took place. The building where the civilians died was bombed on Sunday morning, and the demonstration took place during daylight hours, later the same day.
The entire controversy is understood and employed within hours... if nothing else, the Hez propaganda machine is pretty remarkable, isn't it?
That's a nasty picture.....her husband won't like that. ;)
They must have excellent printing services to whip up that banner in a couple hours...or less.
It's a bit of overstatement but here are their two shots, smuggled out of the area, of un-uniformed Hez fighters, dressed to walk away and blend in, moving mobile cannons and launchers and firing right out of a suburban zone.
That's one that that has ALWAYS gotten me about the fights in afghanistan, iraq, and now lebanon...
All the terrorists have to do is throw down their AK47 or drop their RPG and theyre 'civillians', and then when they get a bomb dropped on them theyre just another 'civillian' casualty.
They must have excellent printing services to whip up that banner in a couple hours...or less.
Flown in from the Teheran Kinkos, no doubt.
The same dead bodies are "rescued" over and over for the cameras
Don't visit the link unless you can stomach seeing two different dead bodies being carted around, taken on and off ambulances, pulled out of rubble several times, and generally paraded around for different photographers of different press agencies, for a period of hours and hours.
'loathsome creatures' indeed. I have often felt the wailing and gnashing of Arabic teeth was for our benefit. Here's proof.
Pretty damning stuff, UT.
All the terrorists have to do is throw down their AK47 or drop their RPG and theyre 'civillians', and then when they get a bomb dropped on them theyre just another 'civillian' casualty.
Which completely ignores reality. Pilots have no idea who they are bombing. They cannot even see rockets, AK-47, etc. A rocket was launched from a town hours previously. Therefore the town's three story apartment building is attacked.
Those rockets can even be launched with a timer. Where a rocket has launched means there is no enemy there. Fire the rocket and leave. Bombs come later to attack the local population. Bomb anything that could be a bunker. In frustration, a pilot is told to attack the town anyway. A rocket came from that town. Therefore everyone in that town is 'evil'. Welcome to a little fact they forget to mention about the bombing.
If Israel really wants to stop rockets and kill combatants, then Israel must invade: boots on the ground. No way around that fact. No way whatsoever. A fact so obvious that everyone here should have known it. Israel is simply punishing everyone in that 20 mile region AND in Tyre, Beirut, on Lebanon's highways, etc. They are all 'evil' since the Lebanese Army does not evict Hezbollah. You knew that pilots cannot even see rockets waiting to launch? You tell me who is and is not a combatant? You cannot because we (The Cellar) nor Israelis have any troops on the ground.
No ground controllers means bombing without knowing who they are. Those bombers are not taking out combatants. Bombers are attacking anyone - including UN personal and aid convoys. Why? Without troops on the ground, those planes have no idea what they are attacking. Anyone who did not know that is fodder for propaganda machines. Israel's military operations make no distinction between civilian or combatant because ground spotters do not exist. Israelis know this. They bomb anyway and tell you they were combatants or regrettable mistakes. There are no mistakes. There are no ground spotters. The purpose is to drive everyone out. How could this not be obvious? Because most people assume planes can see these rockets they are attacking. Wrong. They are attacking long after rockets have been fired AND after combatants have left the area. What is sometimes left? Civilians.
It is impossible to fight a surgically precise war and nobody has ever, nor will ever, do it. Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki...military targets? Civilians die in wars. That's what a war is. You don't want the bear to attack? Then don't poke him, asshole.
The same dead bodies are "rescued" over and over for the cameras
If you are a child in an adult body, then pictures bother you. Meanwhile, this is war. Killing in massive numbers is necessary because of why this war exists. Either one fights responsible or one kills everyone with little regard. Israel did not have to start this war. They could have continued doing what they always did when Hezbollah kidnapped soldiers - trade. Or Israel could have invaded. Instead Israel has decided to target everyone - a free fire zone. Those are facts.
Those pictures are for the children among us. Meanwhile adults are more concerned with what this war means for the future. Adults are concerned how this war affects the living. Those dead bodies are nothing more than trophies. Yes, that is what an adult does when viewing war pictures. Were the trophies done for justifiable reasons, or do they exist because of people who subvert the purpose of mankind.
Take pictures for hours. Does not matter to adults. Adults demand numbers, justification, and justice again those who would even arrange the massacre of 5,000 Palestinian women and children. Current war is not justified. It exists because leaders in Washington would rather labeled everyone in black and white - good and evil. Then fix all problems by only killing evil. A 'big dic' mentality is alive and well. Those bodies of innocent civilians are nothing more than trophies. Take all pictures necessary - and then take more. They are only trophies to those who would rather attack everyone else. They are propaganda for the children in adult bodies. If you are an adult, one picture or a million makes little difference. Instead you demand facts - such as the smoking gun.
Civilians are attacked because Israel will not even put troops on the ground. What cowards they are. If Israel only wants to eliminate Hezbollah, the Israel's strategic objective would have been clear - a complete invasion. Instead, Israel has declared anyone inside selected areas of Lebanon as evil. Does not matter who they are. They must be killed - trophies for a mantle. Nothing emotional about that fact. Israel cannot know who they are killing - no ground spotters. Israel just attacks anything in a free fire zone. What results are trophies. Take pictures to hype adult sized children. Learn from those pictures what Israel's strategic objective is; think like an adult.
It is impossible to fight a surgically precise war and nobody has ever, nor will ever, do it.
Of course a surgically precise war is accomplished. It means ground spotters. Oh. But that is too dangerous. So instead declare anything that moves as the enemy - and kill it. It's called a free fire zone. It is what the US military did in Vietnam when top generals had no idea why America was losing a Vietnam war.
Only reason those civilians are intentionally being killed - Israel does not have the balls to attack Hezbollah using troops. Too many dead Israelis would then drive centrists out of extremists ranks and back to where intelligent people think without emotional bias.
Your post implies Dresden had a military purpose. It did not. It was based in a failed concept that one wins by killing more enemy. Battles are not won that way. But again, first year Military Science. Define a victory. Little hint. Victory is not defined by more dead bodies. Only those with 'big dic' mentalities believe those myths. Military Science 101. Define victory.
tw--you say Hez'bllh 'assumed Israel would do what it always did when Hzbl kidnapped Israeli soldiers--trade. How fucking stupid do you have to be to ASSUME your mortal enemy will do such and such?
I was not implying Dresden was a military target.
I do not have a 'big dic' mentality. I hate Bush as much as you do and Cheney even more. I hate these Arab agitators, too. Lay the blame where it belongs, man. On Hzblh and all their ilk. Do I like what is going on? Of course not, it is heartbreaking. However, if I am not mistaken, Hzblh was ELECTED into power by the Lebanese. They WANTED them.
For the last four years Hez has occasionally lobbed rockets into Israel from S. Lebanon. For years Israel asked them politely to please stop. So yes, this isn't only about two kidnappings. tw ignores what he wants to ignore.
You don't want the bear to attack? Then don't poke him, asshole.
Who is the "you"? Hezbollah
wants all this to happen.
Who is the "you"? Hezbollah wants all this to happen.
Of course they do. The 'you' I was refering to is the phantom 'you' that the Arabs and tw want us to swallow--the wholly innocent Hzblh! They poke the bear, enrage him and then stand by all wide-eyed and stunned that the bear fights back, beseeching the world to look at the crazy, war-mongering bear who does nothing but defend himself in the face of attack. Hzblh is killing the Lebanese children--they poked the bear, wanting the response they got. They wail and gnash for the camera's, but, it is Hzblh who are responsible.
So Israel has been successfully integrated into Hezbollah's propaganda effort. You'd think they could be smarter han the average bear.
So Israel has been successfully integrated into Hezbollah's propaganda effort. You'd think they could be smarter han the average bear.
Isn't that the feeling you are getting?
The rusty wire that holds the cork
That keeps the anger in
Gives way
And suddenly it's day again.
The sun is in the east
Even though the day is done.
Two suns in the sunset...
Could be the human race is run.
It is exactly the feeling I am getting. I wasn't being sarcastic. Hezbollah has Israel dancing precisely to its tune. They provoke Israel into doing something stupid, and then use Israel's stupidity for recruiting purposes.
tw--you say Hez'bllh 'assumed Israel would do what it always did when Hzbl kidnapped Israeli soldiers--trade. How fucking stupid do you have to be to ASSUME your mortal enemy will do such and such?
Obviously you are using the word fucking because you did not learn before posting. Hezbollah had previously kidnapped Israeli soldiers and traded then for Israeli prisioners. Why don't you know this fact?
