Israel Bombs Beirut Airport [Archive]

View Full Version : Israel Bombs Beirut Airport

MACDRIVE

Jul 13, 2006, 01:23 AM

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1685927.htm

Witnesses say Israeli aircraft have attacked two runways at Beirut international airport in a continuing assault on Lebanon that was sparked by the seizure of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah guerillas.
Lebanese security sources say the aircraft have fired at least six rockets at the runways and a nearby road, forcing the facility to close and flights to divert to other airports.
The airport's terminal and planes have not been hit and the extent of the damage done to the runways is not immediately clear.
An Israeli Army spokesman has declined to comment on the report.
The attack follows waves of dawn air strikes against targets in southern Lebanese villages that Lebanese police say have killed at least 27 civilians, including 10 children.
Israel vowed a severe response to Hezbollah's cross-border attack yesterday.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Cabinet said Israel held the Lebanese Government responsible for the attacks and for the safe return of the seized soldiers.
Exchanges of fire
Dozens of Israeli air strikes hit at least 12 bridges and suspected Hezbollah posts yesterday, killing two Lebanese civilians and a Hezbollah fighter as well as disrupting fixed-line communications between Beirut and south Lebanon.
Bombardment by land and sea added devastation to south Lebanon's road network.
Hezbollah says it has fired shells and rockets at three command centres inside north Israel and attacked Israeli border posts earlier today.
The Israeli retaliation is likely to increase domestic pressure on Hezbollah, which has refused to disarm in line with a 2004 United Nations resolution.
It is also likely to boost international pressure on the Lebanese Government, led by an anti-Syrian coalition, to take action.
Foreign Ministry attack
Israel is already engaged in a military offensive in the Gaza Strip after Palestinian militants there captured an Israeli soldier on June 25.
This morning it launched an air strike on the Foreign Ministry building in Gaza City.
It is believed at least 13 people, including six children, were wounded in the attack, which badly damaged the building.
The Israeli military says it targeted the Foreign Ministry because it believed the building was being used to plan militant attacks on Israel.
Palestinian Foreign Ministry spokesman Taher Al-Nuno has rejected the accusations.
"I am amazed at the targeting of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs," he said.
"The ministry acts politically and diplomatically on behalf of the Palestinian people.
"This shows that the Israeli occupying Government counts on their campaign of terror and war against our people and rejects any means of understanding."
- ABC/Reuters

ham_man

Jul 13, 2006, 01:27 AM

Oh ****...

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5175160.stm)

zimv20

Jul 13, 2006, 01:29 AM

...wondering how big this conflict is going to get...

Chundles

Jul 13, 2006, 01:29 AM

Wow, what a mature and intelligent option.

Why is that the people in positions of power act more like spoilt little school children than those with no say in matters of state?

MACDRIVE

Jul 13, 2006, 01:37 AM

blackfox

Jul 13, 2006, 01:56 AM

Isn't Syria the elephant in the room?

CorvusCamenarum

Jul 13, 2006, 03:32 AM

Wow, what a mature and intelligent option.

Why is that the people in positions of power act more like spoilt little school children than those with no say in matters of state?

Because people in power aren't used to hearing "no" when they want something.

This really, really scares me. Between the Jewish lobby and the Christian fundamentalists, I can only wonder how long it would take for the US to get militarily involved should anyone really have a go at Israel.

Agathon

Jul 13, 2006, 03:36 AM

Wow, what a mature and intelligent option.

Why is that the people in positions of power act more like spoilt little school children than those with no say in matters of state?

They aren't.

Look at the past behaviour of the Sharon/Olmert party and it is clear that their strategy is to provoke the Arabs (and then engage in a calculated strategy of overreaction) in order to abandon any pretence that there is possibility of negotiation. Then they will unilaterally impose a "solution" to the Palestine problem.

This has been their strategy since the late Sharon took a walk on the Temple Mount and scuttled the last peace attempt.

It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Israel will use this opportunity to force the rest of the Palestinians out of the whole or most of the West Bank (they don't care about Gaza).

The actions of the Israeli government might be evil and bigoted, but they aren't irrational.

Agathon

Jul 13, 2006, 03:36 AM

Isn't Syria the elephant in the room?

A one-legged, wheezing elephant.

solvs

Jul 13, 2006, 03:39 AM

...wondering how big this conflict is going to get...
What's worse than chaos? I think we're about to find out. Pretty sure this is a sign of the Apocalypse.

Not kidding... self fulfilling prophecy.

Music_Producer

Jul 13, 2006, 05:21 AM

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 13, 2006, 07:03 AM

I don't blame Israel.. I mean, why the hell did the Hezbollah have to kidnap two israeli soldiers? Same with the palestinians.. the Israelis finally left Gaza, and the palestinians were back to their usual tactics.

I used to sympathize with the palestinians.. but it seems that they're just retards who are born to fight and get killed.I would agree, they seem to hate Israel more then they love their children hence the never ending poverty in the whole region. You cant have anything if you are allways making war. Seems where Islam goes so do the terrorists. Looks like war, jihad hate & revenge is what they love. Live by the sword die by it. Perhaps they need to leave Israel alone and they wouldnt have these problems. Then they could build a nation, but they dont seem interested in that.

yg17

Jul 13, 2006, 08:44 AM

You know, I usually despise protestwarrior.com, but here's 1 thing I agree with:

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/large/pw_sign_22.gif

dmw007

Jul 13, 2006, 09:34 AM

I would agree, they seem to hate Israel more then they love their children hence the never ending poverty in the whole region. You cant have anything if you are allways making war. Seems where Islam goes so do the terrorists. Looks like war, jihad hate & revenge is what they love. Live by the sword die by it. Perhaps they need to leave Israel alone and they wouldnt have these problems. Then they could build a nation, but they dont seem interested in that.

Right on Dont Hurt Me. :)

satty

Jul 13, 2006, 09:39 AM

You know, I usually despise protestwarrior.com, but here's 1 thing I agree with:

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/large/pw_sign_22.gif

Do you think this pro-Israel propaganda justifies slaughtering dozens of innocent civilians (or do you call them "terrorists") a day?

yg17

Jul 13, 2006, 09:45 AM

Do you think this pro-Israel propaganda justifies slaughtering dozens of innocent civilians (or do you call them "terrorists") a day?

Who do you think gets killed when a suicide bomber walks into a shopping mall and blows himself up?

Not saying I support killing innocent civilians, because I don't, but Israel is taking out strategic targets and keeping civilian deaths to a minumum unlike other countries.

Black&Tan

Jul 13, 2006, 10:02 AM

...wondering how big this conflict is going to get...

I agree with Zim, I'm beginning to get a little worried. Gas prices may be the least of our concerns soon. The US is involved in Afghanistan & Iraq, and Israel is now moving into Lebanon. Iran is a wild card, with so many voices, but no real leader. Where will they fall? And if Syria is a proxy of Iran...

satty

Jul 13, 2006, 10:43 AM

Who do you think gets killed when a suicide bomber walks into a shopping mall and blows himself up?

Not saying I support killing innocent civilians, because I don't, but Israel is taking out strategic targets and keeping civilian deaths to a minumum unlike other countries.

You don't support it, but maybe you don't care too much either. The American President definitely doesn't care how many cilvilians are killed as long as they are not on "our" side.

When did the last suicide bomber strike in Israel?
I am pretty sure (one of) the best equipped armee of the world killed dozens maybe over a hundred of innocent civilists since and nearly nobody in the western world gives a *****. Why do you not expect a minimum of 0?

I only hope that they never get the chance to revenge our governments ignorance and blind support in the region. Even with all the blown up trains and buildings on western soil, we still have a much saver lifestyle compared to the one the western world enforced onto the people there.

Peterkro

Jul 13, 2006, 10:54 AM

jelloshotsrule

Jul 13, 2006, 11:24 AM

You know, I usually despise protestwarrior.com, but here's 1 thing I agree with:

i don't understand the point that graphic is trying to make....

this is scary news. maybe i'm wrong, but isn't lebanon a sovereign nation?? hmmm

yg17

Jul 13, 2006, 11:28 AM

Perhaps I was misunderstood. I don't support war at all and wish they would all live in peace. Obviously, that's not happening. I don't support either of them fighting, but as long as it's going on and I have to choose sides, I hope Israel kicks their ass.

jelloshotsrule

Jul 13, 2006, 11:33 AM

...but as long as it's going on and I have to choose sides, I hope Israel kicks their ass.

based on what? i don't know that you "have to choose sides"...

can you explain your interpretation of the graphic you posted? i'm not sure how to take it... i can see it pointing out that israel is a tiny piece of land in an otherwise muslim part of the world, therefore they should get lost. or posing the opposite point that since it's such a tiny piece of land, the palestinians should just leave them be and go to some other muslim area... hm

blackfox

Jul 13, 2006, 11:34 AM

In the inevitable back-and-forth about suicide bombers and heavy-handed Israeli military tactics in the discussion of Palestine/Israel, I have to ask which is the more important question - "How?" or "Why?".

Another hypothetical question:

How would you suppose our opinions would differ (if at all) if the situation was somehow reversed - If there was a small, relatively new Islamic and/or Arab country surrounded by Western Nations? This country was more advanced militarily and economically and was supported by a powerful diaspora in a generally more advanced (and distant) Islamic Civilization?

yg17

Jul 13, 2006, 11:38 AM

based on what? i don't know that you "have to choose sides"...

or posing the opposite point that since it's such a tiny piece of land, the palestinians should just leave them be and go to some other muslim area... hm

Bingo.

And why choose sides? I suppose I don't, but being Jewish (by ethnicity, I believe all religion is ************ though) naturally I'm going to side with Israel.

jelloshotsrule

Jul 13, 2006, 11:47 AM

And why choose sides? I suppose I don't, but being Jewish (by ethnicity, I believe all religion is ************ though) naturally I'm going to side with Israel.

i'm american, but don't always side with the choices our leaders make. however, i see your point.

as for the graphic... i don't think it's quite so simple.

yg17

Jul 13, 2006, 11:59 AM

i'm american, but don't always side with the choices our leaders make. however, i see your point.
Neither do I, but I guess the point is, America's existance isn't at stake, whereas Israel's is. If Israel was a huge country and was fighting a war for no reason, I wouldn't support them at all, but they're a tiny dot on the map and all they want to do is live in that dot and others are threatening their ability to do so. If America was the size of Rhode Island, and surrounding countries were trying to take our tiny little piece of land over, I'd support America in trying to defend themselves.

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 13, 2006, 12:03 PM

None of this would be happening if they let Israel alone but I really think that wont ever happen unless there is a physical seperation of the two. Islam is a military religion of revenge and hate and Jihad. Leave Israel alone and they will leave the Muslim alone. The problem is the countrys that house the terrorists like Iran,Iraq,Syria are helping these terrorist murder folks. Its time for Muslims to real in the fanatics that they let wage a cowardly undercover war or they are going to have a real war. Israel has had enough, and I dont blame them. Seems kicking arse is the only thing the Islamic terrorist understand. Carrot or the stick ? Arafat was the same, not wanting the carrot so whats new in 50 years? the names have changed but thats about it.

yg17

Jul 13, 2006, 12:11 PM

Islam is a military religion of revenge and hate and Jihad.

No, it's not. It's the terrorists that claim to be Muslim that are the problem.

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 13, 2006, 12:21 PM

No, it's not. It's the terrorists that claim to be Muslim that are the problem.I just dont see Muslims doing much about these guys, Just like the Saudi's, most of the 911 crowd were Saudi' yet even today in Saudi schools they teach hate, hate the Jew,hate the christian. MSNBC just did a article on it. So if the children are still taught hate hate hate, what do you think they are going to be full of when they grow up? Extreme Islam is the enemy but no one is paying attention.

freeny

Jul 13, 2006, 12:23 PM

I just dont see Muslims doing much about these guys, Just like the Saudi's, most of the 911 crowd were Saudi' yet even today in Saudi schools they teach hate, hate the Jew,hate the christian. MSNBC just did a article on it. So if the children are still taught hate hate hate, what do you think they are going to be full of when they grow up? Extreme Islam is the enemy but no one is paying attention.
Its sad, but I agree.

eva01

Jul 13, 2006, 01:51 PM

and hezbollah fires back

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5178058.stm

jelloshotsrule

Jul 13, 2006, 02:06 PM

now hezbollah denies being responsible.

this is getting crazy, quickly...

