| Author | Message | ||
     Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2745 Registered: 5-2001 |
And you my dear sound like a loonie who can't parse a complete sentence and pick up sound bites worse than fox news. Yes Larry, let's listen to the security council. Any zionist feeling I have is surely a racist feeling. Any feeling about protecting a country from radical loonies must surely be too sensitive particularly after the successful Oslo accords and all of the good will that Arafat brought forth. Oh boy, I sure hope that tulip is not the poster child for the left; if she is then I owe facts at least a small apology. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3692 Registered: 3-2004  |
Wendy, your paranoid silliness about my calling you a racist is just that. | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2747 Registered: 5-2001 |
tulip, your complete ignorance about this, particularly about the security council who you continually vamp, is showing. It's the UN's statement "zionism=racism" that I'm talking about. Please read something beyond your PLO pamphlets and maybe you'll learn something. Have any idea of the countries who voted for that pronouncement and who they were?? Any? | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3693 Registered: 3-2004 |
Educate yourself, wendy. After you listen to the Security Council show that the world opposes Israel's lawlessness, get some sleep. | ||
| Larry Seltzer Citizen Username: Elvis Post Number: 88 Registered: 4-2006  |
Actually, the Security Council hasn't said anything on the matter, but I'm sure it has in Tulip's head. That "they ought to be doing more James Bond stuff" post has to be the dumbest thing I've ever seen on MOL, and that says a lot. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3694 Registered: 3-2004 |
Well, you are not just ill-mannered, you are ill-informed. Looks like SLK, FVF, JD and Straw, have a new ally in you, Larry. If you had listened to the Security Council today, you would have heard that every single country said that the response by Israel was disproportionate. What, are you deaf AND blind? | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1014 Registered: 4-2006 |
tulip- A mind is a terrible thing to waste. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1278 Registered: 2-2004 |
I love seeing tulip getting fired up. The entertainment is great. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3696 Registered: 3-2004 |
Well, watch C=Span. Reality can be very entertaining. I am enjoying seeing the people of the world get together to issue a statement deploring violence. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 50 Registered: 5-2006  |
The UN is a joke. A total farce. They still have not issued any resolution on North Korea but it took them 48 hours to crap something out on Israel if not for our veto. Does the UN do anything anymore other than condemn Israel? They can’t even define terrorism but they are going to lecture Israel. What arrogance. Why do we continue to pretend that the UN has any bearing on anything anymore? Completely useless. A total money pit. And what’s the main criticism? Disproportional response? The whole theory of proportionality in warfare is absurd. It does nothing but guarantee that no one ever wins and the war never ends. I for one am a supporter of gross disproportion. That is how you achieve a quick and decisive victory and force potential enemies think twice before attacking you. I think part of our problem is that our post 9-11 response has been too proportional. Maybe if the French were a little less proportional in 1940 they would not have had to help ship their Jews off to death camps. For the French, Russians, Spanish, and the Vatican, to level these criticisms against Israel with their, shall we say, “mixed” record vis-à-vis the Jews, is unseemly. Not surprisingly, Germany has pretty much kept quiet. | ||
| Larry Seltzer Citizen Username: Elvis Post Number: 89 Registered: 4-2006 |
Every news story I read (this one for example) says that the US vetoed the Security Council resolution on the matter (and four countries abstained). So it seems to me that the Security Council hasn't spoken and it certainly wasn't unanimous. Maybe there was a secret meeting that I don't know about but you attended. Please give me a source for it. Not that the Security Council can be expected to be fair. Hey Tulip, did you know there is only one country in the world that is not allowed to sit on the Security Council? Guess who. Hint: It's one of the Hebrew-speaking countries. | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 605 Registered: 8-2003 |