When reports say that no one expected this minor event to escalate so violently, did you first ask what they meant? Kidnapping soldiers and trading for prisioners was even conducted when Sharon was Prime Minister. Cheney types hope you never learn details; only make blanket assumptions such as
How fucking stupid do you have to be to ASSUME your mortal enemy will do such and such?
It is how they got so many to believe bin Laden and Saddam were allies.
First learn reality before posting obscene assumptions. Without such background, then others can paint this entire Middle East fiasco in terms of 'black and white' / 'good verses evil' propaganda.
I think her point is, if theyre your motal enemies and youve both committed to the destruction of eachother, don't assume you know what they will do.
Obviously you are using the word fucking because you did not learn before posting. Hezbollah had perviously kidnapped Israeli soldiers and traded then for Israeli prisioners. Why don't you know this fact?
tw, are you obtuse on purpose? I said that it is fucking stupid to ASSUME that the enemy (Israel) would do what it always did in response to kidnapped soldiers. Couldn't Israel, perhaps, crazily, react in a DIFFERENT, UNFORESEEN way? Or, are they somehow bound to react the same way to repeated provocative behaviors?
As for using 'fucking', I'm a big girl and can use whatever words I like. Has nothing to do with learning.
tw, are you obtuse on purpose? I said that it is fucking stupid to ASSUME that the enemy (Israel) would do what it always did in response to kidnapped soldiers.
If Israel did the same thing so many times previously AND a more hardliner extremist Prime Minister repeatedly did same, then why would some little Hezbollah unit not think it was safe? Do you think some master tactician in Hezbollah authorized the kidnapping? Of course not. Do people do things assuming the 'double zero' does not occur on the roulette wheel? Repeatedly.
But this time, word came from Washingtion to Israel - use the final solution. Attack and kill all Hezbollah and this problem will be solved. Don't think for one minute that Washington did not either approve or recommend this solution.
Hopefully others in the region have a better grasp of reality since clearly the current Israeli administration is 'shooting in the dark' and our own president is obviously promoting pre-emption.
Excessive and unnecessary use of irrelevant adjacetives (and fucking provides no useful context) suggests an intelligence level unbecoming of Cellar Dwellars. Clearly and in hindsight, they made a stupid mistake. They never made a 'fucking stupid' mistake. They took a calculated risk that was justified by historical precedents and statistical averages. The emotional instead assume irrational and uneducated speculation: "fucking stupid". Being 'big' or being a 'girl' has no relationship to a grasp of reality.
[QUOTE=tw]
But this time, word came from Washingtion to Israel - use the final solution. Attack and kill all Hezbollah and this problem will be solved.[QUOTE]
You have this proof, yes?
I think her point is, if theyre your motal enemies and youve both committed to the destruction of eachother, don't assume you know what they will do.
Welcome to the Middle East where wackos become leaders, where assassinations of those who would promote peace are routine, where some assume democracy will solve all, where so many assume everything in terms of 'black and white' / 'good verses evil', and where the words of Kahlil Gibran - concept so standard elsewhere - were promoted as a revelation. Every action is nothing more than a crap shoot. Hopefully the region can find enough stable people to keep another Lebanon Civil War, et al from occurring.
Even a once stabilizing force - the United States - is instead trying to destabilize the entire region with final (military) crusades. There is no reasonable solution. Everything in the Middle East is becoming a game of roulette when even the 800 pound gorilla advocates pre-emption.
Where's the proof that word came from Washington to Israel to use the 'final solution' as you put it-? Only a child would ignore this question.
[QUOTE=tw] But this time, word came from Washingtion to Israel - use the final solution. Attack and kill all Hezbollah and this problem will be solved.
You have this proof, yes?
Why did the Prime Minister of Lebanon give his speech in English? I have been posting reason after reason. I will not repost everything that was not read. Meanwhile, why do you think Condi Rice refused to call for a ceasefire when virtually every other nation in the world demands same? Does the term 'Cheney Doctrine' sound familiar?
Same strategic objectives that promoted a "Mission Accomplished" war apply. Show me one example where the US even tried to stop this war? You cannot. In direct opposition to world demands, the US said, in diplomatic terms, "Battle on and wipe out Hezbollah". Again you would have to be daft to not see what the entire world sees. Only the naive actually believed an international peace force of sufficient size could be created.
This is not the same United States that once restricted what weapons the Israelis could use in such forays. This is not a United States that maintained world stability using containment. This is now a United States that advocates military solutions - pre-emption. This is no longer a United States that views the world as many different parties with different perspectives. We now have a government that sees everything in 'good verses evil'. Even the president says god tells him what to do.
Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition - even though religious intolerance and 'good verses evil' mentalities made it necessary. Here we are again with a government that advocated 'final' solutions rather than negotiated ones.
The US may not have recommended it. But US permission to attack and invade Lebanon – complete with Condi Rice running interference for Israel – is obvious.
Meanwhile, why do you think Condi Rice refused to call for a ceasefire when virtually every other nation in the world demands same?
Because every other nation in the world can only
demand it while Rice actually has to
produce it.
Because every other nation in the world can only demand it while Rice actually has to produce it.
Condi Rice did what is necessary to obstruct a ceasefire. Does the English speech from the Lebanese Prime Minister mean nothing? He was saying who was obstructing a ceasefire - Condi Rice and America. He was talking to you (et al).
For some reason there was not a lot of calls for a ceasefire when Hezbullah were the only ones firing. Go figure.
I'm expecting that if any of the people whining about "proportional response" are ever mugged by a one-armed man, they will fight back honorably by keeping one hand behind their back.
Why did the Prime Minister of Lebanon give his speech in English? I have been posting reason after reason.
Not really dude. You've been posting your usual "the answer is left as an exercise for the reader" riddles, which are intended to demonstrate that you are smarter than everyone else without actually having to, you know, present your actual argument.
I don't put much stock in what Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has to say. He has an impossible task. Lebanon is made up of many different parts and keeping it together is hard. And his first goal will be to preserve his own head. Hez's power play is not solely directed towards the south. Previous PMs have been assassinated, it's figured to be via Syria.
Not really dude. You've been posting your usual "the answer is left as an exercise for the reader" riddles, which are intended to demonstrate that you are smarter than everyone else without actually having to, you know, present your actual argument.
What part of "don't come back until you (Condi Rice) call for a ceasefire" (not an exact quote) did you not understand? Where was the riddle? What part of that statement that he made in English did you not understand? How much more blunt need he get before you realize who is obstructing a ceasefire?
Apparently you call riddles what is published fact. How blunt must the prime minister of Lebanon be before you will acknowledge that reality?
So the fact he spoke in English to demand ceasefire at Rice is proof that this particular action is directed from Washington?
So the fact he spoke in English to demand ceasefire at Rice is proof that this particular action is directed from Washington?
That's my confusion, too. tw says Washington ordered Israel to fight Hzb. To enact a Final Solution--tw's words. His proof of this is that the Lebanese PM spoke in English to demand a ceasefire to Condi. How does that equal orders FROM Washington TO Israel?
That's my confusion, too. tw says Washington ordered Israel to fight Hzb.
No it was not tw's exact words and it misrepresents - big time - the Israel / American relationship. You did not read carefully and you still do not yet understand that relationship.
The US may not have recommended it. But US permission to attack and invade Lebanon – complete with Condi Rice running interference for Israel – is obvious.
If not careful with such details, then Brianna could easily arrive at obviously erroneous conclusions such as:
... it is fucking stupid to ASSUME that the enemy (Israel) would do what it always did in response to kidnapped soldiers.
You see, Brianna, Israel did the reverse- traded kidnapped soldiers for prisoners. You apparently did not know basic details. Even the most militaristic Sharon authorized such trades. You assumed without first grasping details. What I said is also significantly different from what you summarized:
tw says Washington ordered Israel to fight Hzb.
Your mistake implies insufficient grasp of numerous details in this Middle East conflict and relationships. Had you a grasp of the relationships, then you would have better comprehended what was posted, not reposted what I wrote in such gross error - AND why Israel is proxy for a Cheney doctrine.
Somehow you know better and yet don't even understand basic details of a US / Israeli relationship? Credibility? Insufficient grasp of history and facts? Your post implies, at minimum, naivety. Not an insult. Just straight technical analysis. Somehow you know what I have posted is wrong, and yet don't even know basic and obvious facts of this American / Israeli relationship.
But this time, word came from Washingtion to Israel - use the final solution. Attack and kill all Hezbollah and this problem will be solved. Don't think for one minute that Washington did not either approve or recommend this solution.
What's this, then? You said WORD CAME FROM WASHINGTON TO ISRAEL, did you not? look up there, between those quotes and tell me what you said.