Peace

Jul 13, 2006, 02:15 PM

Hezbollah has denied they fired those rockets..

Personally I think they came from Syria..

So watch out!

eva01

Jul 13, 2006, 02:16 PM

Hezbollah has denied they fired those rockets..

Personally I think they came from Syria..

So watch out!

Originally it was stated that they came from hezbollah

Also they said they would attack haifa if the airport was bombed

Peace

Jul 13, 2006, 02:19 PM

Originally it was stated that they came from hezbollah

Also they said they would attack haifa if the airport was bombed

you're right..hezbollah TV now says they're "heros"

Still think S***s gonna hit the fan pretty soon.

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 13, 2006, 02:21 PM

Hezbollah has denied they fired those rockets..

Personally I think they came from Syria..

So watch out!Could be very well be from Syria or could very well be Hezbollah. Whats the difference?

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 13, 2006, 02:23 PM

Why dont we just kick out Castro and give Cuba to Israel, will call it New Israel plus they will have mexicans to work for them and lots of beach. Its a win win.

Peace

Jul 13, 2006, 02:23 PM

Could be very well be from Syria or could very well be Hezbollah. Whats the difference?

Well if it's Lebanon this might stay regional.If it was from Syria it would give the US an excuse to "defend" Israel against Syria and then Iran..

jelloshotsrule

Jul 13, 2006, 02:26 PM

Well if it's Lebanon this might stay regional.If it was from Syria it would give the US an excuse to "defend" Israel against Syria and then Iran..

uggh. so scary....

all this while nk is getting antsy for nukes, etc..

when do we start practicing air raid drills again?

Black&Tan

Jul 13, 2006, 02:29 PM

uggh. so scary....

all this while nk is getting antsy for nukes, etc..

...and Iran refuses to give up theirs.

mactastic

Jul 13, 2006, 02:32 PM

...and Iran refuses to give up theirs.
Iran has nukes???

yg17

Jul 13, 2006, 02:32 PM

...and Iran refuses to give up theirs.

Considering Iran's close proximity to Israel, could either of the countries nuke the other without the radiation coming back to bite them in the ass?

jelloshotsrule

Jul 13, 2006, 02:33 PM

...and Iran refuses to give up theirs.

yes, although i think most people agree they aren't capable of using things soon... but obviously that tension is closer geographically to all the other things going on now, so they are just as involved, probably moreso, than nk. just a matter of if nk sees us so preoccupied with iraq/israel/syria/lebanon, etc that they try to get away with some things.

eva01

Jul 13, 2006, 02:39 PM

I don't think NK can get away with anything personally with so many countries looking at them

China, Japan, etc. etc.

A wrong move to the west and china flattens north korea, and Japan has a watchful eye as well.

jelloshotsrule

Jul 13, 2006, 02:44 PM

eva01

Jul 13, 2006, 02:46 PM

i don't see nk going after china.... japan has a watchful eye, of course, since they're a close target. there's also SK too, and the US would be heavily involved if something happened there. i'm not saying no one will notice, i'm just saying that it'd be a good time to pull a stunt, with the US spread so thin (moreso if we get involved at all in the israel thing...)

I just think too many countries have good connections with Japan to let anything happen, so I don't *think* the US has the be the world police in this one case. Thou Bush will try his damnedest to have the US be the world police everywhere and anywhere.

jelloshotsrule

Jul 13, 2006, 02:51 PM

but one of those countries with such a strong interest in japan is... us. how capable is japan of defending itself against nk? i don't really know, so it's a serious question

also, it's possible china wouldn't put up with more overt nk aggression, but thus far they've been extremely reluctant to do anything to stop them.

again, i don't think something will necessarily happen, but it'd still be a better time than a period of time when the US has all their forces at full strength with no distractions anywhere else..

mactastic

Jul 13, 2006, 02:54 PM

...i'm just saying that it'd be a good time to pull a stunt, with the US spread so thin (moreso if we get involved at all in the israel thing...)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Bush has gutted our military, and left us with no good options for any additional crises with his doctrine of preemptive warfare in Iraq.

He's left a years-long opening for anyone who wants to act against our interests to do so unchallenged.

eva01

Jul 13, 2006, 02:55 PM

again, i don't think something will necessarily happen, but it'd still be a better time than a period of time when the US has all their forces at full strength with no distractions anywhere else..

Well yes i do agree it is a better time now, just not the best time (if it could even be considered a best time for launching attacks) But also the US will always have their forces spread thin with what we have in office right now.

Peace

Jul 13, 2006, 02:56 PM

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Bush has gutted our military, and left us with no good options for any additional crises with his doctrine of preemptive warfare in Iraq.

He's left a years-long opening for anyone who wants to act against our interests to do so unchallenged.

Unfortunatly you're right.What that leaves is tactical nukes..

scary stuff.

eva01

Jul 13, 2006, 02:59 PM

Unfortunatly you're right.What that leaves is tactical nukes..

Do country leaders actually understand what nukes do to the world?

More importantly do they care?

Bikini World here we come!

Eraserhead

Jul 13, 2006, 03:01 PM

Who do you think gets killed when a suicide bomber walks into a shopping mall and blows himself up?

Not saying I support killing innocent civilians, because I don't, but Israel is taking out strategic targets and keeping civilian deaths to a minumum unlike other countries.
One think to remember about the recent problems in Israel/Palestine is that since January when Hamas were democratically elected into power (this was confirmed by international observers (http://www.cartercenter.org/doc2284.htm)) that the Israelis have been blocking the border of Gaza and stopping supplies reaching the people of Gaza (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1818310,00.html), Hamas have also had a huge problem getting money for the government's employee's (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4963716.stm). I think Israel made it very difficult for Hamas to not do something like capture Israeli solders by preventing them from governing their country, so I feel they have had few other options.

I think that after the election we should have continued to give aid to the Palestinians, even though Hamas hadn't recognised Israel, I think if (after that) they had broken their ceasefire with Israel then it would have been fair/acceptable to take the money away.

Black&Tan

Jul 13, 2006, 03:08 PM

Unfortunatly you're right.What that leaves is tactical nukes..

scary stuff.

And don't think they're not being discussed.

Peace

Jul 13, 2006, 03:12 PM

And don't think they're not being discussed.

I'm ex-Navy.I KNOW they're being discussed.

Black&Tan

Jul 13, 2006, 03:19 PM

I'm ex-Navy.I KNOW they're being discussed.

I'm an ex-tanker. I try to at least stay aware of what's going on in the armor community....

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 13, 2006, 04:26 PM

Well if it's Lebanon this might stay regional.If it was from Syria it would give the US an excuse to "defend" Israel against Syria and then Iran..Bingo! only it could start WWIII.

PickledSquirrel

Jul 13, 2006, 04:33 PM

They aren't.

Look at the past behaviour of the Sharon/Olmert party and it is clear that their strategy is to provoke the Arabs (and then engage in a calculated strategy of overreaction) in order to abandon any pretence that there is possibility of negotiation. Then they will unilaterally impose a "solution" to the Palestine problem.

This has been their strategy since the late Sharon took a walk on the Temple Mount and scuttled the last peace attempt.

It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Israel will use this opportunity to force the rest of the Palestinians out of the whole or most of the West Bank (they don't care about Gaza).

The actions of the Israeli government might be evil and bigoted, but they aren't irrational.

Spot on, Agathon! What is happening now is a self-fulfillment of the Israeli prophecy that there will be no palestinian authority to negotiate with.
*goes to watch the evening news* (and maybe have a little cry staring at my two-year-old son, who is sound asleep having no idea what a world I put him in)

-Squirrel

satty

Jul 13, 2006, 04:48 PM

jelloshotsrule

Jul 13, 2006, 04:50 PM

satty

Jul 13, 2006, 04:57 PM

that link doesn't seem to be working..

disturbing. great job bolton

I clicked on the link and it works for me. Just cut and paste following:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060713/wl_mideast_afp/mideastunrestun
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060713/wl_mideast_afp/mideastunrestun)
or

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060713/pl_nm/mideast_un_gaza_dc

Bolton doesn't show much regard for the life of civilians here.

mactastic

Jul 13, 2006, 05:00 PM

"It placed demands on one side in the Middle East conflict but not the other," Bolton said. "This draft resolution would have exacerbated tensions in the region."
But when the resolutions involved Iraq vs. the US, the US had no problem placing demands on one side and none on itself...

The U.S. has periodically used its veto to block resolutions critical of Israel. The last council veto, in October 2004, was cast when the United States blocked a resolution condemning another Israeli operation in Gaza.

Eight of the last nine vetoes in the council have been cast by the United States. Of those, seven had to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
This is why people see the US as hypocritical when it comes to Israel.

Link'd (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13165159/)

satty

Jul 13, 2006, 05:11 PM

Not sure how correct the article is in detail, but I find this one really disturbing.

That is what the resolution is about

The text urged an end to Israel's military operations and "disproportionate use of force" in the Gaza Strip and called for the release of a kidnapped Israeli soldier.

and the way Bolton explains the veto

Bolton said the United States remained convinced that the best way to resolve the immediate crisis was for Hamas to secure Shalit's "safe and unconditional" release.

Did he actually read/inform himself about the resolution or did he just veto it, because it was partly against Israel?

Thanatoast

Jul 13, 2006, 06:18 PM

From: Israel
To: USA
Re: UN Resolution

Message:
"Where's my veto, bitch!?"

:slap:

"Yeah, that's more like it..."

jelloshotsrule

Jul 13, 2006, 06:19 PM

From: Israel
To: USA
Re: UN Resolution

Message:
"Where's my veto, bitch!?"

:slap:

"Yeah, that's more like it..."

damn, i didn't realize you had a security clearance! :D

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 13, 2006, 06:59 PM

US has vetoed another UN-resolution against Israel:
US vetoes UN resolution urging end to Israeli attacks in Gaza (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060713/wl_mideast_afp/mideastunrestun)

Hundreds of murdered civilians... eh arabs.... eh terrorists are less worthy than three captured soldiers, of course.

Obviously America are keen to support Israel's "Endlösung".

And if someone questions, why the Arabs/Muslim "hate" us... no I am not talking about the small number of extremists, but the majority of the population... it's the super power's, incl. friends, double standards.Hezbolla,started this. If Lebanon cant stop these thugs from getting rockets,then firing rockets into Israel then iam sorry. Pull your Islamic extremist heads out of your butts. If you have a bunch of hezbolla running Lebanon, if Syria is killing its elected leaders, etc. Every leader that has cut any deal with Israel ends up murdered. Anyone remember Saddat? Many more. Extreme Islam wants this it seems. If Islamic Moderates arent going to stop them then Israel has to.

satty

Jul 13, 2006, 07:19 PM

Hezbolla,started this. If Lebanon cant stop these thugs from getting rockets,then firing rockets into Israel then iam sorry. Pull your Islamic extremist heads out of your butts. If you have a bunch of hezbolla running Lebanon, if Syria is killing its elected leaders, etc. Every leader that has cut any deal with Israel ends up murdered. Anyone remember Saddat? Many more. Extreme Islam wants this it seems. If Islamic Moderates arent going to stop them then Israel has to.

Do you have a scratch in your record?

It is pretty obvious, that you share the same "extremist" views of Mr. Bush and Mr. Bolton, which are not a solution but part of the problem.

How about you take a step back, have a look what the "West"* has done in the middle east and other countries since the second world war and compare it with our standard values of justice and humanity.