Factvsfiction, First off, let me give you a progressive, SECULAR perspective on secular philosohies, a personal one at that: my greatest heroes are and have always been Freud and Marx- secular heroes for me and for a whole lot of others because they did not take recourse to divine intervention/god/nirvana for human salvation. I am a secular Indian because of their tremendous influence on me and also thanks to growing up in a nation that has secularism as bedrock of its constitution as in India, I imbibed an ethos that was Hindu (because I am "one"), Islamic and Christian because I grew up in a city in South India that was ruled by Muslims for more than 400 years. As a student of radical philosophy, I read radical Jewish thought as secular thought. My sense of morality stems from a secular perspective and for me folks like Spinoza and Derrida are inherently moral creatures, not to forget Rumi who was a secular, moral being. So, I do not agree with your premise that I am clueless. Relatively, we (the collective liberal WE) are more tuned into morality than you folks, hence our oppsition to the war against Iraq. Add to that, my sense of morality as others' came into play when we all condemned the perpertrators and for what we know extra-State actors (like in Hezbollah) could have been involved in the blasts and even as I write this, the peace talks between Pak and India have been postponed indefinitely because India does not believe in the "non-NATO ally" status that has been afforded to Pak by the US. Process that. Sbenois - Your allegation against Hoops and me about nursing double standards is completely misplaced. I as with Hopps, were against the disproportionate response of Israel against the civilian population of Palestine (ye, there is a Palestine!)and the collective punishment of a population that has been subjugated for decades. Yes, I will raise my voice against Israel for its polices but it does not mean that I am anti-semitic/racist. Yes, I am an anti-Zionist (Zionism was a progressive ideology in its incipient stages but lost its way later on) but I am not anti-Israel because I know that secular voices in Israel are very much alive and the existence of Israel is something that is beyond debate. Every nation is a nation in the maaking, more so nations that are postcolonial. The Likud and Shas do not represent the "monolithic" voice of that Israeli nation. What the "international community" does not hear is those voices and I am not a member of that "community" because it does not listen to the oppressed. I was very clear when I stated that the Israeli response to the kidnapping of ONE soldier in Gaza was DISPPROPRTIONATE and I stand by that. That things spiraled out of control in the past two days was something that none anticipated and right now we have enough reasons on MOL to help us understand it. As i mentioned in an earlier post, Hamas' ascendancy to power is a nightmare scenario but at the same time it does not detract from the suffering of the Palestinians. That was my sentiment and i will always stand by it, no matter what, because I believe that colonialism of the past belongs to the past and as someone from an ex-colony I know what I am talking about. The Jews of Israel (and I here I am using that term very consciously) will not be driven into the sea simply because Israel is a very strong NUCLEAR state. What I don't condone at all is the Hezbollah attack on Israel. If we were to keep the larger analysis in mind, then we have to acknowledge the fact that it is not Syria but Iran that is upping the ante. Ahmedinijad has gone for broke and pulled Israel into a no-win situation. I could possibly analyze this more but will wait for someone who wants to silence my voice....before I speak up again. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15317 Registered: 10-2001  |
Strain yourself: post an article that talks about the suffering of Israeli families that have had their lives ripped apart by suicide bombers. Thanks in advance. | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 606 Registered: 8-2003 |
You can do better than that, Sbenois. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2553 Registered: 3-2003 |
ISRAEL'S NEXT WAR HAS BEGUN. Battle Plans by Yossi Klein Halevi Post date 07.12.06 The next Middle East war--Israel against genocidal Islamism--has begun. The first stage of the war started two weeks ago, with the Israeli incursion into Gaza in response to the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier and the ongoing shelling of Israeli towns and kibbutzim; now, with Hezbollah's latest attack, the war has spread to southern Lebanon. Ultimately, though, Israel's antagonists won't be Hamas and Hezbollah but their patrons, Iran and Syria. The war will go on for months, perhaps several years. There may be lulls in the fighting, perhaps even temporary agreements and prisoner exchanges. But those periods of calm will be mere respites. The goals of the war should be the destruction of the Hamas regime and the dismantling of the Hezbollah infrastructure in southern Lebanon. Israel cannot coexist with Iranian proxies pressing in on its borders. In particular, allowing Hamas to remain in power--and to run the Palestinian educational system--will mean the end of hopes for Arab-Israeli reconciliation not only in this generation but in the next one too. For the Israeli right, this is the moment of "We told you so." The fact that the kidnappings and missile attacks have come from southern Lebanon and Gaza--precisely the areas from which Israel has unilaterally withdrawn--is proof, for right-wingers, of the bankruptcy of unilateralism. Yet