And what is not to get about the simple (grasp it, now, tw) concept that one military force can NEVER know or predict and should never ASSUME what another military force is going to do. That's not even a controversial point.
Oh, and tw?
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck...
Shame you're not right there to solve this complex problem that only you understand. Ya jerk.
So the fact he spoke in English to demand ceasefire at Rice is proof that this particular action is directed from Washington?
That he made those claims bluntly in English and let reporters know who he was talking too: Condi Rice is opposing any ceasefire.
OK UT. I put up facts. Your response is denial after denial without facts and without apparently knowledge of what Fouad Siniora said and intended. You know better than reporters on site? Fine. Then prove that Condi Rice wants a ceasefire. Prove to everyone that Fouad Siniora is wrong - that Condi Rice opposes a ceasefire. Prove to all that Fouad Siniora spoke in a foreign language - only to be cute?
It was not riddles then. You apparently did not learn what was common knowledge.
But you know something more? Let's hear it. Show us how the Cheney doctrine is not again showing its ugly head. Show me, UT.
Show me one example where the US even tried to stop this war? You cannot.
UT, you don’t even deny this previous post. According to your replies, then you must have facts. Show us these facts that somehow no one possesses. Show us how and why the US even tried to stop this war - and yet somehow bluntly refused to call for a ceasefire?
Somehow you know the George Jr administration wants to stop the annihilation of Hezbollah - in direct contradiction to a Cheney doctrine. Show us. Numerous examples already posted say otherwise. OK. Show us.
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck...
We had a computer that would do this. Before crashing, it would type reams of jibberish on the teletype. I wonder if Brianna was an attempt to win the Turing Test - and was so humanized as to break down in a human emotional equivalent of a computer crash? Interesting strategy to win the prize.
The Bush administration didn't move for a cease-fire. I never suggested that they did.
Denial after denial - are you insane?
Again, how is this proof this entire action is directed from Washington?
If we are so confused as to not understand, simply explain how you have deduced this.
Premise, premise, conclusion. Think in a straight line. You can do this.
Before crashing, it would type reams of jibberish on the teletype.
Must have made you feel right at home. :-)
Whilst there is no proof that the action is directed by Washington, even the ostriches acknowledge that it has more than tacit approval from the self-same.
The USA see's no advantage in a cease-fire when the dead are mostly towel-heads (give Hezbollah some *really* effective rockets and then watch the US scream for a cease-fire).... at the mo, they can see the best of both worlds....
sell the IDF more smart bombs to knock down more buildings....
then sell the reconstruction rights....
America, doing what it does best...
protecting and promoting American interests...
The USA see's no advantage in a cease-fire when the dead are mostly towel-heads (give Hezbollah some *really* effective rockets and then watch the US scream for a cease-fire).... at the mo, they can see the best of both worlds....
Now take Israel's perspective. What the hell is wrong with Israeli leadership? Having gotten into this mess, Israel should have been overloading the conflict with division after division. Ground troops as fast as delivered to the border. Who in Israel is so misguided as to think this conflict would be solved with airpower, limited forays, and time? Israel's own leadership acts as if someone else (Lebanon Army, US diplomacy, or an international peace force) will do hard work for them; as if airpower will cause a solution.
Indecision or stalling by Israeli leadership completely confuses me. It makes no sense for Israel to not attack with everything as fast as possible. Every day that Israel does not consolidate its position only works against Israel. And yet Israel just sits there without troops on the ground in mass numbers.
There must be more to this Israeli indecisiveness. And yet, that is what Israel is doing. Israel acts as if air power would solve their problems. That is either misguided leadership or wishful prayers. Every day this conflict progresses makes life for both Israel and its sponsor more difficult. Why is Israel not invading with everything ASAP? Only reason that makes sense is a leadership that thought airstrikes would somehow cause a solution to happen maybe because they tried to minimize Israeli casualties, or maybe due to promises made by Washington, or maybe because Israel's current leadership has not yet asked itself some damning questions.
Israel must say, "As many Israeli casualties as is necessary to purge the land of Hezbollah". Israel has not yet admitted that was necessary more than a week ago. Either move everything or do nothing. Currently, Israel is even recruiting for Hezbollah because Israeli military actions are that indecisive. Currently, Israel's ineffectiveness is also making both Israel and America look bad and making Hezbollah look good.
America, doing what it does best...protecting and promoting American interests...
What country does not put their interests first? :eyebrow:
Whilst there is no proof that the action is directed by Washington, even the ostriches acknowledge that it has more than tacit approval from the self-same.
There's no particular reason to disapprove of it. Why shouldn't Israel defend itself? What other country would not under the same circumstances?
This is such bullshit..."you're being attacked by an army of terrorists but it's immoral for you to fight back". By giving Hizbulla special untouchable status since they claim to be b "a legitimate part of Lebanon" but when it comes to me to be accountable for thier military action suddenly all people in the war zone north of the border are magically "innocent civilians"...and that's somehow *Israel's* fault.
Youd better check the law by which you're claiming "war crimes"...hiding combatants amoing civilian populations is a war crime. It's exactly the same tactic as when Saddam put a civilian shelter on the floors above his command and control center in Baghdad during the first Gulf War.
TW, maybe be Jay, along who knows how many others, are confused because you misled them.
You said in post 124
But this time, word came from Washington to Israel - use the final solution. Attack and kill all Hezbollah and this problem will be solved.
Don't think for one minute that Washington did not either approve or recommend this solution.
First a damning statement of the US, then a slightly modified, but still damning, statement that the US ordered or gave permission, for this war.
When Brianna asked for proof, you, in post 128, tried to shift the burden of proof to others, then said
The US may not have recommended it. But US permission to attack and invade Lebanon – complete with Condi Rice running interference for Israel – is obvious.
Hmm..obvious...that implies anyone that asks for proof of your statement, isn't as smart as you and your sources....doesn't see the big picture....doesn't understand how the middle east works. But that's evading the fact you have no proof.
In post 134, UT said in response to your trying to shift the burden of proof;
So the fact he spoke in English to demand ceasefire at Rice is proof that this particular action is directed from Washington?
And Brianna in post 135 again asked;
That's my confusion, too. tw says Washington ordered Israel to fight Hzb. To enact a Final Solution--tw's words.
His proof of this is that the Lebanese PM spoke in English to demand a ceasefire to Condi. How does that equal orders FROM Washington TO Israel?
Fair questions, I think. But then you respond in post 136
No it was not tw's exact words and it misrepresents - big time - the Israel / American relationship. You did not read carefully
and you still do not yet understand that relationship.
If not careful with such details, then Brianna could easily arrive at obviously erroneous conclusions such as:
You see, Brianna, Israel did the reverse- traded kidnapped soldiers for prisoners. You apparently did not know basic details.
Even the most militaristic Sharon authorized such trades. You assumed without first grasping details. What I said is also significantly
different from what you summarized:
Your mistake implies insufficient grasp of numerous details in this Middle East conflict and relationships. Had you a grasp of the relationships, then you would have better comprehended what was posted, not reposted what I wrote in such gross error - AND why Israel is proxy for a Cheney doctrine.
Somehow you know better and yet don't even understand basic details of a US / Israeli relationship? Credibility? Insufficient grasp of history and facts? Your post implies, at minimum, naivety. Not an insult. Just straight technical analysis. Somehow you know what I have posted is wrong, and yet don't even know basic and obvious facts of this American / Israeli relationship.
Still no proof, just a tap dance worthy of the Apollo Theater, attacking the questioner and trying to direct the discourse to other issues.
Might I suggest, when asked for proof of your indictment of the US, if you had just said,..... OK, I misspoke in that first comment by saying, "But this time, word came from Washington to Israel - use the final solution. Attack and kill all Hezbollah and this problem will be solved."
but, it's a reasonable assumption because, blah, blah, blah.
I think that, by explaining the statement was not a fact, but was a logical conclusion on your part from the information available, would have been a better solution.
Sure, I'm nit picking. Because damning statements like that stick in people's minds as fact. That's misleading the great unwashed that look up to you as the definitive trusted source of what's right and wrong in the universe. You owe it to your disciples, to lead them unerringly to the ultimate truth. :notworthy
I'm actually impressed with -- nay, in awe of -- tw's ability to dance this mess around (I mean, uh, dance around this mess) like that.
The same dead bodies are "rescued" over and over for the cameras
Don't visit the link unless you can stomach seeing two different dead bodies being carted around, taken on and off ambulances, pulled out of rubble several times, and generally paraded around for different photographers of different press agencies, for a period of hours and hours.
I have followed this story and it appears to be a mistake on the part of the post's author, who misunderstood which timestamps are transmitted by the wire agencies.