* Regarding the Palestine problem you might consider to include early "terrorist" groups called Stern, Irgun Gang...

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 13, 2006, 07:23 PM

mactastic

Jul 13, 2006, 07:26 PM

Please, they have been blowing up cafe's,coffeshops,malls,cars,etc for years and years in Israel. Leave them the F alone and they will leave Palestine & Lebanon alone but the Jihad nuts cant figure that out.
As long as they leave Israel alone on Israel's terms right?

You just keep missing that it takes two to tango...

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 13, 2006, 07:33 PM

But only 1 to start a fight, Hezbolla started this and Israel cant allow them near the border while Syria & Iran is helping them. Israel has shown tremendous restraint in my view.

leekohler

Jul 13, 2006, 07:34 PM

But only 1 to start a fight, Hezbolla started this and Israel cant allow them near the border while Syria & Iran is helping them. Israel has shown tremendous restraint in my view.

DHM, I'm glad you don't run the US.

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 13, 2006, 07:40 PM

DHM, I'm glad you don't run the US.Me also, I have a short temper with thugs,murderers,and sneaky cowardly we want to fight using bombs on civilians sissy type warfare Islamic extremist love to use. Then they hide behind civilian clothing while their many govt's look the other way. Go after those govts Saudi Arabia included since thats where most of the 911 gang were from. Its a good thing I dont run anything but my MG and myself when the wife is sleeping;)

mactastic

Jul 13, 2006, 07:41 PM

But only 1 to start a fight, Hezbolla started this and Israel cant allow them near the border while Syria & Iran is helping them. Israel has shown tremendous restraint in my view.
Pro-Israeli people always tend to draw an arbitrary line at some point in time when the Palestinians did something bad and argue that nothing before that point in time matters or has any effect on the current state of affairs.

In this case you are drawing the line at the point in time where Hezbollah kidnapped the Israeli soldier, but if you talked to a Palestinian supporter, they would likely draw the line at a point in time where Israel killed a bunch of Palestinian civilians and argue that Israel started it.

And they both sound like little kids tattling to their mother... "But mom, he started it". :rolleyes:

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 13, 2006, 07:49 PM

Pro-Israeli people always tend to draw an arbitrary line at some point in time when the Palestinians did something bad and argue that nothing before that point in time matters or has any effect on the current state of affairs.

In this case you are drawing the line at the point in time where Hezbollah kidnapped the Israeli soldier, but if you talked to a Palestinian supporter, they would likely draw the line at a point in time where Israel killed a bunch of Palestinian civilians and argue that Israel started it.

And they both sound like little kids tattling to their mother... "But mom, he started it". :rolleyes:True, Israel withdrew but I guess they didnt want that??? Extreme Islam is the problem, no one wants to address that. Israel isnt going back into Lebanon for the fun of it. Islam is out of control everywhere it goes because its extremist follow, U.S. England,India,Israel,etc etc.....

mactastic

Jul 13, 2006, 07:54 PM

Both sides share blame for this series of events. And in the meantime, Bush sits back and watches from the sidelines...

Edit: And by "share blame" this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13847803/from/RS.1/) is what I'm talking about:
Israel’s nightmare has become reality, with cease-fires collapsing on its southern and northern borders. But the seizure of three of its soldiers and the army’s fierce response is allowing Israel to pursue a wider strategic goal: neutralizing Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Israel is using the kidnapping of the soldiers as a causus belli for larger political goals. Do not think this kind of thing goes unnoticed by the Palestinians.

(Also, I would note that Hamas does the same thing by using attacks by Israel to justify kidnapping soldiers, lest you think that just because I don't reflexively defend Israel that I am somehow a Palestinian proponent.)

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 13, 2006, 08:18 PM

zimv20

Jul 13, 2006, 08:24 PM

Israel is using the kidnapping of the soldiers as a causus belli for larger political goals.
no kidding. after blowing up the airport, among other things, we have this (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/13/mideast/index.html):

Hezbollah guerillas on Thursday lobbed dozens of Soviet-era Katyusha rockets into northern Israel. [...] An Israeli diplomat called the rocket attacks "a major escalation" in the violence.
apparently, israel is allowed to blow things up and not have it count as an escalation.

FoxyKaye

Jul 13, 2006, 08:39 PM

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 13, 2006, 08:44 PM

zimv20

Jul 13, 2006, 08:59 PM

does anyone else think that we're witnessing the opening salvos to World War III?
that has occurred to me. kind of like before the great war, it seems everyone is poised for it.

mactastic

Jul 13, 2006, 09:18 PM

Hezbolla wanted this, thats why they dug a tunnel and killed a couple of soldiers and kidnapped one. Shouldnt have kidnapped the Israel soldiers. They want to tear apart the Lebanon govt which cant do anything about Hezbolla.
DHM, the whole point of my last post was that Israel wanted this TOO. They're using this for political (and military) gain just as much as the Palestinians that you (rightly) point out as also being deliberately inflammatory.

mactastic

Jul 13, 2006, 09:33 PM

I dunno folks, I have lots of opinions about Israeli-Arab relations, but right now I'm a little to scared to think much. I mean, does anyone else think that we're witnessing the opening salvos to World War III? WW1 was triggered by the asassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and a set of convoluted political relationships. I'm not entirely clear how the situation in the Middle East, with its infinite complexities, isn't quite similar right now - all it needs is a few well-placed matches to start a really big fire.
That's always been one of the serious problems with the Bush administration -- they don't deal well with infinite complexities. If there's a one percent chance that this could get out of hand there are people in the administration that would argue that we need to treat it as if it were 100%. :(

And, of course, Israel and the United States are nuclear powers, and Bush has publicly acknowledged that he'd consider using ours. I suspect Israel isn't too far behind - after all the wind blows from West to East, and I'm not sure how much the proximity argument might stop anyone.
And of course there are all the end-timers who think that this kind of thing fortells the return of Christ and/or the Rapture...

A few folks at work are saying that we'll know within a week if a larger regional conflict is going to break out, and I tend to agree. But given all that has happened in the Middle East, especially since September 11, I'm honestly afraid that this could be another Cuban Missile Crisis with national leaders who show much less restraint about letting the situation go hot.At least in this case regionally, only the Israelis have nukes in this situation. Cold comfort to the rest of the region I'm sure, but with Israel's superior (through our tax dollars) military, they would have little excuse to use nuclear weapons offensively. Hopefully you are right about knowing within a week if it's going to get wider. I'm afraid this will be like our gas prices -- after a while you're happy to see $3 gas, and we may get to a point where this is still ongoing, we're just happy that an all out war isn't going on...

nbs2

Jul 13, 2006, 10:39 PM

Its time to hold the govts responsible that give Islamic extremist murderers free reign, Syria is one, The palastinian area since they werent ever a nation as far as I can recall is another, Hezbolla ran Lebanon,Iran who denys the millions of jews killed and calls for its demise. Its time we stop letting these countrys a free get out of jail card. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia included. Iran & Hezbolla are connected big time.
Ok, to make sure I understand your points -

1) You believe that Palestine never existed as a nation. Perhaps this assertion is based on its creation under the British mandate. How does this differ from the artificial creation of Israel?

2) You believe that the governments of the nations in the area are utilizing proxies in the form of disorganized forces? In essence, doesn't that make them irregular armies? And doesn't that mean war? And is Israel subscribed to the Geneva convention? Please explain how broad scale attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure is permissible.

3) You believe that Islam is primarily made up of Islamic terrorists/fundamentalists/inset term of choice. What do you propose is the cause of reactionary movements? If presented with an America where Islam and its tenants and Middle-Eastern culture was being imposed on your society because they believe themselves to be the more cultured - how would you respond?

4) Finally, you believe that the use of irregular armies is inappropriate and that civilians can be attacked because the militia is hiding amongst the people. If so, I refer you to resistance movements around the world, throughout history. Generally, leaders who attempt to quash civilian resistance through force find that they do not last long. I also refer you to the American War of Independence - many battles were fought by regular armies, but Washington was also skilled at irregular war methodology, including spying and and guerilla warfare. With all respect to the British members of this site, the British were stupid and would not adapt. So, if you could suggest how crying foul about a new method of warfighting instead of learning and adapting to it is beneficial, please explain.

leekohler

Jul 13, 2006, 10:41 PM

hookahco

Jul 13, 2006, 11:16 PM

Music_Producer

Jul 13, 2006, 11:29 PM

In retaliation for Hezbollah kidnapping 2 israeli SOLDIERS in the ARMY..... Israel takes out an internation CIVILLIAN airport and kills over 50 CIVILLIANS.

Whos the real oppressor here??? Isreal kidnapps "terror suspects" all the time. What makes them so special????

Exactly my thoughts as well. Soldiers are kidnapped all the time, killed, inured - that happens when you're on the border..heck, this happens ALL the time in Kashmir.. do you see India bombing out Pakistan's airports? Or their highways? That would be insane.. it would be all out war.

All this just makes me believe the conspiracy theories even more.. that America is Israel's whore and that there are a ton of powerful Israeli asses in the government, who control most of the ***** thats going on. Wouldn't be surprised if they were responsible for 9/11.

The worst part about all this is that the average American joe is an idiot who doesn't know where the hell Israel is on the world map.. and doesn't care.. and thats why we have a f@cked up government in the first place.

FFTT

Jul 14, 2006, 01:00 AM

The report I just read from Strafor expects escalation of attacks over the next 24-48 hours once the reserves are in place.

Not looking good at all.

solvs

Jul 14, 2006, 01:12 AM

I mean, does anyone else think that we're witnessing the opening salvos to World War III?
Like I said, self fulfilling prophecy. One side uses an attack as justification, then the other does the same in retaliation, before you know it the whole world is blind. The irony being what they claim to be fighting for. Holy land. If it was so holy to them, you'd think they'd stop blowing it up.

Both sides.

OnceUGoMac

Jul 14, 2006, 01:13 AM

xsedrinam

Jul 14, 2006, 01:59 AM

Like I said, self fulfilling prophecy. One side uses an attack as justification, then the other does the same in retaliation, before you know it the whole world is blind. The irony being what they claim to be fighting for. Holy land. If it was so holy to them, you'd think they'd stop blowing it up.

Both sides.
Originally Posted by FoxyKaye
I mean, does anyone else think that we're witnessing the opening salvos to World War III?
This could escalate and Solv's spot on about about the "Tierra Santa". What Syria has up her skirt has yet to be seen. It just has the solemnity and volatile historical determinism to at least turn in to a dress rehearsal for the big one.

MACDRIVE

Jul 14, 2006, 02:00 AM

Lets move all the Israelis to Utah.

Yeah really, the Mormons think the Israelis are special people, and they could be under the protection of the Mormon militia. :)

xsedrinam

Jul 14, 2006, 02:05 AM

Lets move all the Israelis to Utah.

Yeah really, the Mormons think the Israelis are special people, and they could be under the protection of the Mormon militia. :)
Comparing Salt Lake City to Jerusalem would have to be the stretch of the millennium. Abe has senority over Joe by a few thousand years.

MACDRIVE

Jul 14, 2006, 02:19 AM

Well, they wouldn't have to live in Salt Lake City, since Utah is a pretty big state. The only reason I mentioned Utah is because it seems as though the Mormons understand the Israelis better than anyone. :)

dogbone

Jul 14, 2006, 02:32 AM

OK I've read the thread, seen the movie and tried the soup and there appears to be a consensus amongst those who think Israel is at fault here, that the Arabs, yet again are somehow exempt from taking any responsibility for their actions. That's fine in theory and it would also be nice if anyone I asked would give me a thousand bucks, just for asking.

scem0

Jul 14, 2006, 04:08 AM

OK I've read the thread, seen the movie and tried the soup and there appears to be a consensus amongst those who think Israel is at fault here, that the Arabs, yet again are somehow exempt from taking any responsibility for their actions.