the right has always misunderstood the meaning of unilateral withdrawal. Those of us who have supported unilateralism didn't expect a quiet border in return for our withdrawal but simply the creation of a border from which we could more vigorously defend ourselves, with greater domestic consensus and international understanding. The anticipated outcome, then, wasn't an illusory peace but a more effective way to fight the war. The question wasn't whether Hamas or Hezbollah would forswear aggression but whether Israel would act with appropriate vigor to their continued aggression. So it wasn't the rocket attacks that were a blow to the unilateralist camp, but rather Israel's tepid responses to those attacks. If unilateralists made a mistake, it was in believing our political leaders--including Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert--when they promised a policy of zero tolerance against any attacks emanating from Gaza after Israel's withdrawal. That policy was not implemented--until two weeks ago. Now, belatedly, the Olmert government is trying to regain something of its lost credibility, and that is the real meaning of this initial phase of the war, both in Gaza and in Lebanon. Still, many in Israel believe that, even now, the government is acting with excessive restraint. One centrist friend of mine, an Olmert voter, said to me, "If we had assassinated [Hamas leader] Haniyeh after the first kidnapping, [Hezbollah leader] Nasrallah would have thought twice about ordering another kidnapping." Israel, then, isn't paying for the failure of unilateral withdrawal, but for the failure to fulfill its promise to seriously respond to provocations after withdrawal. Absurdly, despite Israel's withdrawal to the international borders with Lebanon and Gaza, much of the international community still sees the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers as a legitimate act of war: Just as Israel holds Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners, so Hamas and Hezbollah now hold Israeli prisoners. One difference, though, is that inmates in Israeli jails receive visits from family and Red Cross representatives, while Israeli prisoners in Gaza and Lebanon disappear into oblivion. Like Israeli pilot Ron Arad, who was captured by Hezbollah 20 years ago, then sold to Iran, and whose fate has never been determined. That is one reason why Israelis are so maddened by the kidnapping of their soldiers. Another reason is the nature of the crimes committed by the prisoners whose release is being demanded by Hezbollah and Hamas. One of them is Samir Kuntar, a PLO terrorist who in 1979 broke into an apartment in the northern Israeli town of Nahariya, took a father and child hostage, and smashed the child's head against a rock. In the Palestinian Authority, Kuntar is considered a hero, a role model for Palestinian children. The ultimate threat, though, isn't Hezbollah or Hamas but Iran. And as Iran draws closer to nuclear capability--which the Israeli intelligence community believes could happen this year--an Israeli-Iranian showdown becomes increasingly likely. According to a very senior military source with whom I've spoken, Israel is still hoping that an international effort will stop a nuclear Iran; if that fails, then Israel is hoping for an American attack. But if the Bush administration is too weakened to take on Iran, then, as a last resort, Israel will have to act unilaterally. And, added the source, Israel has the operational capability to do so. For Israelis, that is the worst scenario of all. Except, of course, the scenario of nuclear weapons in the hands of the patron state of Hezbollah and Hamas. Yossi Klein Halevi is a foreign correspondent for The New Republic and senior fellow of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2554 Registered: 3-2003 |
WHY ISRAEL'S ATTACK ON GAZA ISN'T ENOUGH. Taken Hostage by Yossi Klein Halevi Post date 06.28.06 [Editor's Note: This article has been updated.] "What's the news?" we ask each other, and everyone understands that the question refers to Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hamas. Though the old socialist Israel is barely a memory, in times of crisis we again become collectivized. Nothing unites Israelis in outrage more than the seizure of hostages. Next week, on July 4, Israel will mark the thirtieth anniversary of the Entebbe operation that freed over a hundred Israeli hostages, and little has changed since then in the national ethos of rescue. The last Zionist ideal still shared by most Israelis is the determination to fight back. An Israeli soldier held hostage is a taunt against the Zionist promise of self-defense, an unbearable reminder of Jewish helplessness. Our obsession with hostages is a tactical weakness but a strategic strength. It allows terrorists a stunning psychological advantage: With a single random kidnapping, they hold an entire society emotionally hostage. Strategically, though, hostage-taking only strengthens Israeli resolve. And resolve is precisely what the public now expects of its government. So far, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has responded