Following that post, in another story, there was a suggestion that the building did not collapse at midnight, when it was bombed, but at 8am. I read the whole story very carefully and figured out that it was most likely an error on behalf of an Israeli Brig. Gen'l. (yay me)
Sadly this did not prevent a series of righty blogs from running with the theory that it was a setup by Hezbollah all along. Hamas is known to perpetrate such things. But the rumor got generated by the wings of the butterfly, and a bit more reality went down the truth hole.
@bruce....
the USA is unique in that its foreign policy is derived from its written constitution, and literally does say 'to protect and promote American Interests'.
It's the mindset behind that concept that I take issue with.....
It implies that American interests must come first over all other considerations ( eg selling arms to Israel and then rebuilding Lebanon by US companies is a good deal..... the several hundred Lebanonese deaths are neither here nor there)
...and oif course, it is in oppostion the foreign policy of most European nations, which is
'to protect their citizens abroad, and promote business interests abroad'
Well then all you need to know is, that's a view of foreign affairs and the Constitution that is not shared anywhere I've ever seen in American government or society. And I've been watching carefully.
Whether the Constitution is actually followed is more or less whether it's actively looked at and interpreted during a particular era. Nobody cares about that wording, nobody.
It may be roughly the same as what US foreign policy IS, but that's because during most of our history we were very isolationist and there is still isolationist blood in many of our veins. It takes a lot to get us interested and then our interest lasts about 2 minutes.
Don't make up reasons to hate us. There are plenty of real reasons. Use the real ones.
mmmmmm....... I hear you, UT, but I'm still inclined to believe the 'american interest' thingie is still buried deep within the american psyche.... and your 'isolationist' remark only serves to reinforce my viewpoint.
As a nation, you are the probally the most powerful and influential in the world, yet as a people you are probally the most parochial.
It's a dichtomy that most of can't even understand, let alone resolve,
yet we have to live with the conseqences of that personality split.
And I don't hate Americans. Just your foreign policy.
And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are.
-Colin Powell
Now *that* is a good man.
You could do worse than make him your next President.
You like guys that lie to the UN?
You like guys that lie to the UN?
"Of course that was Bush's fault."
I'll vote for Condi if she runs. Maybe it'll make up for having voted for Gore.
As a nation, you are the probally the most powerful and influential in the world, yet as a people you are probally the most parochial.
Hang in there...the EU escapes that designation only by not being "a people".
Yet.
But the French are working on it; it's their plan to rule the world.
..... the several hundred Lebanonese deaths are neither here nor there...
They are not "neither here nor there". But
that blood is clearly on the hands of Hizbullah.
Not bullying the Israelis into another premature ceasefire followed by another impotent "UN Interim Force" is the best hope of breaking this cycle.
Sure, I'm nit picking. Because damning statements like that stick in people's minds as fact.
Bruce, you would have to be daft to deny the US provided 'approval' to this war. To better appreciate the US /Israeli relationship, return to the story even of why Reagan kept that picture of a Palestinian girl on his desk.
The US does not order or command Israel as is somehow too complex for Brianna to comprehend. You know that even from an outright and intentional attack on the USS Liberty as MaggieL so accurately described in The Cellar previously. US once issued standing orders - from every US president except the current one - as to what US weapons could be used on or against. Those rules were honored by Israel for what again should be obvious reasons. It is a relationship similar to a dog and his master. It is a relationship recently changed by the Cheney doctrine (including pre-emption where the ends justify the means) that says Israel can now use any weapons they want without permission (apparently with but a few restrictions) on anyone found on a US regional 'enemies' list.
Why did Yasser Arafat not get murdered in the attack on his compound? You can bet Sharon, who has repeatedly attempted and failed to kill Arafat would have done so then ASAP. But again, American (and other) pressure stopped this otherwise event. Yes, Israel does get permissions for certain major events just like a dog usually obeys it master. And sometimes it will even intentionally attack a US Navy ship if necessary. It is a relationship where some Israeli actions do require US permission - and sometimes the dog does not listen to its master - and that too is permitted.
So did Israel get permission to wipe out Hezbollah? Of course. Who first expressed the plan is not obvious. But the event is exactly on a US 'to do' list and obviously would achieve US approval. Suddenly Israel is getting massive shipments of bunker busting and other bombs from the US. Orders that accidentally coincided with the event? Again, one would have to be daft. America has expedited shipment of arms that also happen to be used in Lebanon. You also want to call that coincidence?
Why does everyone call for a ceasefire except Condi Rice? Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora did something politically incorrect (and will probably pay for it politically in the future - this administration has a history of remembering taking revenge - a well understood Cheney habit). Siniora publicly demanded that Condi Rice no longer return until she calls for a ceasefire. His comments were a diplomatic insult to Rice. You mean Condi opposed a ceasefire? That ‘blunt in English' statement was intended and did publicly embarrass Condi Rice. Its purpose was a blunt and undiplomatic slap at the US; said in English to be even blunter; that Lebanon now wants the US to stop approving of attacks on all Lebanese. Apparently, it did as intended - in part because it was in English and in part because it was a public declaration to the world why a ceasefire was not happening.
But again we return to comments from so many insiders and adjacent reporters who were told why 'as background'. Yes, the US was running interference for Israel. Every proposal was being questioned or complicated by Condi Rice and the administration. A question commonly asked was how long the US could keep doing this. There was no doubt that the US was running interference for Israel. That is not even questioned. The only question being asked was how long would this continue? And again, I will not even try to provide the smoking gun - nor should I have to if you have been receiving the news as reported by too many sources from too many different world capitals.
The Cheney doctrine promotes final solutions - go to the military first when possible and end it now. Whalla. As if magic, we have an exact copy of the Cheney doctrine being executed on a major and violent - hated by everyone in the world - terrorist - rapers of women and children - Hezbollah. Except only the US has that opinion. Europeans do not call Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Lebanon calls Hezbollah part of Lebanon and its government. So you tell me who so desperately wants Hezbollah so destroyed as to associate it with Iran and Syria - like they were Saddam and bin Laden.
Meanwhile this quote is as accurate and is consistent with everything posted. If you disagree - then reread - you failed to take the proper perspective. Your questioned this quote because, well, one can only speculate as to why you are confused. This quote is consistent, accurate and yet simplified down to even Brianna's level - that makes her a contender for the Turing Prize.
The US may not have recommended it. But US permission to attack and invade Lebanon – complete with Condi Rice running interference for Israel – is obvious.
Yes obvious even from the so many 'coincidences' above and other news reports.
Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization once we eliminate the US hyper evil 'black and white' agenda. Hezbollah is another political group in the Middle East that was created for and exists to defend Lebanon. Eliminate the hyper Jewish spin and that is what Hezbollah is. A threat to Israel? Of course. Israel never stopped attacking Lebanon which is the reason Hezbollah was created. Hezbollah and Israel never stopped sparring and never will as long as both parties are dominated by extremist agendas. Such violence is and should remain status quo because neither side has any reason to want peace.
The Lebanon attack is a perfect copy of Cheney doctrine in action - destroy another arm of Iran. Condi Rice is clearly running interference for Israel. US is the only party obstructing and refusing to call for a ceasefire. US has increased shipment of weapons for 'attacking' Hezbollah. The US Israel historical relationship only confirms this intent by the US to support and encourage these attacks. And finally, those out there in the field are instead asking how long the US can cover for a currently failing Israeli military action. Nobody is even questioning US outright support for this agenda. The question asked is how long will this US attempt continue. But again, it is that obvious.
Israel will eventually conduct a massive ground assault on Lebanon because their previous actions have failed. There is little doubt that invasion will and must happen. Only question is why Israel dithered so long as if airpower was going to solve anything. Israel started this when Israel started massive military attacks on innocent Lebanon cities; as if that would solve a Hezbollah problem. Yes, completely trivial since Hezbollah and Israel have been doing these same and silly little 'slap face' games at each other for years now. Only a fool would think "Hezbollah attacked first". Why Israel (and the US) thought attacking Lebanon's cities would solve a 'slap game’ problem is a total mystery. But again, maybe Israel did not tell America that part of their plan.
Meanwhile, numerous reports and one line comments from so many sources means I will not document (and could not without setting a new record for length of a post) any of this. You can choose to grasp the summary or you can do as Brianna does - deny because it does not fit in her ignorance of history and her ‘four letter word' world. These sources also reported long ago why those aluminum tubes would not be for weapons of mass destruction. And just like back then, I would not document what we all now know (well UT still kept denying) to be quite accurate fact. Appreciate how honest those sources are.