I think many of us think both sides are majorly at fault.

e

dogbone

Jul 14, 2006, 04:44 AM

I think many of us think both sides are majorly at fault.

e

The good thing about talking about 'fault' is that it never ends. Sort of like who was there first. Who invaded whom first and so on. Each side can claim a victory. However in the micro climate of what is going on, rather than reverting backwards in time endlessly, in this case rather than talking of fault I would talk of responsibility.

There already is a climate of tension in the whole area with both sides of the conflict having legitimate greivances. Until that is resolved a sort of stasis is achieved. But within this stasis, this sort of uneasy balance, an imbalance can emerge.

In this case, Hezbollah, who let's face it are very much a part of the Lebanese government, which is in turn a sovereign nation, has attacked Israel. Now the Lebanese government may like to throw their hands up and try to say "hey, it's nothing to do with us", but that again is just another example of trying to abrogate responsibility. The lebanese government refuses to do anything about Hezbollah, rightly or wrongly. Fair enough, that is her choice.

However this means that Hezbollah cannot attack Israel with impunity. There are consequences. These consequences are as obvious as they are preventable. There really was no pressing necessity for Hezbollah, with the tacit approval of the Lebanese governent to disturb further the uneasy calm. Now, the poop has hit the fan. I somehow feel that Hezbollah rather relishes the chaos that then ensues. Its seems a deliberate strategy.

In the same way the Palestinians are wondering what can they do, who can they appeal to, to stop Israels attacks on the militants in Gaza and the subsequent inevitable civillian casualites. It's really a no brainer isn't it. Give back the soldier. Or accept the result. In the same way the Hamas governemtn could have recognised Israel's right to exist and averted a funding crisis.

PickledSquirrel

Jul 14, 2006, 05:31 AM

The palastinian area since they werent ever a nation as far as I can recall

With every risk (and possibly intention) of being extremely leftist, anti-american/israeli and pro-palestinian: I think the argument of Palestine not being a nation before before Israel happened to them, explaining that palestinians have no claim to the land, can only sound reasonable in the ears of an american, who lives on soil that did not belong to a "nation" by the time his ancestors occupied it.
The fact that Palestine was not a nation, does NOT morally imply that Israel can freely create their lebensraum.

For me, a sound pointer at who's to blame for starting / maintaining / excacerbating the conflict, is simply to look at the bodycounts. How many civilians on each side killed in every chapter of this never-ending story?
One of the principles of "civilised warfare" (very strange expression, too) is proportionalism. One soldier kidnapped does not justify 70+ civilian casualties. These calculations does not leave me much sympathy for Israel.

-squirrel

PickledSquirrel

Jul 14, 2006, 05:35 AM

Hezbolla wanted this, thats why they dug a tunnel and killed a couple of soldiers and kidnapped one. Shouldnt have kidnapped the Israel soldiers. They want to tear apart the Lebanon govt which cant do anything about Hezbolla.
Wasn't the tunnel-job Hamas'? I believe Hezbollah pretty much just waltzed across the "non-border" and kidnapped their hostages....

-Squirrel

dogbone

Jul 14, 2006, 05:51 AM

For me, a sound pointer at who's to blame for starting / maintaining / excacerbating the conflict, is simply to look at the bodycounts.

You appear to be suggesting, that who ever has less casualties in a conflict is the one who is to 'blame'

PickledSquirrel

Jul 14, 2006, 06:49 AM

You appear to be suggesting, that who ever has less casualties in a conflict is the one who is to 'blame'

Yes, if it is a general tendency in an ongoing conflict that one part inflicts more damage than the other.

-Squirrel.

satty

Jul 14, 2006, 06:58 AM

You appear to be suggesting, that who ever has less casualties in a conflict is the one who is to 'blame'

Do you think the side that kills more civilians in a conflict are the "good guys"?

dogbone

Jul 14, 2006, 07:02 AM

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 14, 2006, 07:54 AM

nbs2

Jul 14, 2006, 08:00 AM

PickledSquirrel

Jul 14, 2006, 08:41 AM

Pickled Squirrel & Salty...

The quantity of casualties in any conflict whether between nations or families is not related to 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the protagonists' cause. I would have thought this was self evident.

You're absolutely right. I am though, not discussing their causes (neither of which I agree with), but the action both sides (EG Palestine and Israel) take in order to pursue these causes. It is the lack of proportion (and respect for all international conventions of warfare) in the israeli retalliations that troubles me.

-Squirrel

FFTT

Jul 14, 2006, 08:53 AM

We have a serious breakdown of society based on misguided religious extremism.

Those proclaiming that any of this is God's will are dangerously delusional.

All of this is driven by those who succeed to manipulate the masses in the pursuit of wealth and power.

The only one's who benefit from any of this are those who profit from the
business of war and those who seek to control the wealth of Persia's natural resources.

dogbone

Jul 14, 2006, 09:01 AM

It is the lack of proportion ...in the israeli retalliations that troubles me.

Exacategly. That's how I began my contribution to this thread. It seems that there is much concern about Israel's response but not much concern for the unprovoked attack that directly preceded it. In the light of the past 20 years and Lebanon's tacit support for Hezbollah, it is obvious that any Israeli response to an act of warfare will be tough.

What do you suggest? Let a sovereign nation attack and kidnap soldiers plus allow it's cities to have 100 rockets fired at it and ask for a security council resolution 'condemning' it?

FFTT

Jul 14, 2006, 09:19 AM

Israel's leadership could care less about 3 soldiers.

They are merely pawns in a twisted game of high stakes chess.

jelloshotsrule

Jul 14, 2006, 09:40 AM

Exactly my thoughts as well. Soldiers are kidnapped all the time, killed, inured - that happens when you're on the border..heck, this happens ALL the time in Kashmir.. do you see India bombing out Pakistan's airports? Or their highways? That would be insane.. it would be all out war.

All this just makes me believe the conspiracy theories even more.. that America is Israel's whore and that there are a ton of powerful Israeli asses in the government, who control most of the ***** thats going on. Wouldn't be surprised if they were responsible for 9/11.

The worst part about all this is that the average American joe is an idiot who doesn't know where the hell Israel is on the world map.. and doesn't care.. and thats why we have a f@cked up government in the first place.

you confuse me

from this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2610764&postcount=11)

I don't blame Israel.. I mean, why the hell did the Hezbollah have to kidnap two israeli soldiers? Same with the palestinians.. the Israelis finally left Gaza, and the palestinians were back to their usual tactics.

I used to sympathize with the palestinians.. but it seems that they're just retards who are born to fight and get killed.

jelloshotsrule

Jul 14, 2006, 09:43 AM

What do you suggest? Let a sovereign nation attack and kidnap soldiers plus allow it's cities to have 100 rockets fired at it and ask for a security council resolution 'condemning' it?

"attack and kidnap"? the kidnapping came first. then israel bombed southern lebanon (the airport was first, i believe). only then did the rockets fire at haifa. then israel responded with more bombing, etc.

so the first question that needs to be answered regarding proportionality is: is bombing a civilian airport a proper response to 2 soldiers being kidnapped?

FFTT

Jul 14, 2006, 10:04 AM

Eraserhead

Jul 14, 2006, 10:18 AM

Israel's Zionist regime will not stop until their goals have been met.

They will use any means necessary to achieve their goals.

What we are witnessing has NOTHING to do with religion.

Religion is a smokescreen used to manipulate otherwise sensible people
to put themselves in harms way while those who pull the strings hide beneath
the robes of their chosen clergy.

But surely in the long run it will just lead to another 2000+ years of anti-Semitism? That my fear, and that won't achieve anything. I know that Jews != Israelis, but surely much of the world will fail to make that distinction? How many Europeans/Americans think that Muslims == Terrorists after 9/11?

FFTT

Jul 14, 2006, 10:29 AM

I understand perfectly.

When we attack corruption at the highest levels, those of us who see through
the smokescreen will be accused of religious stereotyping.

Peace

Jul 14, 2006, 10:37 AM

The real victims in this are the Lebonese people.

jelloshotsrule

Jul 14, 2006, 10:58 AM

according to cnn's news alert:

Reuters: President Bush wants Israel to minimize the risk of casualties in Lebanon, but will not press Israel to halt its military operation, the White House said today

:rolleyes:

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 14, 2006, 11:18 AM

The real victims in this are the Lebonese people.Without a doubt, the loosers are them and the palestinians, Hezbollah is making sure poverty enslaves its people and empowers Israels agenda. Now ask what would be going on if Hezbolla never attacked Israel? Its not like Israel would be going into Gaza for the heck of it. They are going in again for 1 reason and thats to go after terrorist Hezbolla who are supported by Syria & Iran.
Hezbolla,Hamas both want war with Israel hoping to get muslims to join in. They arent interested in peace and prosperity for the people, they love Jihad,War, and love to hate the Jews. Oh well Its what they want.

mactastic

Jul 14, 2006, 12:48 PM

so the first question that needs to be answered regarding proportionality is: is bombing a civilian airport a proper response to 2 soldiers being kidnapped?
And more to the point, once you've crossed the line of accepting an overwhelming response upon the civilian infrastructure of your enemy as appropriate, you're essentially providing justification to bin Laden's attack on the WTC.

Kingsly

Jul 14, 2006, 12:54 PM

Oh ****...

...my thoughts exactly.

Without a doubt, the loosers are them and the palestinians, Hezbollah is making sure poverty enslaves its people and empowers Israels agenda. Now ask what would be going on if Hezbolla never attacked Israel? Its not like Israel would be going into Gaza for the heck of it. They are going in again for 1 reason and thats to go after terrorist Hezbolla who are supported by Syria & Iran.
Hezbolla,Hamas both want war with Israel hoping to get muslims to join in. They arent interested in peace and prosperity for the people, they love Jihad,War, and love to hate the Jews. Oh well Its what they want.
I would have to agree here.

XNine

Jul 14, 2006, 01:39 PM

To answer Foxy Kay's question of on the doorstep of WWIII. No, I do not. Only because we're already in WWIII with the whole Iraq/Afghanistan thing (whether it's called that, or not). I think we're on the brink of WWIV.

These ****ing people have been at each other's throats practically since the dawn of time. I saw a report on MSNBC of a shop owner stating that Israel is the enemy and Hezzbolah needs to do whatever it cna in the best interest of MUSLIMS.

Which brings me to the question of why, if there are indeed truly good natured people that are Muslim, are they not standing up and chastizing the actions of the extremists? I personally have not heard one single Muslim stand up in outrage over terrorist actions, has anyone else seen Muslim community outcries?

If the world is going to be free from this stupid movement, then we need the Muslims first and foremost to stand up and cry foul against those who SAY they are Muslim and terrorize other people.

I say let them kill each other off. Two religious sides squabbling over a few miles of "holy land." Who needs them?

jelloshotsrule

Jul 14, 2006, 01:49 PM

Which brings me to the question of why, if there are indeed truly good natured people that are Muslim, are they not standing up and chastizing the actions of the extremists? I personally have not heard one single Muslim stand up in outrage over terrorist actions, has anyone else seen Muslim community outcries?

yes, there have been plenty of them after various terrorist attacks especially, condemning the attacks and saying that such people are not true muslims.

XNine

Jul 14, 2006, 01:50 PM

yes, there have been plenty of them after various terrorist attacks especially, condemning the attacks and saying that such people are not true muslims.

Could you please provide links? I'm not saying there have been none, I PERSONALLY have seen none. Which is why I want to see what those who do, say. If you could find links for these people you are speaking of, I would really, really appreciate it.

jelloshotsrule

Jul 14, 2006, 01:54 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660411.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1684313,00.html

or, a big old summary...

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

mactastic

Jul 14, 2006, 01:56 PM

yes, there have been plenty of them after various terrorist attacks especially, condemning the attacks and saying that such people are not true muslims.
And of course theliberalmedia makes sure we see these things, right?

XNine

Jul 14, 2006, 02:02 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660411.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1684313,00.html

or, a big old summary...