well. He began by issuing two policy guidelines in dealing with the hostage crisis. The first is that Israel won't negotiate over Gilad's release and won't exchange prisoners. The second is that Hamas leaders--"political" as well as "military"--will be held personally accountable for the fate of Gilad. If Olmert's government hopes to retain its credibility among Israelis, it needs to maintain those two principles. In recent months, the public has become increasingly disillusioned with the government's failure to adequately respond to the almost daily rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages, especially Sderot. No Israeli town within the 1967 borders has experienced the kind of relentless attacks that Sderot has suffered. Even Hizbollah's Katyusha rocket attacks on the northern town of Kiryat Shmona in the early 1980s occurred in waves, with periods of reprieve between them. In the ten months since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, though, Sderot has barely known a day of peace. After the withdrawal, Israelis expected the government to enforce a policy of zero-tolerance for Palestinian attacks emanating from Gaza, even for attacks that didn't cause fatalities. Instead, the government responded unevenly, often ignoring rocket attacks that caused no damage. Many Israelis see Hamas's raid on an Israeli military post within the 1967 borders as a result of the weakness Israel has projected. In yesterday's letters column in the daily Maariv, for example, the hardline consensus was almost unanimous. "We told you so," wrote one reader who identified himself as "right wing." "Why doesn't Israel shut off electricity and water to Gaza?" demanded another reader. "Enough words, it's time to act," insisted a third. That perception of weakness could have far-reaching domestic consequences. The premise of Olmert's centrist party, Kadima, is that only a hawkish approach on security will convince Israelis to implement a dovish policy on territory. Given the Sderot precedent, though, Olmert is failing to uphold that centrist doctrine. For Olmert to win the public's agreement for another unilateral withdrawal, he needs to begin proving that he is capable of defending Tel Aviv from Palestinian rockets. And the place to begin convincing Israelis is Gaza. The military invasion of Gaza that began last night, and whose purpose is to surround the area where Gilad is presumably being held, must only be the first step. A brief invasion, a "show of force," is hardly adequate. Instead, Israel needs to resume its policy of systematically targeting Hamas leaders, just as it did several years ago, culminating in the assassination of Sheik Yassin. That policy drove most of Hamas deep underground and led to the cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Resuming assassinations against Hamas's political echelon is, of course, a declaration of war against the Hamas regime. But given its official sanctioning of kidnapping, Hamas has already declared war against Israel. Hamas's adoption of the tactics of Al Qaeda in Iraq comes as no surprise. After the killing of Zarqawi, Hamas issued a statement mourning his death and urging continued "resistance," thereby making the Hamas regime the world's only openly pro-Al Qaeda government. Unfortunately, the international media missed the significance of that moment. That lapse in media judgment is worth recalling in the coming days, when much of the media will be presenting the "prisoners' document"--a set of demands drawn up by Hamas and Fatah members imprisoned in Israel--as a historic Hamas concession, offering "tacit" recognition of Israel. In fact, the document does nothing of the sort. Nowhere does the document recognize the right of Israel to exist. Instead, it calls for Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders, followed by the "right" of Palestinian refugees to resettle in Israel and demographically overwhelm the Jewish state. The prisoners' document, in other words, is a plan for the phased destruction of Israel--precisely why Hamas can endorse it. Driving on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway, I saw this graffiti: "Olmert, gadol alecha"--which roughly translates as, "Olmert, the job is bigger than you are." For Olmert to disprove that growing suspicion among Israelis, he must commit himself to the destruction of the Hamas regime. Sooner or later, Israel will have no choice but to adopt that policy. The only question is whether Olmert will still be prime minister when that happens. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12151 Registered: 5-2001 |
Interesting articles. The question is when, and it is a when not an if, Syria and Iran will directly enter the conflict. Will Iran hold off until they have nuclear weapons to checkmate Israel's nuclear arsenal? Can Iran move men and materials to Syria with the United States in Iraq? Will Turkey let them overfly their territory to avoid Iraq and the USAF? There are around six million people in Israel. Around twenty percent of that number are Muslim. Iran and Syria have a combined population of nearly eighty five million. Those are tough odds, no mater how good your military is and how dedicated they are. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 51 Registered: 5-2006 |