Bruce, I have no idea how this inevitable Lebanon invasion will play out. Others do not even dare speculate. The invasion will be a very interesting wild card - making all previous bets by all parties in this event safe by comparison. It could go anyway because no one appears to be staking odds on what might happen next. Don't forget the many other regional parties that have yet to play cards (most will probably fold).
But one would have a grasp like Brianna to not recognize US approval of Israel's desire to massacre Hezbollah. Those who somehow view Hezbollah only in terms of the destruction of Israel need to learn of a world beyond Rush Limbaugh propaganda or four letter simplicities. Hezbollah is not the wacko force that UT would pretend they be. It is but another political entity in a region full of both wicks and legitimate political agendas. Even Israel has as many wackos as the other sides.
And so we really should consider arming everyone and promoting the ultimate paint ball game. At this point, could it really hurt? Well, at least it would be amusing over here - as some contenders sneak in their pistols and knives. Unlike MaggieL, I see them all for what they are. Groups of basic and wackos equally on all sides - and lots of justified hate.
Shame is that no honest broker exists anymore to bring about an Oslo accord now that so many Americans are so brainwashed as to become parochial. We are longer the same nation that once would create peace in the Middle East. Cheney doctrine, our 'enemies list', and pre-emption has ended that. We are now poeple too busy to view everyone in terms of 'good verses evil'. That was not America's 1950s and 1960s Middle East agenda. Now we are nothing more than a big military force with another agenda.
Again, how is this proof this entire action is directed from Washington?
If we are so confused as to not understand, simply explain how you have deduced this.
Misdirection, repeating the non-point, secret sources only you can know, everyone else is daft or worse, several straw men and goodness gracious the aluminum tubes make an appearance... but of course, the original, direct question is not addressed.
It's nothing short of what we've come to expect.
Are these the same sources that told you Jenin was a massacre?
mmmmmm....... I hear you, UT, but I'm still inclined to believe the 'american interest' thingie is still buried deep within the american psyche.... and your 'isolationist' remark only serves to reinforce my viewpoint.
As a nation, you are the probally the most powerful and influential in the world, yet as a people you are probally the most parochial.
It's a dichtomy that most of can't even understand, let alone resolve,
yet we have to live with the conseqences of that personality split.
And I don't hate Americans. Just your foreign policy.
Always the same, everyone bitches about us being "The World Police" until the shit hits the fan somewhere and we don't do anything. Then they bitch about us not being "The Benevolent World Police"... since we can't win, I don't really care any longer & don't think any of us should.
Hey, during the Clinton Administration, even the republicans bitched about the US being the world police. "We don't want our military going into Bosnia, Croatia, Sommalia, etc. without a firm exit strategy". Things change...
Somalia was Bush I. Clinton pulled us out of there.
Misdirection, repeating the non-point, secret sources only you can know, everyone else is daft or worse, several straw men and goodness gracious the aluminum tubes make an appearance...
UT you are arguing 'Saddam's aluminum tubes' logic again. It’s not everyone who is daft. But if you continue with denials and no supporting facts, then it is only that person who is daft.
You don't like what was posted. Then - and why do I have to say this to UT repeatedly - post your own facts. Why do you 'nay-say' as if that provides something useful? You did the same exact thing with alumimun tubes. Cited sources are not secret. You seem to have very limited information sources. Or you have a bad habit of filtering out information you don't like. You are doing your aluminum tube act again. Insist you are right and yet not provide a single useful fact. Instead you attack the messenger as if that proves something.
UT do you still deny why Fouad Siniora gave his speech - in English? Avoiding comment so as to not admit you were again wrong? Why then are you so silent? Feelings don't make analysis. The speech was given in English so that even UT would appreciate what Fouad Siniora was saying when he told Condi Rice to not return until she changes her tune. Sorry UT, but that fact still remains a fact no matter how many times you deny it - no matter how many times you instead attack the messenger. Nothing secret about that blunt and undiplomatic statement from Fouad Siniora - no matter how many times you deny it - and provide no facts for your 'feelings'.
It is a fact that the US was running interference for Israel's attacks on Lebanon. This is the Cheney doctrine by proxy. That is not even debatable AND UT provides no facts to dispute this. The debatable part is how long can the US keep running this interference. The debatable part is how severe this conflict might escalate. Instead, why not answer those real questions?
I rightfully wanted you to correctly defend a statement you made. You repeatedly failed to do so.
It's not about sources, filters, being smart or dumb, attacking or not attacking.
I've done nothing but provide facts, dichead. I've even provided corrections.
Again, my question was "How does Fouad Siniora demanding a cease-fire from Rice in English mean that the entire operation is directed from Washington?"
Your reply was "The entire operation is directed from Washington, it's a given if you read good sources."
But this is not an answer to my question. Would you like to try again? You seem to be arguing a different question than the one posed.
Hey tw, can I ask a favor of you?
Can you sum up your major points in one line each for us please? I think there is a bigger problem with your rambling on for a page without concretely saying exactly what you think (or, more correctly, EVERYTHING you think without making major points clear) than the actual content, which, for me, is very hard to get to... Like wading through the sewer for the ring you dropped down it.
Pretty please state your major points youre yelling at everyone about in one line each?
Well, UT can't be right - he made a typo! Case closed.
Unless tw mentions me (Brianna) in EVERY SINGLE post he makes-I won't be reading it. I enjoy envisioning him, in a greasy, dingy, smelly old T-shirt, McDonald french fries in his unkempt beard, ancient aquarium with algea and dead fish floating belly up by his computer, numerous conspiracy rags by his 1970's barcalounger and 14 day-old chili in his one and only pot on the stove, growing penicillin--thinking of ways to weave 'Brianna' and 'grasp' into one coherent sentence. It's like nectar.
I know tw wants me. He wants to EDUCATE and CONTROL me. I am so hott for him right now...I'm prolly gonna touch myself...
Hey tw, can I ask a favor of you?
Can you sum up your major points in one line each for us please?
No.
Ouch. The sharp sting of the one-word reply.
Ouch. The sharp sting of the one-word reply.
The response was blunt, honest, and direct to the point. This time, I did not 'confuse' an issue with reality of underlying facts. A simpler answer - without supporting facts - was provided. Previous post was already soundbyted down into an executive summary. When asked for an even simpler response, one was provided. No ouch. That is silly emotion. Just the bottom line without any reasons provided - or what happens when we "sum up major points in one line".
Well, it's not so much stinging as a very literal reply to the actual question.
It's not that he won't ...it's that, being tw, he can't, which is what the questioner asked.
My comment wasn't really intended as a criticism.
My comment wasn't really intended as a criticism.
It was not taken to be criticism. My answer provided underlying details so that the answer was obvious to others. "No" was the honest answer to Ibram (short answer provided somewhat facetiously) because this 'cleanse Lebanon' war is so complex AND is so confused by intentional myths and blantant half truths (such as Hezbollah is a terrorist organization or Hezbollah attacked first).
Same thing happening on a greater scale in Darfur does not get such attention, in part, because Darfur does not involve so many parties, is not so complex, and would not drag in the entire world. This Israel cleansing war - part of America's intention to fix the Middle East whether they like it or not - is that complex.
tw, nobody can tell what you're trying to say because you wont state clearly what you think. When UT tried to get you to clarify, you responded with a LONGER, MUDDIER post. The problem isn't so much the length as the clarity. I quite liked the one-word post... If you had posted a page and a half about why longer posts were better or something, I would probably not care enough to read it all, and therefore guess at the content. At least now I know exactly how you feel about making a concise and clear post on your position.
Well, he's got to pick those fries out of his beard. That takes time.
I'm glad others feel this way - I thought I had ADD.
tw, nobody can tell what you're trying to say because you wont state clearly what you think. When UT tried to get you to clarify, you responded with a LONGER, MUDDIER post. The problem isn't so much the length as the clarity.
You want a 'yes or no' answer. I gave one - "No.". It did not tell you much which is why you are back again asking the same questions.
You want details (clarity). Then yes, the deeper you dive for details, the muddier it gets. Welcome to the Middle East. There are no 'yes and no' answers which is what you are asking for. Those answers were as clear as possible because the situation is chock full of perspectives and the Cellar is no place to post a book. You think there are only two parties involved? You don't have enough fingers and toes in your family to count the parties involved. How do you describe that in terms of 'yes and no'?
Which do you want? A better comprehension or shorter posts? They are mutually exclusive. Provided was an executive summary. You complain that it is not detailed enough (too short) AND complained the answer is too long. You want clarity? The short answer was "No". Underlying facts to that answer include "I will not set new records for longer posts". You want a shorter answer? Then you don't want clarity. Why do you keep asking for what is obviously impossible?