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

Ah, see, no links from American News Organizations. Doesn't that figure? I have to read up on other countries' news agencies to know wtf is going on in the world...

mactastic

Jul 14, 2006, 02:05 PM

Ah, see, no links from American News Organizations. Doesn't that figure? I have to read up on other countries' news agencies to know wtf is going on in the world...
That's because our media is so liberal. In fact they are so liberally biased that they hide things that undercut conservatives arguments just to make liberals better at hunting down information from outside sources...

yg17

Jul 14, 2006, 02:17 PM

That's because our media is so liberal. In fact they are so liberally biased that they hide things that undercut conservatives arguments just to make liberals better at hunting down information from outside sources...

Since when did liberals lead people to believe all Muslims are terrorists? It seems quite the opposite...the liberals are the ones who want people to realize that only a few Muslims are extremists and the majority are peaceful, and the convervatives think we should go over there and nuke everyone because anyone who's not christain is evil.

mactastic

Jul 14, 2006, 02:20 PM

Since when did liberals lead people to believe all Muslims are terrorists? It seems quite the opposite...the liberals are the ones who want people to realize that only a few Muslims are extremists and the majority are peaceful, and the convervatives think we should go over there and nuke everyone because anyone who's not christain is evil.
You're missing the sarcasm in my post. ;)

If the media truly was as liberal as the conventional wisdom says it is, these things would be widely known.

yg17

Jul 14, 2006, 02:22 PM

You're missing the sarcasm in my post. ;)

If the media truly was as liberal as the conventional wisdom says it is, these things would be widely known.

oh lol. It's been a long week ;)

eva01

Jul 14, 2006, 03:00 PM

Hezbollah promises open war against israel

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5182048.stm

keeps getting better and better

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 14, 2006, 03:05 PM

Hezbollah promises open war against israel

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5182048.stm

keeps getting better and betterDidnt we go through all of this once before? Looks like its starting, I wonder how long before Syria & Iran come out of the closet.;) It would give us a good reason to blow up their nuclear bomb making facilities in Iran.

XNine

Jul 14, 2006, 04:42 PM

Didnt we go through all of this once before? Looks like its starting, I wonder how long before Syria & Iran come out of the closet.;) It would give us a good reason to blow up their nuclear bomb making facilities in Iran.

Yes, with all of the military might that we DON'T have because we're still occupying a country that we shouldn't have been in in the first place.

Agathon

Jul 14, 2006, 06:12 PM

What's happening here is depressingly predictable given the agents involved. And by agents I do not mean Israel and Hizbollah/Hamas, but the latter and the Likud/Kadima faction (the radical right) within Israel.

The Likud/Kadima faction has never wanted the peace process to succeed. They have sought to undermine it in any way they could. You'll note that a radical right-wing Israeli was the first to do so by assassinating Yitzhak Rabin. Then the Netanyahu government did everything it could to stall and frustrate the peace process while it was going on. It is a testament to the persistence of the Clinton administration that they failed to do so.

Once the Labor party was back in power in Israel, the peace process continued and talks were held. However, the Labor party was weak domestically and could not afford to make the concessions that would have allowed Arafat to agree. The idea that Arafat was offered the deal of the century is simply a fabrication. If you bother looking at the offer, there was no way Arafat could have accepted it without undermining his own position as Palestinian leader (If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't have accepted such an insulting offer either – but Barak couldn't realistically offer much more than he did). You might ask whether that would be a bad thing, and the answer would be yes, since there was no alternative to Arafat and the PLO that had any sway with the Palestinian people other than factions like Hamas, who would (at the time) have no trouble in discrediting the PLO and restarting terrorist operations against Israel.

Both the Likud faction and Hamas/Islamic Jihad would have lost the centrepieces of their political programs had the peace negotiations succeeded. Hamas was not really in a position to do anything about it, since if they had been seen to undermine a worthwhile peace deal, they would have lost a lot of support among the Palestinian public. However, the Likud faction had no such problem, since it could merely argue for rejecting concessions in favour of the status quo (since a plurality of Israelis were not prepared to make such concesssions, especially to Arafat).

Even then, it looked like peace was going to be inevitable, although it might take a long time to iron out all the details (i.e. get the Israeli public used to the idea of giving up more than they wanted to). So Ariel Sharon took matters into his own hands and did something that everyone knew (himself included) would cause a Palestinian riot. This was his idiotic walk on the Temple Mount. Predictably, a riot started and developed into a full blown intifada. This further hardened Israeli attitudes and weakened the Labor Party. Everyone knew that Barak was going to be defeated in favour of Likud and that made further negotiations silly (they still had them, but they were silly).

Hamas must have loved this because they didn't want the peace process either.

Since the Sharon government took power it basically abandoned the peace process and has done everything it could within reason (and sometimes beyond) to fan the flames. There's a good reason for this: the Likud/Kadima faction does not want to give up anything worthwhile to the Palestinians. What they want to do is unilaterally force a solution, with the choice parts of the West Bank and Jerusalem remaining part of Israel and what's left being dominated by the Israeli military (through a series of security roads and control of airspace and resources). The hard core right wing nuts want it all, and Sharon had to move to the centre and abandon Likud. But the intifada and terrorist reprisals for Israeli actions had hardended Israeli public opinion and he could do this and keep enough support.

So Sharon's strategy was to provoke Hamas into further terrorist attacks (which he knew would happen) and then use that as an excuse to blame, isolate and marginalize Arafat. Anyone who knows anything about Palestine knows that Arafat and the PLO simply didn't have enough power to control Hamas, and to make sure, Sharon degraded the Palestinian authority's ability to do anything about it, and surrounded Arafat with tanks (while at the same time blaming him for not doing anything about Hamas – how could he with Israel preventing him from doing anything)?

In the end the political wing of Hamas gets elected on a platform of standing up to Israel (since Arafat was viewed as having grovelled for nothing) and on the basis of their social services network and the fact that, unlike the PLO, Hamas is an honest organization (the PLO was corrupt to the core).

Hamas is not a monolithic organization. Like the IRA it has its own divisions. The political wing is a lot like Sinn Fein used to be. The military wing is more hardcore. Neither has real control over the other (and the Israeli government knows this, as do all informed observers).

Instead of doing what the UK did with Sinn Fein, and attempting to co-opt the political wing of Hamas, the Israelis (aided by the US) set about making it impossible for Hamas to govern. If Hamas proved a reasonable government, then Israel would have a legitimate negotiating partner again, and that is exactly what Sharon didn't want. Well, Sharon died, but Olmert is just continuing his policy. Israel continued to undermine Hamas and foment discord among the Palestinians. The tit for tat nuisance attacks (the Qassam rockets are no more than glorified fireworks) continued until Israel killed that girl's family and the military Palestinian radicals kidnapped that soldier in response.

So this was Olmert's opportunity. He could do what has worked in the past for Israel (negotiate a prisoner swap) or he could overreact in a completely disproportionate manner and create a crisis of confusion that would completely deligitimize the Hamas government. I feel sorry for that soldier. He is but a pawn in Olmert's game. If I were his parents, I would sue the government for not taking reasonable steps to secure his release.

Then he got a gift from Hizbollah. Now the Israelis have a chance to create a real crisis and sort out Hizbollah in a way they were unable to when they were occupying Southern Lebanon. Current events will probably go all the way to creating a major crisis and more Palestinian terror attacks at which point Israel can blame everything on the Arabs (despite the fact that the choice to respond and escalate so radically was Israel's) and force a unilateral solution to the West Bank. Hell, they might even try to push all the Palestinians out of the West Bank. They could do it without too many Palestinian casualties, and the current crisis provides the perfect excuse.

So why the rush?

It's simple. At present, Israel can pretty much do what it likes militarily in the Middle East. It has an absolute military dominance over all its neigbours and near neighbours, and it is the only nuclear armed state in the region.

Well, that might very well change if the Iranians develop even a crude nuclear device. At that point, Israel will not be able to mount any more aggressive actions without fear of provoking the ultimate reprisal. Israeli officials have been having hysterics about this in recent years. Iran is maybe 5 or 6 years away from having a nuclear deterrent (if they are in fact seeking one – there is no real proof of this). But if Israel can force a solution now, then they will create "facts on the ground" that will set their position in stone if it does come to pass that Iran acquires nuclear weapons (nukes create stasis as the Cold War demonstrated – best to get what you want before the stasis sets in).

So that's what's happening. The Israelis are taking the opportunity to maximize their advantage while the iron is hot. Their actions make perfect sense when considered in light of the aims of the current Israeli administration. It's just that in the long term those aims constitute madness. Nuclear weapons can deter states like Iran, but they can't deter guerillas or terrorists (even those financed by Iran). If the Arabs get forced out of Palestine, they will not forget it, ever. And there is no reason to think that the Arabs (and Iranians) will always be that much weaker than Israel. They weren't 30 years ago, and 30 years from now they might not be. Israel would be the big loser in any nuclear exchange in the region, since it cannot wipe out the Arabs, but can be wiped out itself.

It would have been better for all concerned if the Israelis had simply made the concessions back in 1999 (even though it was extremely difficult for them). No doubt some fringe Islamists would have continued with terrorism (just as fringe IRA groups did), but there would have been a more solid foundation for future peace than a unilateral solution would lay.

All in all, it is pretty depressing stuff.

Agathon

Jul 14, 2006, 06:14 PM

Didnt we go through all of this once before? Looks like its starting, I wonder how long before Syria & Iran come out of the closet.;) It would give us a good reason to blow up their nuclear bomb making facilities in Iran.

Won't work. The most it will do is set the Iranians back a couple of years. That's not enough for Israel.

In any case, no-one has supplied any proof that the Iranians are doing anything illegal. They are perfectly entitled to nuclear power. Current US/Israeli policy in this respect has no legal foundation.

dogbone

Jul 14, 2006, 06:48 PM

so the first question that needs to be answered regarding proportionality is: is bombing a civilian airport a proper response to 2 soldiers being kidnapped?

In this case yes. When you say when we say 'kidnapping' we aren't talking about a bit of chloroform on a hanky and putting someone in a car are we. It was an attack by Lebanon/Hezbollah that killed 8 soldiers, in Israeli territory. Basically an act of war.

zimv20

Jul 14, 2006, 06:54 PM

agathon -- thanks for the analysis.

dogbone

Jul 15, 2006, 07:46 AM

...

That is a very curious post, (the long one). I am most fascinated by the two paragraphs whereby you talk about the future possibility of the Iranians nuking Israel.

FFTT

Jul 15, 2006, 08:56 AM

I still see all of this as a battle over Persia's natural resources, both defensive and offensive.

Unfortunately, people are very easily manipulated by those who seek wealth, power and control.

What does it take to motivate one human being to kill another?

Who gains from military conflict?

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 15, 2006, 10:36 AM

Won't work. The most it will do is set the Iranians back a couple of years. That's not enough for Israel.

In any case, no-one has supplied any proof that the Iranians are doing anything illegal. They are perfectly entitled to nuclear power. Current US/Israeli policy in this respect has no legal foundation.Only Nuclear Power isnt what they are after is it. We just found that out when offering them reactors and them ignoring it. Its about weapons. Real WMDs not made up spin by Bush & Neocon.
CBS news is reporting that Israel is saying the missiles that hit the boats were launched by a team of 100 Iranians that helped to fire off the Iranian missile.

pseudobrit

Jul 15, 2006, 11:37 AM

In this case yes. When you say when we say 'kidnapping' we aren't talking about a bit of chloroform on a hanky and putting someone in a car are we. It was an attack by Lebanon/Hezbollah that killed 8 soldiers, in Israeli territory. Basically an act of war.

"Lebanon/Hezbollah", eh?

Is that anything like "Iraq/Al Qaeda"?

thejadedmonkey

Jul 15, 2006, 11:52 AM

....