I guessed it was missed but I pretty clearly indicated in my post that the resolution would have passed if not for our veto. Four abstentions are not enough to kill a resolution. The odds for Israel were far worse in 1948. Israel would today easily crush any of their enemies if they cut loose. This is not because the Israelis possess any mystical fighting power. It’s just their Arab enemies are such a disaster. I know a retired army officer who spent a couple of years as an advisor in Riyadh in the late 90’s. He once explained to me why Middle Eastern armies were so pathetic (with the exception of Israel). When the Saudi military, armed with fleets of the latest military hardware purchased from us, would go on exercises it was always a disaster. Half of the vehicles would not even make it out of the motor pool. That by itself would be grounds for relieving a U.S. Commander or at least end his career. The ones that did make it out would engage in a mindless cluster**** exercise that no one could understand. When it was over and everyone gathered for the after action review, it was self-congratulations all around. The American officers used to being raked over the coals at the National Training Center or the Joint Readiness Training Center would stand there in complete incredulity. In Arab culture there is no self-criticism. The over riding concern is not learning from you mistakes to improve your performance but rather not appearing wrong or weak. So everyone always does great and no one makes mistakes. When this translates into real world failure, it was the will of Allah, not the incompetence of officers or soldiers. Add to this that their militaries are all conscripts with no professional non-commissioned officer’s corps, and their officers are picked and promoted based on their connections or their royalty rather than demonstrated skill, experience, or training, and they get wiped out. Because of this, in addition to superior, equipment, telecommunications, training, and above all leadership, the Western Style Israeli military could wipe out any and all Arab militaries. The other huge factor is logistics. The Arab militaries idea of logistics is sending their armies to the field with a couple of days of supplies. They haven’t the slightest idea how to continuously supply forces with food, water, munitions, spare parts, or how to do any maintenance on the battlefield. You just can’t fight that way. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12153 Registered: 5-2001 |
Spinal, I don't disagree. However, in the Iraq/Iran war both sides fought and took casualties that would have a western style military in full retreat. Even in the Gulf War many Republican Guard units fought to the death, but were outclassed, especially in armor, by US forces. Still 15 to 1 is tough to ignore and as long as we are in Iraq logistics for Iran are a nightmare. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15318 Registered: 10-2001 |
Mustt_Mustt, You think I can do better? Well that quite flattering thank you. But what's the point. Your core beliefs are completely opposite from mine relative to Israel. So my request of you was quite simple: show those of us here who do support Israel some concern for the Israeli people. Demonstrate that you have a desire to approach the problems there in an even-handed manner. Alas, you seemingly can't. By the way, as someone who is an avowed anti-Zionist, do you believe that Zionism equals Racism? | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 54 Registered: 5-2006 |
Yes - because they were evenly matched and both fought with what was by and large WWI strategy. Western militaries, however, make short work of non-Western ones. Western military prowess is also why the worst wars in history have been Western power against Western power. I would much rather go up against the entire Arab world that say France or even Canada. After the first Gulf War, an Iraqi officer who was a veteran was interviewed. He stated that the first sign of being under attack by U.S. forces is vehicles around you start going up in flames. He went on to say you get on the radio or pick up the phone and no one is there - command, control, and communications having been wiped out - before you even know where the attack is coming from you are swarmed by fast moving armor and infantry. It's over before they can even react. Add to that total air superiority and one of our brigades (or Israeli) can easily roll up an Arab force many times their size. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 702 Registered: 1-2006 |
Cluster bombs didn't hurt. We gave them away to Saddam, to help his army beat the bad guys. jd | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1279 Registered: 2-2004 |