As if it were not complex enough, we have some here falsely claiming that Hezbollah attacked first. Then others blindly believe that nonsense. So who was really muddying the waters? Welcome to the Middle East where there is so much more than sand, sun, and precious water. And yet even that can make muddy water.
tw, you misunderstand what I want. I want you to post a short overview of what you think, in list form. For example, if I were to do the same, it would look like this.
Both sides are equally to blame.
The root of the problem lies too far back to fix or to lay blame.
Both sides keep the feud going by hitting back.
It will only end when one side gives up or is annihilated.
The US and everyone else should stay the hell out of it.
I'm more put off by the incoherency of tw's posts. I'm perfectly fine with lots of suporting detail, in fact I prefer a detailed argument to a stand alone statement. However, your posts often try to bring up multiple issues and side arguments without resolving the first thing you talked about. Instead of the rambling half-page that you post try making only 1-2 points per post. Say something, support it with evidence, bring up an angle that people might not know about, but make sure it all coalesces into one coherent post. If your counterpoints negate your original point then either say that and prove both are useful anyway or don't post either.
I'm more put off by the incoherency of tw's posts. I'm perfectly fine with lots of suporting detail, in fact I prefer a detailed argument to a stand alone statement. However, your posts often try to bring up multiple issues and side arguments without resolving the first thing you talked about. Instead of the rambling half-page that you post try making only 1-2 points per post. Say something, support it with evidence, bring up an angle that people might not know about, but make sure it all coalesces into one coherent post. If your counterpoints negate your original point then either say that and prove both are useful anyway or don't post either.
Can you say that in concise bullet-point format, please?:p
Bruce, you would have to be daft to deny the US provided 'approval' to this war.~lots of yada, yada, yada~ . Now we are nothing more than a big military force with another agenda.
Once again you have spelled out the basis of the
conclusion, that you misstated as
fact.
Oh well, I tried. [SIZE="1"]sigh[/SIZE]
tw, you misunderstand what I want. I want you to post a short overview of what you think, in list form. For example, if I were to do the same, it would look like this.
Both sides are equally to blame. ...
But again, that is the point. There are no 'both' sides. Numerous parties AND many parties that can be considered part of multiple groups.
For example, a UN resolution called for the disarming of Hezbollah. Are Druze, Shi'ites, or Maronites guilty of not enforcing that UN resolution? Yes. They did not do the job. But no. They were not required to do that job. Maybe that was Israel's job. Or maybe the Arab league failed to perform the task. You tell me? Which party is and is not guilty? Add a pragmatic point that they could not do the job and maintain a new Lebanese democracy. I have only answered a question about UN Resolution 1559. How much more concise should I have been?
There are no nice concise points because waters are that muddy.
The root of the problem lies too far back to fix or to lay blame.
Of course we can lay blame. We can lay blame on any religious person who declared any part of the Middle East selected for god's chosen 'people'. Do we blame crusaders? Or we can lay blame on the British for how they created Palestine. Or on Nazis for creating the 'need' for a Jewish homeland. Or we can lay blame on the worst type of Zionists who regards the Middle East as Americans once regarded North America. Based upon what criteria do we define blame? Muddy enough. Welcome to the Middle East where everyone has an agenda and so few consider others as equal - especially because religion is involved.
Previously I mentioned Kahlil Gibran? Did you grasp the meaning? No, if you think answers are concise and simple.
Both sides keep the feud going by hitting back.
But again, your family probably does not have enough fingers and toes to count the number of sides. Which are 'both sides’? Ironically many sides have no feud. It is a minority called extremists that, for example, had to murder Menachin Begin to drive centrists into the ranks of extremists. So are those centrists now extremists or are they still centrists? But again, which is 'that' side. Again, appreciate how waters get more muddy with each new fact. Appreciate that your questions cannot be answered without layers of definitions of 'each side'.
The US and everyone else should stay the hell out of it.
A good idea. But that is not possible since we attacked the Franco / British invasion of Egypt; rescued the Lebanon government in the 1950s; overthrew the government of Iran and installed a Shah; developed an essential alliance with the Saudis; liberated Kuwait, promised to leave, and lied; bought an Israeli Egyptian peace treaty; are involved in Tunisia, Libya, and Morocco; invaded Afghanistan; use (waste) so much oil as to even desperately need a Caspian Sea oil pipeline; etc.
We cannot be out and yet we should temper how much we are in. An answer that requires a number where no quantitative standard exists. In short, an above answer that is accurate considering how muddy those waters are.
Up until 2000, the US was doing a fairly job of negotiating where required and leaving things alone when necessary. We were an honest broker once we realized the Palestinians also had legitimate gripes. The 'well proven by history' concept called containment works. Like any international problem, a solution cannot be imposed - pre-emption. The Arab Israeli conflict came so close to being solved through the Oslo Accords only because two major power brokers wanted it. How many remember when there was no longer any Middle East violence? No suicide bombings. No Israeli jets attacking someone every month? How many remember why Menachin Begin was murdered only to recreate instability (ie intafada II) because that is what minority extremists so wanted.
But again, you tell me how any of this can become part of a concise set of points? Each point would be different for each party's perspective - for each of how many different sides? And then peripheral problems such as Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, the K'stan nations, Syria, etc need be considered.
We even exempt Pakistan, Israel, and India from what was once a major US priority - limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons. So which is it? Are we for or against proliferation of nuclear weapons? In this case, a standard for all should exist. But it does not. Do we argue that it is not our problem? Again, show me how even this question can be answered in concise and clear 'bullet points'. I don't have a clue because, again, the issue is so muddied. Too many parties. Too many perspectives. Too many agendas. Too much religion. And too many Americans who don't even know the different between Hezbollah and Hamas. Too many Americans who don't even know the diference between Muslim Brotherhood (the movement), Muslim Brotherhood (the political party) and Al Qaeda.
Only final solution may be that everyone gets armed equally until loses on all sides are just like the American Civil War. Only then would a resulting peace settlement be so final. Only then would those who hate then remember what happened the last time they hated. On paper and based upon some lessons of history, it is a good solution. But again, there are too many variables meaning it could end up another '1914 in Serbia'.
I can propose a long list of solutions. And yet the consequences (risks) are so great that none are acceptable. Brianna could not understand something so trivial and typically uneventful as kidnapping of Israeli border guards. She actually thought that a major event. Even trivial events such as soldier kidnapping sometimes explode into war that kills millions.
Pre 2000 Middle East demonstrated the beauty of and reasons why containment was so successful. First and foremost, those so many parties must settle it themselves. And yet we cannot remain fully disengaged. So how engaged or disenaged should we be? Welcome to the Middle East where everything is muddy; where the answer to that question is 'yes, maybe, and no' - depending on perspectives. Again, the more we learn, the muddier it gets. Only when all those parties are ready to take war to a negotiation table (which is the purpose of war), only then might we ever get back to what the Oslo Accords almost created.
Never forget a major reason for the Oslo Accords failure and the murder of Begin - Ariel Sharon and his extremist Likud party. But he and Likud were, at minimum, only one of so many parties (still a minority) trying to manipulate events back to war and violence. The expression 'both sides' will never apply to the Middle East.
Previously defined was what has happened including a US policy of pre-emption. Previously asked was what will happen once Israel invades Lebanon - as they must to stop Hezbollah attacks. Previously noted is that all warring parties deserve the violence they are now suffering. For example, if so biased as to think Israelis are the good guys, then remember why 5,000 Palestinian women and children were massacred in an Israeli invasion of Lebanon, why Maronites eventually caused death of 200+ American Marines, AND why Israelis intentionally murdered 52 Americans aboard the USS Liberty. They are all examples of god's chosen people - what happens when religion becomes part of any conflict. Just more mud. What concise bullet should I use for that part of history?
And that is the short answer. The one and only thing we know works is a policy of containment. America is even violating that well proven lesson from history. It would then take a miracle to accomplish what the Oslo Accords almost did because pre-emption makes things worse. Does a need for a miracle mean the Middle East needs more religion?
How many remember why Menachin Begin was murdered only to recreate instability (ie intafada II) because that is what minority extremists so wanted.
Wasn't that Yitzhak Rabin?
I don't know why Junior is so obsessed with Hizbollah as it doesn't pose any threat for the US, or even international terrorism.
For example, a UN resolution called for the disarming of Hezbollah. Are Druze, Shi'ites, or Maronites guilty of not enforcing that UN resolution? Yes. They did not do the job. But no. They were not required to do that job. Maybe that was Israel's job. Or maybe the Arab league failed to perform the task. You tell me? Which party is and is not guilty? Add a pragmatic point that they could not do the job and maintain a new Lebanese democracy. I have only answered a question about UN Resolution 1559. How much more concise should I have been?