Well, that might very well change if the Iranians develop even a crude nuclear device. At that point, Israel will not be able to mount any more aggressive actions without fear of provoking the ultimate reprisal. Israeli officials have been having hysterics about this in recent years. Iran is maybe 5 or 6 years away from having a nuclear deterrent (if they are in fact seeking one – there is no real proof of this). But if Israel can force a solution now, then they will create "facts on the ground" that will set their position in stone if it does come to pass that Iran acquires nuclear weapons (nukes create stasis as the Cold War demonstrated – best to get what you want before the stasis sets in).

So that's what's happening. The Israelis are taking the opportunity to maximize their advantage while the iron is hot. Their actions make perfect sense when considered in light of the aims of the current Israeli administration. It's just that in the long term those aims constitute madness. Nuclear weapons can deter states like Iran, but they can't deter guerillas or terrorists (even those financed by Iran). If the Arabs get forced out of Palestine, they will not forget it, ever. And there is no reason to think that the Arabs (and Iranians) will always be that much weaker than Israel. They weren't 30 years ago, and 30 years from now they might not be. Israel would be the big loser in any nuclear exchange in the region, since it cannot wipe out the Arabs, but can be wiped out itself.

...
I was at Princeton for a model UN conference. Granted, we were only high school students, but it was still a very impressive group. The group I was with was the mock UN Secruity council. Most of the group (myself included) were jewish.

During the middle of the night, we were woken up for a mock-emergency. Iran had aquired russian nukes off of the black market and was threatening to use them unless Israel evacuated gaza and the west bank immediatley.

In the model UNSC, nothing happened. Only a few of the people (I'm assuming either non-jews or the jews who happened to remember that they were leaders of nations) were willing to try to stop the nuclear strike. My point is many of the jewish people there were not willing to step aside and get bullied, and that was scary.

I guess what I'm saying is that, if that was a little model of what would really happen, and even if Iran does get nukes, the only possible change I can see would be israel becoming a nuclear waste land sutible for no one to live in.

How's that for honoring God?

stubeeef

Jul 15, 2006, 12:36 PM

If it proves out that Iran supplied and HELPED fire that anti-ship missle, IT HAS BEGUN.:(

zimv20

Jul 15, 2006, 12:47 PM

what exactly is meant to have begun?

eva01

Jul 15, 2006, 12:48 PM

what exactly is meant to have begun?

IT obviously

stubeeef

Jul 15, 2006, 12:54 PM

zimv20

Jul 15, 2006, 01:00 PM

WOW, let me S.P.E.L.L. I.T. O.U.T.
thanks for not being condescending, since i can read your mind and all.

btw, you left out israeli actions against syria.

Ugg

Jul 15, 2006, 01:18 PM

btw, you left out israeli actions against syria.

That's because it doesn't come within the scope of the neocon talking points and stu has never shown much independence of thought. The warlords in the US are only interested if Israel is attacked, not if Israel attacks.

Dont Hurt Me

Jul 15, 2006, 01:37 PM

That's because it doesn't come within the scope of the neocon talking points and stu has never shown much independence of thought. The warlords in the US are only interested if Israel is attacked, not if Israel attacks.Hezbolla got this thing going, Stu is right plus Iran doesnt need Nuclear weapons and ill support any president that takes those weapons away from these Islamic fanatics or even Israel if they destroy those Nuclear Bomb making facilities.

Hezbolla is the Problem.

Peterkro

Jul 15, 2006, 01:48 PM

WOW, let me S.P.E.L.L. I.T. O.U.T.

Open attack on an Israeli military ship, by Iran, WILL compell Israel to strike Iran. My Bet, suspected nuke facilities. This of course will esculate into a nightmare without US and other intervention. If we chose not to intervene than this will quickly go from bad to worse, IMHO.
I am off to beach, good day.

I don't recall "it" beginning when Israel sank a US warship in the med.I also wouldn't (as another poster mentioned) rely on CNN to give any realistic facts on what's going on.

xsedrinam

Jul 15, 2006, 02:16 PM

Ya, I agree. The "It" has some 5000 years of history attached. It will always be about land. The two contrasting perspectives: Israel is lamenting their disengagement from Gaza. link (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885938245&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
The Arab perspective, of course, is opposite.

zimv20

Jul 15, 2006, 02:48 PM

from the not terribly reliable and israeli debka (http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1184):

DEBKAfile’s military sources reveal that the warship was struck from Beirut by an Iran-made C-802 shore-to-sea missile of the Silkworm family. Weighing 715 kilos, with a range of 120km, the missile is armed with a strong anti-jamming capability, which lends it a 98% success rate in escaping interception.

The Israeli ship is armed with an advanced Barak anti-missile system, which may have missed the incoming missile. Israeli military planners must now look at the vulnerability of the navy following the appearance of the first Iranian C-802 missiles

[...]

Shortly before 20:00 hours Friday, Hizballah launched a pair of land-to-sea C-802 missiles against the Israeli ship from the coast of Beirut. The trajectory of the first was adjusted to a landing amidships from above. It missed and exploded in the water. The second was rigged to skim the water like a cruise missile. It achieved a direct hit of the Ahi Hanit’s helicopter deck, starting a fire. The ship began to sink, as Nasrallah said, and would have been lost were it not for the speed and bravery of crewmen who jumped into the flames and doused them before the ship exploded and sank.

iGary

Jul 15, 2006, 03:00 PM

I'm thinking Israel's response is way over the top, personally, and I'm pretty sure I am not alone.

And I am SURE that Israel will foot the bill to fix what they destroyed. :rolleyes:

stubeeef

Jul 15, 2006, 04:54 PM

Luv being labeled a Neocon, it proves no one here knows what it means.

Syria is weak and easy, Israel just wants to clear space around the borders, atleast up to when Iran got TOO involved.

I maybe dead wrong, with such expert, pundit opinions such as those here it is amazing the world still has problems.

I have been to the Gulf, I have been extensively briefed (albeit years ago) on Iranian buildups and systems. They have been building their military infrastructure for years. Given the will, and supplying advanced weapon systems and shooting them at Israeli warships is will/intent, they could be a catalyst for the mother conflict waiting to erupt in that region for decades. Or not...:rolleyes: Without quick, powerful intervention by Saudi/Eygpt/US/Russia there will be an escalation.

Funny there is already a thread saying things have begun.

Pete, the US warship being sunk was not considered intentional, get a grip, allies accidentally kill each other all the time, it happened recently in Afganistan and we didn't go to war with the allies. It is often refered to as "Blue on Blue". When it happens intentionally from a sworn enemy it is different. When your mother spanked you, you reacted differently than when the school bully spanked you..

Whether or not you like one side or another, I think they are all idiots, opps not neocon think!! The fact is, this has significantly escaled this conflict. Iran should expect a counter strike, I do.

a link to read....
http://www.missilethreat.com/missiles/shahab-3_iran.html

Peterkro

Jul 15, 2006, 05:51 PM

Briefed by whom stubeef ?

pseudobrit

Jul 15, 2006, 07:35 PM

This kind of reminds me of the orgy during the Iraq invasion where the bloodthirsty could barely contain their excitement. I recall similar bragging about having special knowledge and being better informed than anyone who would dare hope for peace.

Look how well that turned out.

dogbone

Jul 15, 2006, 07:52 PM

"Lebanon/Hezbollah", eh?

Is that anything like "Iraq/Al Qaeda"?

Are you implying that Hezbollah is not a 'state within a state' or that it is not a part of the Lebanese government?

eva01

Jul 15, 2006, 07:52 PM

Are you implying that Hezbollah is not a 'state within a state' or that it is not a part of the Lebanese government?

What you seemed to be implying was that hezbollah is lebanon

zimv20

Jul 15, 2006, 07:59 PM

Are you implying that Hezbollah is not a 'state within a state' or that it is not a part of the Lebanese government?
the civilian arm of hezbollah holds seats in the gov't. i don't know what control, if any, they have over the militant arm. think of the different factions within the IRA at the height of its struggle with britain.

dogbone

Jul 15, 2006, 08:01 PM

What you seemed to be implying was that hezbollah is lebanon

I am suggesting that as long as the Lebanese government is content to allow Hezbollah a free reign and to act with absolute impunity, then Hezbollah is a proxy of the government.

Do you suggest otherwise? This ties in with my long running theme that the Arabic communities must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

stubeeef

Jul 15, 2006, 08:02 PM

Briefed by whom stubeef ?

I was an Aircraft Commander and Mission Commander of an EP-3E, flying flights out of Bahrain over the Gulf and "Inland".

It was the same squadron that had a mid-air with a Chinese fighter and the crew was held hostage for a couple of weeks. I have had high enough clearances that the names of the clearances are confidential.

iGary

Jul 15, 2006, 08:14 PM

I am suggesting that as long as the Lebanese government is content to allow Hezbollah a free reign and to act with absolute impunity, then Hezbollah is a proxy of the government.

Who said they are?

dogbone

Jul 15, 2006, 08:19 PM

Who said they are?

What is the 'are' referring to?

Peace

Jul 15, 2006, 08:23 PM

Al Qaeda started in Afghanistan.Hezbollah started in Lebonon..

Hezbollah holds 20% of the seats in the Lebononese government..

If the Lebononese government tries to disarm Hezbollah the country will fall apart.

Israel does not want to see that happen because that will bring in Syria which in turn will bring in Iran..

Like Al Qaeda the United States armed and gave technology to Iran in the 70's.

I used to walk off my ship in port on days only to see Iranian warships docked next to us.The ships were built by US shipyards.
As were their Air force.

This stickey widget is more complex than the average person realizes.

dogbone

Jul 15, 2006, 08:28 PM

"Meanwhile, Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora...also pledged to extend his government's control over all of Lebanon, signalling he wants to end Hezbollah's autonomy in the south - a top Israeli demand."

If it took the Israeli action to prompt this change of heart then the Israeli response cannot be called an inappropriate escalation.

Eraserhead

Jul 15, 2006, 08:31 PM

I am suggesting that as long as the Lebanese government is content to allow Hezbollah a free reign and to act with absolute impunity, then Hezbollah is a proxy of the government.

Do you suggest otherwise? This ties in with my long running theme that the Arabic communities must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

So by the same logic it's the Iraqi government's fault that there are terrorists that aren't under control in Iraq? I think that is totally unfair, it isn't even possible for our governments to control criminal gangs that deal drugs in our own countries, how do you expect the Lebanese government to control a militia which is as well armed (if not better according to this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314423.stm)) than their own army?

dogbone

Jul 15, 2006, 08:36 PM

So by the same logic it's the Iraqi government's fault that there are terrorists that aren't under control in Iraq?

The Iraqi government is working against the terrorists, whereas the Lebanese government has only just decided that it might be a good idea to take control of Lebanon.

The Israelis are acting because the Lebanese government has refused to act, until now.

zap2

Jul 15, 2006, 08:48 PM

If there is one thing I should give the Israelis credit for, is that they hold their soldiers in high regard. They don't even think twice about attacking another country over the abduction of two of their soldiers. Some how I get the feeling that the U.S. would not have done the same for theirs.

Is it worth it? The lose of lives you will lose by start a war? Think about the numbers

2 troops and there "pride" or many many more troops in a full blown war

Not to say a country should not try and safe there troops , but some times the big picture might be better off taking some loses in the short term, which is one of the sad truths of war.

Peterkro

Jul 15, 2006, 08:51 PM

I was an Aircraft Commander and Mission Commander of an EP-3E, flying flights out of Bahrain over the Gulf and "Inland".

It was the same squadron that had a mid-air with a Chinese fighter and the crew was held hostage for a couple of weeks. I have had high enough clearances that the names of the clearances are confidential.

You mean you were briefed by the US military not exactly an independent and well respected source in my view.If your part of an operation of that sort you have long ago swallowed the propaganda of those paying you.The Chinese incident being a good example of how out of control the US military was and is.

stubeeef

Jul 15, 2006, 08:59 PM

Is it worth it? The lose of lives you will lose by start a war? Think about the numbers

2 troops and there "pride" or many many more troops in a full blown war

Not to say a country should not try and safe there troops , but some times the big picture might be better off taking some loses in the short term, which is one of the sad truths of war.