Bob, You think if two countries with nuclear weapons engage in war that it will be a check mate? Please. There is always a winner no matter what kind of weapons are used. This idea that if North Korea or Iran has one nuke that all of a sudden the rest of the world should bow at their feet is simply naivete. If it gets to trading nukes, Israel and the U.S. will survive as will the Arab countries. The difference is we'll be able to pick up the pieces in short order while those other guys will be back living in tents. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3698 Registered: 3-2004 |
Is it really necessary to target tourist sites like that lighthouse in Beirut? Aren't there American tourists there right now? What's the point? WMD in the lighthouse? It's interesting how some of the WMD that Israel seems to target are about 3'4", two legs, two arms, (at least before being hit) and eyes, ears and a face...such as it is.... | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12156 Registered: 5-2001 |
The Israelis, fun people that they are, are now taking out the port facilities. They would say it is to prevent the two captured soliders from being evacuated by sea. However, the real reason is to make life as uncomfortable as possible for the Lebanese people and, possibly, to prevent resupply of Hezbollah forces by sea. Lighthouses are used as aids to navigation and are legitimate targets. Now a days every cargo ship has radar and GPS so the only people inconvenienced by taking out the light are fishermen. I really doubt that very many tourists are out and about today in Beirut btw. Most European countries have taken steps to evacuate their citizens. At this point the US is lagging behind on this. The Americans at the American University want out, but aren't getting any support. Overall there are 22,000 American citizens in Lebanon. We really need to put a carrier battlegroup in the area. However, the nearest ships are in the Red Sea and that is centered on an assault ship and is at least a week away. Given the Israelis history of sinking US warships that get in the way I doubt if if the group will be moved to the Med. Spinal Tap, we didn't give the Israelis everything we have.  | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3699 Registered: 3-2004 |
BOB K: I believe the figure is 25,000 tourists, being evacuated to Crete. I suppose you didn't see the photo of the ten-month old with his arm bleeding, screaming in pain. I spit on Israel. May it rot in hell. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 55 Registered: 5-2006 |
Israel does not target civilians. In fact, like us, they go to great lengths, sometimes exposing themselves to added danger, to avoid harming civilians. Of course, civilians are harmed in war, always have been, always will be. It's one of the many terrible consequences. But when you are faced with an enemy that is trying to exterminate you what other choice do you have? Particularly, when that enemy deliberately targets civilians and hides among them to shield themselves from attack. | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2749 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tulip said:
I was going to ask you tulip about what you felt like over the years after hearing about all of the Israeli civilian casualties, including children, blown up on buses, at restaurants and just living their life. But then your true colors came out: Tulip said:
At last some honesty. Unfortunately a discussion killer as far as your concerned. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3700 Registered: 3-2004 |
I spit. I hate them. They are murderers. How dare they go after babies and children. I spit. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1282 Registered: 2-2004 |
Wendy, Don't let tulip decide how the discussion goes for you. Step around or over like you do fecal matter on the side walk. I'm actually enjoying her pain, but then again, everyone knows in MOL land I enjoy misery. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3701 Registered: 3-2004 |
Lebanon had nothing to do with the kidnapping of those soldiers. Certainly the infants and children of Lebanon did not. May the killers rot in hell. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3703 Registered: 3-2004 |
If Americans don't like getting killed in Israel, come back to Brooklyn. You might not get killed there. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15322 Registered: 10-2001 |
Bobk, you think the Israelis are taking any pleasure in what they're doing? You know damn well that they're not. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1283 Registered: 2-2004 |
I love this. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15323 Registered: 10-2001 |
 | ||
| Larry Seltzer Citizen Username: Elvis Post Number: 93 Registered: 4-2006 |
I don't see any stories about a lighthouse, but I do see that the Israelis destroyed all of Lebanon's coastal radar installations because they were used in the missile attack on one of their ships. Perhaps the lighthouse was adjacent to the radar; the top of a lighthouse is a good spot for a radar. If the claim that the radar was used to guide the missile is true then once again you have to wonder how involved the Lebanese government is, or if they've turned their radar over to Hezbollah. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3704 Registered: 3-2004 |