Hezbollah itself is guilty for continuing to arm; Iran and Syria are guilty for continuing to arm them.
18 words, two minutes. That was easy, give me another one.
I don't know why Junior is so obsessed with Hizbollah as it doesn't pose any threat for the US, or even international terrorism.
One theory is that Israel must clear out the threat from the north so that if they have to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran can't use that area to stage further launches.
18 words, two minutes. That was easy, give me another one.
Je n'ai pas cu le temps de faire plus cort.
One theory is that Israel must clear out the threat from the north so that if they have to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran can't use that area to stage further launches.
Oh I see, it's that easy. You must be a genius.
Unfortunately history learns that we never learn from history, especially the US. One would think that after the Iraq disaster the US and Israel would rethink their pre-empt wars and listen less to desktop warriors like Feith, Ledeen and Cheney or Airforce Generals who always promise they can do the job. Unfortunately there are always gullible people who believe these nonsense.
War is like a gamble. Bad players/generals/politicians can't take their win when the time is right and keep on hoping luck will turn their way. Olmert should have taken the St.Petersburg summit to cry victory, negotiate and get their kdnapped soldiers. Now he's drawn further and further into the quigmire which eventually leads to war with Syria.
It's not my theory. It's A theory. Some have advanced. (I heard it from Mickey Kaus on bloggingheads.tv, but bloggingheads.tv seems to be down right now)
I don't have a position on whether Israel is doing the right or wrong thing in this case. History will tell. Maybe.
The issue was not the kidnappings. The issue was the 13,000 missiles. When someone has a loaded gun and they're pointing it at you, for reasons that appear to be nonsense (Shebaa Farms), and they have a history of insanity, that has to be addressed. The UN failed to address it in a permanent/realistic way. What would you do?
One theory is that Israel must clear out the threat from the north so that if they have to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran can't use that area to stage further launches.
That makes sense. When W pre-emptively invades Iran from both Afghanistan AND Iraq, he doesn't want Syria attacking from behind. Ridding southern Lebanon of Hizb'allah will keep Syria's eyes on Israel, not the rear guard of the US military, as it enters Iran. Then, he can pre-emptively attack Syria, with a little help from Israel on Syria's Western Front. Hmmmm - conspiracy.
Pssssst - I heard Syria has tried to get yellow cake from an unamed African Nation - but don't tell Valerie Plame.
Ah, there it is.
Mickey Kaus's theory, on bloggingheads.tv (video, 44 secs, broadband only)
It's not my theory. It's A theory. Some have advanced. (I heard it from Mickey Kaus on bloggingheads.tv, but bloggingheads.tv seems to be down right now)
I don't have a position on whether Israel is doing the right or wrong thing in this case. History will tell. Maybe.
The issue was not the kidnappings. The issue was the 13,000 missiles. When someone has a loaded gun and they're pointing it at you, for reasons that appear to be nonsense (Shebaa Farms), and they have a history of insanity, that has to be addressed. The UN failed to address it in a permanent/realistic way. What would you do?
Issue is that Hizbollah was created during Israel's disastrous 80's Libanon campaign from the secular Amal party. Just as the Mujahedeen were created by Russia's Afghanistan invasion and al-Qaeda by the CIA. History learns etc, etc.
The USSR had pointed thousand of nukes at the US, yet Reagan negotiated peace as soon as the opportunity was there.
Peace in N.Ireland was negotiated, not by war.
Israel needs to make peace with it's neighbours, that's what I would do, but I'm not an Israelian, never can be, cause I'm not a Jew.
The Germans have an appropriate saying "Sieg bis zum Tode" (Victory until death). Israel is very vulnerable for a first strike. It can have victories but at the end it may well be the beginning of the end for them.
Ridding southern Lebanon of Hizb'allah will keep Syria's eyes on Israel, not the rear guard of the US military, as it enters Iran.
Oh dear, another desktop general. US military is in no way prepared for another attack as it has no ready, strategic forces available and is already stretched to the limit. As soon as the US enters Iran, missiles will rain on Israel, it's exactly the excuse Iran is waiting for. For this read my remark above about first strike.
Pssssst - I heard Syria has tried to get yellow cake from an unamed African Nation - but don't tell Valerie Plame.
Yep, they can use it together with Saddams WMD's burried on the Golan Heights (acc.the Mossad of course).
One theory is that Israel must clear out the threat from the north so that if they have to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran can't use that area to stage further launches.
I wonder why Iran hasn't simply bought missiles and nukes from North Korea? Or maybe they have...and need to have something that looks plausibly like thier own nuclear program so NK has deniability when they finally launch one.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd trust an NK missile, especially with a critical payload like a nuke. Go upscale to Chinese; the reliability is worth the extra cost.
... Oh dear, another desktop general. US military is in no way prepared for another attack as it has no ready, strategic forces available and is already stretched to the limit...
C'mon - why not another "invasion lite"? Rational concerns have never stopped this administration before now. :cool:
Israel needs to make peace with it's neighbours, that's what I would do, but I'm not an Israelian, never can be, cause I'm not a Jew.
Assuming that we can't turn back time to when we all enraged those otherwise peaceful religous fanatics, your current answer to "What would you do?" is to negotiate with terrorists whose end position is that you should cease to exist.
Zat yer final answer?
BTW, you can be
naturalized without being Jewish. That criticism is, I think, a thing of the past.
...that you should cease to exist.
That's a thing of the past. The general consensus in the Arab world is that if Israel pulls back behind the 1967 borders, a lasting peace can be reached.
Re terrorist, depends on which side you are. Ones freedom fighter is the others terrorist. Many of Israels Prime Ministers started their carreer as a terrorist.
Until now the policy of Israel is of military arrogance. The present war with Hizbollah will show if this arrogance is justified. Fighting with an asymetrical oppenent is quite different as to what they learn on West Point et all (as shown in Iraq).
What goes around comes around.
I think Maggie's link, while it has a pro-Israel slant, was very helpful. I have no reason to dispute its accuracy. Check it out.
BTW, you can be naturalized without being Jewish. That criticism is, I think, a thing of the past.
I'm afraid not. With the current stream of Russian immigrants a growing demand of striking the extended Law of Return is visible.
With only religious marriages recognized in Israel, the halachic issue raises certain dilemmas. How, for example, would a young man whose immigrant mother wasn't Jewish, but who served in the army and lives like any other secular Israeli, marry a girlfriend who is accepted as Jewish?
The general consensus in the Arab world is that if Israel pulls back behind the 1967 borders, a lasting peace can be reached.
That is not the position of Hezbollah or Hamas or Iran; and what do you make of the fact that they are being attacked at precisely the borders where they've pulled back, Lebanon and Gaza?
Re terrorist, depends on which side you are. Ones freedom fighter is the others terrorist. Many of Israels Prime Ministers started their carreer as a terrorist.
Mags, do you have moral equivalency police duty this week?
Mags, do you have moral equivalency police duty this week?
That's a pretty daunting assignment, mostly because the recividism rate appears to be 100%. There was even a comment earlier to the effect that criticisms of moral equivalance are just a conservative ploy..."the moral equivalance card".
I'm not sure that isn't self-referential.
Oops, I forgot to check the passports on the dead babies, my bad.
When the right plays the card they occasionally get it right, like when Jay is just being an anti-American bigot. Usually, however, it is played to limit the parameters of the discussion, absolving the US or her client States of all responsibility for their actions because we are good and have never ever done a morally questionable act, which could lead some brown folks to hate our guts.
because we are good and have never ever done a morally questionable act
Straw man.
Sorry but that's the way you guys come off.
Sorry but that's the way you guys come off.
"You guys"? Who exactly is that?
Is there no space between "good and have never ever done a morally questionable act" and being morally equivalant to a terrorist who deliberatedly murders civilians? Or is defending oneself (in any way other than will meet the approval of folks who don't particularly give a shit) sufficient to establish this equivalance?
Because I don't buy that theory. It may float in societies where you can be convicted of assault for defending yourself from attack by a burglar in your own home, but we're not required to "lie back and enjoy it" here yet. I'm not Christian enough for the "let him who is without sin" deal.
"Moral equivalency" is often a strawman, too. Usually used to say that you can't criticize one side for doing something if another side does something worse.
When you and UT defend Israeli and American actions you generally don't acknowlege the downside. That makes your arguments sound less credible. Of course an isolationist like myself finds almost all American actions in the mid east absurd. I don't know why the left has such a problem with militarism after all the Balkan idiocy.
Was it in this thread or the other where I admitted I don't know if the current action is a good idea?