Like a pick pocket will keep hitting a soft target, the only reason it doesn't happen more often is the fact that the retaliation will be swift and strong.

Iran's "President" has declared so many anti-Israeli comments that I can't keep count. They are wanting a fight and are just dum enough to get it.
This could take so many bad paths I can't count them either (like the Whopper in WarGames, going through all the scenarios and ending the same, BAD). I can only hope that we have some strings left to pull, I am not optomistic that we do. NATO will have to come to the plate, cause like the article in the parrallel thread states, this could be the flash to start a big'un.

bobber205

Jul 15, 2006, 09:06 PM

I wish Israel could for once think and demand for the soldiers who did the kidnapping and kill them instead of innocents.

God. While I know there are many good people in the Middle East, there sure seems to be some crazy you-know-whats. ::rolleyes:

FFTT

Jul 15, 2006, 09:07 PM

I seriously doubt that Lebanon's Prime Minister ever intended for anyone
to provoke a war with Israel. No one in their right mind would want to see their country torn apart after 20 years of rebuilding.
Unfortunately, Hezbollah acted on their own provoking Israel to take action, but Israel reacted in overkill mode.

We are not immune to extremist factions acting on their own or infiltrating
the government.

The average American citizen has been powerless in any attempt to control
the actions of PNAC members.
A radical right wing extremist faction working uncomfortably close with the Israel Lobby.

The reality is that all peace loving citizens are now seeing the results of their complacency and ignorance.

zimv20

Jul 15, 2006, 09:12 PM

the Lebanese government has only just decided that it might be a good idea to take control of Lebanon.
that is a gross oversimplification, plus it treats the governing body as a static and single thought-item, rather than the complex, ever-changing body any government is.

the lebanese gov't is too weak to "take care" of hezbollah. and if it had been strong enough to repel the israeli occupation, hezbollah never would have been formed in the first place.

dogbone

Jul 15, 2006, 09:17 PM

...

Because the Lebanese govt. Has not acted, against the terrorists within, Israel has been forced to act. You seem to think that the Israel's response was 'disproportionate' (the latest buzzword), that's your opinion, I disagree. If Israel didn't act hard now then they'd have to act harder later. Unfortunately the mentality of the terrorists is that any slight withdrawal is seen as 'weakness' and which then encourages a bolder response.

stubeeef

Jul 15, 2006, 09:23 PM

You seem to think that the Israel's response was 'disproportionate' (the latest buzzword), that's your opinion, I disagree. If Israel didn't act hard now then they'd have to act harder later. Unfortunately the mentality of the terrorists is that any slight withdrawal is seen as 'weakness' and which then encourages a bolder response.

An ole college buddy of mine was built small and found himself in a lot of bar fights. His 2 older brothers were Marines and his dad a drunk. He had fought to eat (well not really). But he was a nasty fighter, break your teeth on his knee, stuff like that. Thing was he never would hit first. Hated to fight too. But he would say it everytime he would destroy someone, "You will either win, lose, or fight all night. And I don't like to lose or fight all night."

Peterkro

Jul 15, 2006, 09:27 PM

Unfortunately the mentality of the terrorists is that any slight withdrawal is seen as 'weakness' and which then encourages a bolder response.

Which particular terrorists are you speaking of here Hezbollah or the Israeli government/military.They both to my mind are acting in exactly that way.

pseudobrit

Jul 15, 2006, 09:27 PM

Lebononese...Lebononese

...more complex than the average person realizes.

Indeed. Now that the Lebononese are involved.

:confused:

dogbone

Jul 15, 2006, 09:34 PM

Hezbollah is fully supported by Iran and Syria, if innocent arabs are being killed as a result of Israel taking action over Hezbollah, we have yet another example of Arabs or Arablike Islmamists, needing to take responsibility for their actions. However I have a strong feeling (witness the daily slaughter in Iraq) that Arabs do not hold the life of their brothers in very high esteem when it comes to furthering their aims of a pan islamic superstate.

An ole college buddy...

Good analogy, I think Israel has been "fighting all night" for far too long now.

dogbone

Jul 15, 2006, 11:20 PM

From the New York Times

Imad Fauzi Shueibi, a political analyst who often works as a consultant to the Syrian government, laughed as he said that he believed that Israel was being drawn into a trap if it thought it could successfully fight on two, or even three, fronts.

Israel and the United States have said that they attribute a supporting role in Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel to Syria, and many Syrians are now talking about the possibility of a battle with Israel in the Golan region.

“No one can believe that this will stop without a huge victory for Hezbollah and for Syria,” he added. “I haven’t felt so optimistic since 1973. I think we are closing the noose on Israel. This may be the last battle, and we may be able to redraw the map of the Middle East, but not on the schedule of America’s plan for the greater Middle East.”

"I haven’t felt so optimistic since 1973." AKA 'the six day war'

Peace

Jul 15, 2006, 11:23 PM

Indeed. Now that the Lebononese are involved.

:confused:

You're confused because I spelled Lebanese wrong :p

FFTT

Jul 15, 2006, 11:25 PM

Armageddon seriously concerned that all of this may go too far.

zimv20

Jul 15, 2006, 11:26 PM

From the New York Times
link, please.

dogbone

Jul 15, 2006, 11:33 PM

OK (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/world/middleeast/16syria.html)

FFTT

Jul 15, 2006, 11:41 PM

Any attempt to take Jerusalem will certainly result in all out war with no limits.

Israel does not have the manpower or the resources to fight a prolonged
major battle.

They are completely outnumbered in any conventional warfare against
greater Persia.

I have little doubt they will use any means necessary to protect the holy city.

Peace

Jul 15, 2006, 11:50 PM

OK (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/world/middleeast/16syria.html)

From that same article :

"At Jdayat-Yabbus, a Syria border town, Lebanese refugees said Friday that the price of a taxi from Beirut to Damascus, normally about $50, had been driven up to $500 or more for what is usually a two-hour ride but could now stretch to five hours or more."

sure is nice to see these people helping each other out so much..

dogbone

Jul 16, 2006, 12:06 AM

sure is nice to see these people helping each other out so much..

It's nearly as bad as the Ashes ticket prices.

zimv20

Jul 16, 2006, 12:32 AM

OK (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/world/middleeast/16syria.html)
thanks.

"I haven’t felt so optimistic since 1973." AKA 'the six day war'
your point about the six day war is well-taken, but that was in 1967. off the top of my head, i'm not sure to what he was referring.

dogbone

Jul 16, 2006, 12:47 AM

I stand corrected '73 was the two and a half week war. I also am mystefied what he was referring to. I can only conclude a general feeling of optimism that "I'm going to pull a rabbit out of my hat, this time for sure".

There appears to be strange belief that one day, whether by demographics or by a muslim nuclear weapon, that this blight on the land of Islam, that is, Israel will one day be obliterated. It has sort of become a matter of almost relgious faith and as such talking any sort of sense is useless.

I think it is this faith in the eventual triumph of Islam over Israel that keeps the Arab populations willing to sacrifice their children in fruitless wars. But that is of course just an opinion that I have formed to try to understand the motivation behind this apparent blind hatred that seems to be endemic amongst the Arabic countries. Witness the recent broadcasting of the Protocals of Zion.

Agathon

Jul 16, 2006, 12:54 AM

Agathon

Jul 16, 2006, 12:56 AM

During the middle of the night, we were woken up for a mock-emergency. Iran had aquired russian nukes off of the black market and was threatening to use them unless Israel evacuated gaza and the west bank immediatley.

That's patently unrealistic. Nuclear weapons are essentially defensive in nature.

As usual people in the west persist in thinking that the Iranians are lunatics.

zimv20

Jul 16, 2006, 01:03 AM

I stand corrected '73 was the two and a half week war. I also am mystefied what he was referring to. I can only conclude a general feeling of optimism that "I'm going to pull a rabbit out of my hat, this time for sure".
i had to look it up, as i hadn't heard it by that name, but the yom kippur war. again, i don't know why that guy is so pleased. then again, i don't know how syrian history is being taught :-)

dogbone

Jul 16, 2006, 01:04 AM

Nuclear weapons are essentially defensive in nature.

As usual people in the west persist in thinking that the Iranians are lunatics.

Ahmadinejad does not talk in terms of defense, he talks in terms of obliteration. Ahmadinejad believes that he’s paving the way for the “second coming” of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi, who will usher in a new era. He also spoke of a divine light that enveloped him during a UN address. Iranians per se may not be lunatics but they are led by them. And also controlled by unelected Mullahs.

xsedrinam

Jul 16, 2006, 01:06 AM

That's patently unrealistic. Nuclear weapons are essentially defensive in nature.
I think historically their actual use in war has been considered offensive in every sense of the term. But I also think I know what you mean.

As usual people in the west persist in thinking that the Iranians are lunatics.
? Here, I don't know what you mean.

dogbone

Jul 16, 2006, 01:07 AM

i had to look it up, as i hadn't heard it by that name

Yeah, it was my own invention. I thought it was more appropriate to refer to the length of the war rather that the date on which it occurred as it is more significant and it fits in with the earlier 6 day war. The point being that in both those wars the invading arab armies and air force really believed this was going to be the big one. The final solution, as it were. I have no reason to believe they still do not think in these terms.

zimv20

Jul 16, 2006, 01:08 AM

Ahmadinejad does not talk in terms of defense, he talks in terms of obliteration.
i'm of the opinion that such talk is meant for iranians. he knows what would happen if he used a nuke on israel.

zimv20

Jul 16, 2006, 01:10 AM

it was my own invention.
there were enough others using it that i was able to google it. but in keeping with the nomenclature, what do we think this current action will eventually be named?

FFTT

Jul 16, 2006, 01:12 AM

The rest of the world also assumes that the majority of Americans support
the insanity of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the PNAC neo-cons.

All the mainstream news media outlets here are showing massive demonstrations of Islamic support for Hezbollah and Hamas in the region.

Who controls the mainstream media?

Of course both sides are broadcasting propaganda to support their views
of the situation.

solvs

Jul 16, 2006, 01:14 AM

Good Point, 2000 years later and whats new?
We now have the capabilities to complete destroy our world and all life on it. As well as leadership (on all sides, it seems) who are more than willing to take things that far. Easier and more profitable than trying to make peace I guess.

zimv20

Jul 16, 2006, 01:15 AM

The rest of the world also assumes that the majority of Americans support the insanity of Bush
bush hasn't really left himself any wiggle room. ham-fisted politics, as usual.

dogbone

Jul 16, 2006, 01:20 AM

i'm of the opinion that such talk is meant for iranians. he knows what would happen if he used a nuke on israel.

Aye, there's the rub. Who exacategly is he trying to impress?

Another point about the previous very brief wars with the Arabs, (and remember that they were well armed and trained with the latest russian fighter jets and huge quantities of tanks and personel) is that common sense does not enter into it. If there is a belief that a nuke or a war can succeed, no matter how crazy it seems to sane observers, it is very possible that it may be used.

Take Hussein as an example, of lunacy. He could have fully complied with the inspectors, he could have given them complete and unfettered access to whatever they wanted. Had he done so, he'd still be there now. Rational thinking is not a strongpoint of ME governments.

zimv20

Jul 16, 2006, 01:26 AM

Take Hussein as an example, of lunacy. He could have fully complied with the inspectors, he could have given them complete and unfettered access to whatever they wanted. Had he done so, he'd still be there now. Rational thinking is not a strongpoint of ME governments.
i'd say he did and he's not. don't you agree that bush totally undermined the inspectors' efforts so he could have his war? irrational thinking isn't limited to governments of the ME.

i'll add that i think saddam's weapons claims were to maintain his position of power in the region. there was that 8 year war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_iraq_war) with iran...

dogbone

Jul 16, 2006, 01:33 AM

I don't think you can say he complied *unequivicolly* otherwise Hans Blix would not have said they were unhappy with the cooperation. Saddam had to portray himself as a bit obstreperous for his own face. This is my point. His face was more important to him than the political reality of losing all his power and eventually crawling out of a hole in the ground and being prodded on tv in his scanties.