Larry, They hit the lighthouse in Beirut. Don't believe me. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1866 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tulip, What about Hezbollah hitting Haifa, a beautiful civilian area full of progressive, tolerant, innocent Israelis? No spitting for that? | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 704 Registered: 1-2006 |
Tulip is the BBC's voice here. from Melanie Phillips" blog July 14, 2006 The war against Israel An excellent piece by Robert Tracynski on the war against Israel is a must read. Meanwhile, this agonised cry of despair and disgust at the way the BBC is turning Israel, the victim of a genocidal war, into the cause of the conflict is so valid I reproduce it here in full. It’s Friday afternoon. The television here in the living room is tuned in to BBC World whose noon bulletin from London kicks off with main headlines that are all about “Israel has again attacked”, “Intensified Israeli raids”, “Israel seems determined to send a message to Syria”, “Here’s the latest from our correspondent in Beirut” and “Let’s hear from an academic expert”. And familiar old feelings are being aroused. In choosing to present both sides of the frightening events of the past 36 hours, BBC’s voice from Beirut happens to be that of Kim Ghattas (pictured), a born-in-Lebanon Lebanese who speaks English smoothly and is never identified as partisan or even (in our experience) Lebanese. The BBC’s choice of academic expert is a Lebanese man based in Washington DC with a very Lebanese viewpoint. And the message from both (paraphrased by us) is: it’s those belligerent Israelis all over again, and until civilized and cultured forces from outside step in, the bloodshed will continue. We’re now into the second half-hour of this hour-long bulletin, and while there’s not a single word - not one word, not one image - so far about what’s being done to Israeli towns all over the Galilee, there is a diplomatic analysis, courtesy of Syria’s ambassador to the UN. (Yes, Syria.) The bulletin’s now over. They’re into the economic news. Not one word on how tiny Israel, smaller than the state of New Jersey, surrounded by the sea on one side, by a Hamas state on two sides and a Hezbollah state on the fourth, is under unprovoked intense fire today from three out of four directions, with the fire landing right in the heart of major centers of population. Not one word about how Israeli forces, more powerful by orders of magnitude, could turn its enemies and their towns and cities to rubble in a 24-hour concerted effort - but don’t. Or to put it another way: if all the weaponry in this region were in the hands of the Islamists and Jihadists, the result would be genocide; while if all the weaponry were in the hands of Israel, the result would be serenity. Not one word or picture from Tsfat where a house - adjacent to Ziv Hospital - took a direct hit this morning, causing serious injuries and damage. Not one word from Nahariya where another barrage of Katyushas crashed into the center of the city around noon, causing significant damage close to where a woman was killed a day earlier in previous barrages. Not one word about Katyushas landing in the past two hours in a number of western Galilee locations. Not one word about missiles striking Kibbutz Kabri, Kibbutz Gesher Haziv, Kibbutz Saar and the community of Bat-Ami. The reason we created this blog was our conviction, based on personal knowledge and the experience we have of living here close to events, that the people who work in the news media are causing real harm to the lives of innocent Israelis. Their reporting, their editorial decisions, the choice of which images and video footage are put to air and which not - all of these are fundamental to the process of how opinions are formed. We don’t need the news media to think like we do, or believe what we do. It would be enough if they were able to present both sides of an argument without advocating one of them at the expense of the other in a subtle and unprofessional manner. Experience shows that the editors of the BBC in London are not currently, and not going to be, held to any objective test of how fair, honest and accurate their work-product. (And yes, we are very familiar with the efforts made in the last year to bring them to account, with little meaningful or respectable result.) Given how pervasive their influence is, in the United States no less than in the UK, Asia, Europe and elsewhere, Israel’s friends everywhere need to take an even more active role - and especially now - in challenging the way the BBC spins the narrative. There are people hard at work inside the BBC fashioning a message that is hostile to Israel and Israeli interests. It’s important for us to recognize this, and to do the things that individuals can do. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3705 Registered: 3-2004 |
MSNCB has just reported that Syria will make its resources available to Lebanon. Those progressive, tolerant, innocent Israelis should come back to Brooklyn. They have the money to get out. The Lebanese infants that are being killed do not. |