Responding to your edit:
"It may float in societies where you can be convicted of assault for defending yourself from attack by a burglar in your own home, but we're not required to "lie back and enjoy it" here yet. "
Weak comparison. When you defend yourself by killing your neighbors along with the burglar, you have a problem. Both sides are killing innocents. Israel accepts that innocents will die when the fire artillery into civilian populations where the crazies hide. Hezbolah does target civilians directly, that is worse intent but Israel kills more civilians, that is worse effect.
PS We are most definitely not in our home.
Was it in this thread or the other where I admitted I don't know if the current action is a good idea?
I could have missed it. I screw up alot.
It was this one, #189:
I don't have a position on whether Israel is doing the right or wrong thing in this case. History will tell. Maybe.
Thanks man. You know, you're always one of the good guys, no matter what happens.
a good guy?
after this
'When the right plays the card they occasionally get it right, like when Jay is just being an anti-American bigot'
I'l never be able to hold my head up in socialist circles again....
I was referring to your earlier unfounded contention that the US controls Israels actions and your unique interpretation of the Constitution. There is influence, but Israel lives in that awful neighborhood not us and would obviously put her needs first. Besides, for the sake of the argument I had to distance myself from your position which from my perspective looks like the mirror of Maggies.
mmmmmmm........ I never meant to say that the US controls Israel per se just that it heavily influences it and could exert realistic pressure to end the current situation. Feel free to quote me back words to the contrary..... after all, they're just words........
...could exert realistic pressure to end the current situation.
There are several outcomes that could "end the current situation". A premature ceasefire isn't one of them...that would in fact pretty much assure that "the current situation" that has persisted since IDF withdrew from Lebanon the last time would continue. They won't tolerate it anymore, nor do I see any reason they should.
Then come up with another idea, maggie. Preferably one that does not involve the deaths of hundreds of Lebanon civillians....
Then come up with another idea, maggie. Preferably one that does not involve the deaths of hundreds of Lebanon civillians....
That possibility is vanishingly small as long as Hezbollah thinks it's OK to use those civillians as human shields while bombarding Israel with rockets.
....and presumably you think it's ok to bomb the civilian population 'cos the terrorists are hiding among them? Dd you not read the first post in this thread?
Dd you not read the first post in this thread?
I read it. Your WWII parallel has nothing to do with the current situation. The IDF isn't "randomly punishing civilians". You need to actually read the relevant laws of war...which Hezbollah is violating flagrantly.
There is no question that hezbollah is in breach.........
But the Convention also stipulates that the belligerant's must ensure that they do not target civillians.... this is what the IDF is not only failing to do, but failing to do with the purpose of putting pressure on the local authoritiies to aquiese with their demands...... ie collective punihment.
There is no question that hezbollah is in breach.........
But the Convention also stipulates that the belligerant's must ensure that they do not target civillians.... this is what the IDF is not only failing to do
IDF is not targeting civilians, nor would it be to their advantage to do so. They are doing their best to attack only military targets. Note that the convention states:
The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
Meanwhile Hezbollah rains down rockets quite literally randomly on Israel without the vaguest pretense of attacking anything military thereby. All IDF is doing is trying to stop them, which is their right.
Whilst there is no proof that the action is directed by Washington, even the ostriches acknowledge that it has [COLOR="Red"]more than tacit approval [/COLOR]from the self-same.
The USA see's no advantage in a cease-fire when the dead are mostly towel-heads (give Hezbollah some *really* effective rockets and then watch the US scream for a cease-fire).... at the mo, they can see the best of both worlds....
sell the IDF more smart bombs to knock down more buildings....
then sell the reconstruction rights....
America, doing what it does best...
protecting and promoting American interests...
color mine for emphasis
I do acknowlege that the present administration would seem to wrongly conflate personal with national interests, in general if not specific to this. tw has a point about the complexity of this situation. It pushes me further into the camp of those who would pull back from a world which will damn us no matter what we attempt. Nurturing hate world-wide isn't good for our people or our business. Bailing Europe out three times has cost us our soul, now we are becoming what we fought.
Mags, do you have moral equivalency police duty this week?
I'm sorry, how could I forget y'all live on moral highground.
Meanwhile Hezbollah rains down rockets quite literally randomly on Israel without the vaguest pretense of attacking anything military thereby. All IDF is doing is trying to stop them, which is their right.
Meanwhile the IDF is killing Lebanese civillians randomly with a rate of 40:1. Reminds me of Lidice.
IDF is not targeting civilians, nor would it be to their advantage to do so. They are doing their best to attack only military targets. Note that the convention states
This remark shows that either the IDF is making a complete mess of it, or you eat all propaganda the Israeli government is spooning you...
The IDF "precision" bombs a place from where it
thinks Katusha rockets has been fired, no matter if and how many civillians are killed. Not only the Arabs but especially Israel has a long list of collateral damage.
A neighborhood in Beruit. Images taken two weeks apart.
Stolen from
Washington Post.
A neighborhood in Beruit. Images taken two weeks apart.
Are you claiming that image is representative of the entire city? Or is that the site of a military target cherrypicked from available data?
I note that the surrounding area appears to be untouched.
"...show the level of destruction in this area of Beirut"
Sometimes you have to "fix" the AP caption.
A neighborhood in Beruit. Images taken two weeks apart.
...
C'mon! That's on the back lot of a hollywood studio, right beside the Tranquilty Base and holocaust sets [/sarcasm]
Meanwhile the IDF is killing Lebanese civillians randomly with a rate of 40:1. Reminds me of Lidice.
Source please? Especially for the claim of "randomness". Speaking of eating propaganda.
Of course if there's 80 civilians clustered around every rocket launcher with a crew of two that wouldn't be surprising. The "60 civilians" at Quana turned out to be actually 20 women and children. Curiously enough there were *no* men killed. I'm sure that's the IDF's fault too; they obviously have a weapon that preferentially kills women and children.
Maybe that launcher only needed one terrorist to load it and 20 women and children to shield it.
C'mon! That's on the back lot of a hollywood studio, right beside the Tranquilty Base and holocaust sets [/sarcasm]
No, all it takes to control the spin is the power to write the caption.
Before and after satellite images of Dahieh, Lebanon, a southern suburb of Beirut and home to Hezbollah's headquarters, show how it has dramatically deteriorated during warfare between Israel and Hezbollah.
Are you claiming that image is representative of the entire city? Or is that the site of a military target cherrypicked from available data?
I note that the surrounding area appears to be untouched.
Well. I linked to the article it came from, but going back to it now, I see the Post has changed it around some, and dropped the description that accompanied the pic. In fact, the pics are gone from the site. I'm glad I stole them.
Anyway, the article said that Israel claims this neighborhood is a Hezbollah stronghold, and has bombed it repeatedly.
I posted the pictures because they add information to the discussion. The one neighborhood in the center has been pretty much flattened, but the surrounding areas are pretty intact (from space anyway.)
In fact, the pics are gone from the site. I'm glad I stole them.
Steal the CNN caption too...or there will be one more urban legend in the infowar. The images don't "add information to the discussion" without the explanation as to
why that area has been flattened.
Steal the CNN caption too...
I didn't get them from CNN.
The images don't "add information to the discussion" without the explanation as to why that area has been flattened.
The link I provided gave that explanation. It has since been changed. Complain to the Post, not to me.
The image you posted bore a caption: "Two images [times taken] show the level of distruction in Beruit". I'd call that pretty misleading, even if the more complete story was once at the other end of a link. Obviously it's way far from representative, yet standing alone it claims to show THE level of destruction.
Yes, I know, you didn't write that caption either. But you did sever the pic from it's actual context, which should accompany the image. Since the WaPo page has Joined the Choir Invisibule, the CNN caption will do.
The large print giveth, the small print taketh away.
I love it when Mag quotes the Bible.*
*Bible according to the Magster.
http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/html/world/20060804_MIDEAST_GRAPHIC/index.html
NYT does so much a better job here, it's just plain not funny!
Be sure to hit the LABELS button and see exactly what was hit.
Notice the PRECISION with which the IDF DIDN'T destroy churches, schools, and municipal buildings.
I love it when Mag quotes the Bible.*
*Bible according to the Magster.
Actually it's
Tom Waits. Fine old song that.
http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/html/world/20060804_MIDEAST_GRAPHIC/index.html
NYT does so much a better job here, it's just plain not funny!
Be sure to hit the LABELS button and see exactly what was hit.
Outstanding. Did you do anything special to link to this so I didn't have to register?
Actually it's Tom Waits. Fine old song that.
Oh, Maggie. You fucking dyke, you.
Oh, Maggie. You fucking dyke, you.
Waits has dyke cred?
Who knew? He's not exactly Indigo Girls or Coyote Sisters.