And I think this goes with a lot of Arabic (or non arabic in the case of Iran) ME countries, they are apt to perform self destructive actions without regards for political expediencies. Which is why Hamas will not recognise Israel. In some ways it is good for Israel to have such naiive enemies.

FFTT

Jul 16, 2006, 01:40 AM

If this goes much further, I would hope that Israel would resort to some sort of EMP weapon first to cripple the opposition's electronic circuitry before they subject anyone to radioactive fallout or worse.

Right now, Israel will have to limit the scope of their attacks until high risk
Western citizens are evacuated to safety.

This alone is very dangerous and could lead to further escalation if U.S. forces come under attack during the evacuation.

It's very difficult for me to imagine how they will evacuate 25,000 foreign
nationals from Lebanon without something horrible happening.

zimv20

Jul 16, 2006, 01:44 AM

I would hope that Israel would resort to some sort of EMP weapon
do those even exist, short of detonating a nuke?

FFTT

Jul 16, 2006, 02:02 AM

http://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb3.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb5.htm

Isn't it comforting to know that anyone can find this stuff on the web.

Lots More Information
Related HowStuffWorks Articles

How Nuclear Bombs Work
How Radio Works
How Electromagnets Work
How Cruise Missiles Work
How Smart Bombs Work
How Dirty Bombs Work
How Power Distribution Grids Work
More Great Links!

The Electromagnetic Bomb -- a Weapon of Electrical Mass Destruction
E-Bombs and Terrorists
Weapon of the Week: The Electromagnetic Pulse Weapon
Clean Bomb Can Knock Out Electronics
The Electronic Blanket
Science Friday: The EMP Bomb
EMP Shockwaves as a Result of Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
Congressional Hearing: Threat Posed by EMP
Dropping the E-Bomb
Experts Say EMP Devices Threaten U.S.
High-Power Microwave (HPM) E-Bomb
The Compton Effect

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/ebomb.html

pseudobrit

Jul 16, 2006, 02:17 AM

This alone is very dangerous and could lead to further escalation if U.S. forces come under attack during the evacuation.

Again?

The Israelis have always said the attack on the Liberty, which was monitoring communications in the war, was a tragic accident. The Johnson administration never formally challenged the Israelis' account. But some survivors and senior U.S. officials at the time have said they believe the attack was a deliberate effort to stop American surveillance of Israeli activities during the conflict.

Phil Tourney, who was injured in the attack and is now president of the USS Liberty Survivors' Association, said the association is not satisfied with the "gross negligence" conclusion. Tourney said the survivors were kept from telling their ordeal.

"War crimes were committed by the Israelis that day," Tourney said. "A thorough investigation should be done, and the Israelis should be held accountable."

link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/12/us.israel.ussliberty/)

With friends like these...

MACDRIVE

Jul 16, 2006, 03:37 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen, what you are witnessing here is the beginning of WWIII. The fact of the matter is, when you have two people living in close proximity of each other, armed to the teeth and hate each other so much, mutual destruction between the two is inevitable. What the United States should have done years ago is RELOCATE the Jewish population of Israel and let the Arabs have the damn place. If this would have happened, we wouldn't be talking about this issue right now.

dogbone

Jul 16, 2006, 03:48 AM

Again?

link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/12/us.israel.ussliberty/)

With friends like these...

And what is the purpose of posting that link in relation to this thread? How does the reasoning go...Hezbollah was right to attack inside Israel because the US navy was negligent 39 years ago?

btw from the link The official said that though Israel should be held responsible for the attack, the United States was also negligent for failing to notify Israel the Liberty was in international waters and for failing to withdraw the ship from the war zone.

"This is a ship that should have been hundreds of miles away from the war zone," the official said.

FFTT

Jul 16, 2006, 04:00 AM

If Hezbolluh fighters manage to bring down an evacuation airliner filled with
American nationals, all hell will break loose.

FFTT

Jul 16, 2006, 04:02 AM

dogbone

Jul 16, 2006, 04:09 AM

...RELOCATE the Jewish population of Israel and let the Arabs have the damn place...

!

MACDRIVE

Jul 16, 2006, 04:10 AM

We could always re-locate them to Utah :rolleyes:

Why is that notion so preposterous to everyone? Relocate them SOMEWHERE away from the Middle East.

dogbone

Jul 16, 2006, 04:12 AM

Why is that notion so preposterous to everyone? Relocate them SOMEWHERE away from the Middle East.

It's not preposterous to everyone, check with Ahmedinejad. He thinks it's a top idea, sort a final solution. Great minds and all that...

Blue Velvet

Jul 16, 2006, 04:24 AM

Why is that notion so preposterous to everyone?

It's so absurd that it's barely worth responding to but I'll have a go.

Because it would have to be forced repatriation; no-one's going voluntarily. And I'm sure that's just exactly what Israelis and the diaspora want to see; Jews being herded en masse into transport against their will...

solvs

Jul 16, 2006, 04:26 AM

Why is that notion so preposterous to everyone? Relocate them SOMEWHERE away from the Middle East.
Because it's a holy land. They're willing to blow each other up over it, do you really think anyone wants to just leave? That's kinda the problem. ;)

MACDRIVE

Jul 16, 2006, 04:32 AM

It's not preposterous to everyone, check with Ahmedinejad. He thinks it's a top idea, sort a final solution. Great minds and all that...

The only difference between him and me though, is that I want to get the Jewish people out of there before he blows the place up.

FFTT

Jul 16, 2006, 04:35 AM

I say we summon the ET's to come down here and threaten to simultaneously
vaporize Mecca and Jerusalem if this crap doesn't come to an immediate screeching halt.

MACDRIVE

Jul 16, 2006, 04:44 AM

dogbone

Jul 16, 2006, 04:56 AM

The only difference between him and me though, is that I want to get the Jewish people out of there before he blows the place up.

The "Jewish people"? You mean the Jews, this isn't a discovery channel doco. It's difficult to follow your 'ideas'. Let me get this straight, you want the Jews out of Israel *before* Ahmedinejad blows it up. Am I to understand that the Arabs should remain there and be blown up?. Anyway after you get the Jews out and Ahmedinejad blows up Israel (minus the Jews), is it OK for the Jews to go back? After the decontaminination of course.

MACDRIVE

Jul 16, 2006, 05:40 AM

The "Jewish people"? You mean the Jews, this isn't a discovery channel doco. It's difficult to follow your 'ideas'. Let me get this straight, you want the Jews out of Israel *before* Ahmedinejad blows it up. Am I to understand that the Arabs should remain there and be blown up?. Anyway after you get the Jews out and Ahmadinejad blows up Israel (minus the Jews), is it OK for the Jews to go back? After the decontaminination of course.

The reason I say "Jewish people" is because a lot of other people out there use the term "Jews" in a racial context. I am not a racist person and do not want to be perceived as such.

I am sure that if all the Jewish people were living in a nicer place then where they are now, they wouldn't want to go back.

Ahmadinejad can blow up the empty sand if he wants to.

Look, I'm just trying to save the world and make everyone happy, is that so terrible?

dogbone

Jul 16, 2006, 05:45 AM

The reason I say "Jewish people" is because a lot of other people out there use the term "Jews" in a racial context. I am not a racist person and do not want to be perceived as such.

I am sure that if all the Jewish people were living in a nicer place then where they are now, they wouldn't want to go back.

Ahmadinejad can blow up the empty sand if he wants to.

Look, I'm just trying to save the world and make everyone happy, is that so terrible?

"Jews" is fine, really it is. Saying "Jews" doesn't indicate racism. Suggesting that Jews be repatriated from the ME, knowing the history of the final solution and Ahmedinejad's latest comments, *may* be seen by some as racist, but not using "Jews". Trust me on this one.

Peterkro

Jul 16, 2006, 05:56 AM

It's so absurd that it's barely worth responding to but I'll have a go.

Because it would have to be forced repatriation; no-one's going voluntarily. And I'm sure that's just exactly what Israelis and the diaspora want to see; Jews being herded en masse into transport against their will...

Yes the idea is absurd.It is also exactly what happened to the Palestinians in 1948.That and the horrendous fate of the Jewish people at the hands of the fascists during WW2 is why there is this legacy of death and destruction in this part of the world.The shocking thing about it being because of European Jewry's fate in the 30's and 40's they are beginning to perpetrate a similar thing on others in the middle east,after Israeli actions over the last 40 years no Palestinian,Lebanese or Arab in general is going to forget this has happened down the generations.The actions of the last few days has just added fifty or so years of hatred and violence to the mix.I'm wondering at what stage of human evolution will we realise that violence just begets violence.Truly a dumb virus with shoes on (humans that is).

Blue Velvet

Jul 16, 2006, 06:16 AM

...The shocking thing about it being because of European Jewry's fate in the 30's and 40's they are beginning to perpetrate a similar thing on others in the middle east,after Israeli actions over the last 40 years no Palestinian,Lebanese or Arab in general is going to forget this has happened down the generations...

Don't get me wrong. I'm not condoning anyone's actions over this... I'm glad that I don't have a TV. Prevents me from getting worked up and feeling simultaneously powerless about seeing pictures of events that are beyond my control.

However, it's clear that whatever the history, we have to deal with the present; which is that Israel as a state is now there and that they have a right to protect themselves from those hell-bent on its destruction. But as to what form that protection (or retaliation) takes, that's an entirely different matter... the same argument applies to the Palestinians and all those ranged against Israel.

I dunno... and neither do most who are involved. That's why it's intractable and that's why I'm going out to enjoy the sunshine today, thanking my lucky stars that I'm not struggling to eke out an existence in Gaza or any other war-torn spot on the globe.

iGary

Jul 16, 2006, 07:16 AM

do those even exist, short of detonating a nuke?

Duh, you never saw Oceans 11? Just use a pinch! :D :p

http://www.cinematical.com/images/2005/11/Cheadle-Don.jpg

MACDRIVE

Jul 16, 2006, 07:38 AM

Blue Velvet, is it so absurd that I just want to save the world from tierney and harm?

stubeeef

Jul 16, 2006, 08:40 AM

That's patently unrealistic. Nuclear weapons are essentially defensive in nature.

As usual people in the west persist in thinking that the Iranians are lunatics.

Defensive Use?:rolleyes: (http://www.dannen.com/decision/)

Why would they think Iran as lunatics? (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/24/D8FBCD7O0.html)

Some optomistic Arab talk (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-07-16T110632Z_01_L16342880_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-ARABS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22)
Last link had me a bit less scared, only a bit, point also made that Hamas/Hezb not allowed at the Arab League table either.

Saudi Arabia has come closest to overt criticism of Hizbollah with talk about "ill-considered adventures". In private, Egypt and Jordan share the Saudi view, diplomats say.

zimv20

Jul 16, 2006, 10:54 AM

I just want to save the world from tierney
let's be clear, i never want to be saved from:

http://www.jacneed.com/PhotoFile/Maura_Tierney.jpg

xsedrinam

Jul 16, 2006, 12:34 PM

let's be clear, i never want to be saved from:

http://www.jacneed.com/PhotoFile/Maura_Tierney.jpg
...nor the Genes. They represent a Tierney of the Urgent. ;)

MACDRIVE

Jul 17, 2006, 12:50 AM

http://www.erheadquarters.com/images/cast/alockhar/alockhart09-2.png

I never know what to expect from you guys when I check on a thread. I have to agree though, Maura Tierney is very cute, warm and snuggley. :)

zimv20

Jul 17, 2006, 12:52 AM

that is a solid step in not saving me from her.