| Author | Message | ||
     Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1277 Registered: 2-2004 |
Hoops, If we couldn't do that this board would be boring! I am enjoying this thread though. Both sides are going off the deep end in my opinion. This is not the start of WWIII, and no nukes will be used whether it's by Sunday or next year. Why can't you guys see that this is just the latest skirmish in a long line of skirmish's. Of course the press loves it because this summer has been one of the most boring in years from a political standpoint. If it wasn't for gas prices CNN and Fox would have had to have gone to Andy Griffith reruns. Sure the situation is bad in the middle East but it's been bad since I've been alive. So far, no suicide bombings and Israel hasn't targeted civilian populations. This latest skirmish will die down here shortly. Lebanon will fix it's runways, Hezbollah will find another building to plan their "Death to Israel" parades and Israel will continue to worry about the next terrorist blowing themselves up in a cafe. In other words, life as normal will return. Then you guys can get back to blasting DHS's terrorist funding. But I do get a few chuckles from the over the top posts. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3695 Registered: 3-2004  |
To be defending Israel by calling its critics bigots, stupid, anti-semites, etc.,etc., doesn't put Israel in a great light. In fact, we are making statements that the whole world is making. People are alarmed that Israel thinks that its soldiers are of more value than children in Lebanon. You are after Hezbollah, and you accept the bombings of innocent Lebanese people. Would you kill an entire neighborhood because there's a murderer living there? Really! Millions of people just don't like Israeli military and political strategy right now. It doesn't have anything to do with Judaism, Christianity or Islam. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15316 Registered: 10-2001  |
Hoops, Let me be very clear: I do not for a second believe that you are an anti-semite. I certainly hope that you haven't inferred that. I simply (very simply actually) would appreciate it if you would be more forceful in your criticisms of BOTH sides. Again, my issue is not your criticism of Israeli policy - it is what I believe to be the lack of timely and explicit criticism of those who won't let Israel live in peace. For your information, if you look back into the archives in 2004 you will find a thread that I started in which I criticized Israel for the manner in which they were going after targeted terrorists without concern for those innocent civilians who happened to be within striking range. So I understand your perspective. But not your approach. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5624 Registered: 10-1999  |
Hoops did criticize both sides. That's what got him into trouble with some folks. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15320 Registered: 10-2001 |
Early on Hoops did. I acknowledge that. To the best of my recollection Hoops posted something on that original Deafening thread questioning what life in Israel must be like for the Israelis. Hey, I like Hoops. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 568 Registered: 3-2005 |
Is terrorism any worse than military 'mistakes'? Henry Siegman, SPECIAL TO THE LOS ANGELES TIMES Monday, June 26, 2006 The death of an entire Palestinian family on a Gaza beach this month, followed a few days later by an Israeli missile strike that killed nine Palestinian civilians, has reopened the controversy about whether there is much difference between Palestinian terrorism and Israel's military retaliations. Writing in Israel's Maariv, columnist Dan Margalit argues that "even if an Israeli shell killed them, there was no intention to kill peaceful civilians on a beach in Gaza. On the other hand, the Qassam [rockets] fired at Sderot is an ongoing, systematic and conscious effort at the premeditated killing of [Israeli] civilians." He concludes that "only a world lacking integrity and full of conspiracies ignores the decisive difference in intentions between the two sides." The last time this controversy flared was after the release of Steven Spielberg's movie "Munich." The movie was criticized for its "moral equivalence," allegedly equating Palestinian terrorism and Israeli retaliations. Much in the spirit of Margalit's angry comment, Leon Wieseltier of the New Republic argued at the time that the equation is false because "the death of innocents was an Israeli mistake but a Palestinian objective." The distinction might have had greater merit if Israeli strikes held out any prospect of ending, or even reducing, Palestinian terrorism. In fact, they have the opposite effect. Ofer Shelah writes in Yedioth Ahronoth that even those in the Israeli Defense Forces responsible for this policy admit that in the early days of the Palestinian intifada, retaliatory strikes contributed to the continuation of the conflict and the great outbreak of terrorism starting in mid-2001. \b(The vast disproportion between Palestinian civilian casualties from Israeli "mistakes" and Israeli casualties from Palestinian terrorist assaults also brings into question the distinction between the two. It suggests that the killing of Palestinian civilians is, at the very least, more a matter of Israeli indifference than a mistake.} Not a single Israeli has been killed by a Qassam rocket since Israel's disengagement from Gaza last year, although during this period Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli artillery and airstrikes virtually on a daily basis. B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights group, says Israeli forces have killed about 3,400 Palestinians since the intifada started, and Palestinians have killed about 1,000 Israelis. More important, judgments about the morality of Israeli military strikes that kill innocents cannot be made without reference to the political context within which the violence occurs. Even when Israeli attacks are carried out with care to avoid harm to civilians, "collateral damage," in which innocent Palestinians are killed or maimed, only can be justified if Israel also is engaged in a serious and realistic attempt to reach a negotiated solution. But since the Labor Party was voted out of office in 2000, Israel's policy has been to refuse to consider concessions that would have to be made in negotiations with the Palestinians. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateralism, embraced by his successor, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, was never intended as a bridge to a renewal of the peace process but as a strategy for its avoidance. It is a policy that the Labor Party, despite occasional campaign rhetoric, has largely supported. In the opinion of most Israeli security experts, terrorism cannot be defeated unless Israel offers Palestinians a credible political prospect for achieving viable statehood. Without such a political prospect — which for all practical purposes has been eliminated by the conditions imposed by Olmert for a renewal of peace talks and by continuing Israeli settlement expansion deep into the West Bank — Israeli retaliations degenerate into vengeance and have no claim to greater moral justification than Palestinian terrorism. Palestinians insist that, like the Israelis, their objective is not to kill innocent civilians but to end a crushing occupation that is now in its 40th year. Killing civilians is seen by some of them — immorally and stupidly — as a means to that end. But they are not alone in this. Some in the Jewish community in Palestine also resorted to this means when they were engaged in their own struggle for national independence and statehood. The Irgun, a Jewish terrorist organization that morphed into the Likud, first targeted Arab civilians in October 1937. In his history of Israel's War of Independence, "Righteous Victims," Benny Morris writes that the Irgun "introduced a new dimension to the conflict" when "for the first time, massive bombs were placed in crowded Arab centers, and dozens of people were indiscriminately murdered and maimed." Morris writes that in 1937, "this 'innovation' soon found Arab imitators." Of course, the killing of innocents was immoral when Jews resorted to it during their struggle for independence, and it is just as immoral when Palestinians resort to it now. When accounting for the different stages in which the Jewish and Palestinian national struggles find themselves, their moral (or immoral) equivalence could not be more precise. No serious person can believe that Israel — with one of the world's most powerful military establishments — is at risk of being undone and eliminated by Hamas or by any other terrorist group. Furthermore, if Israel were to enter into a negotiation with Palestinians that actually recognized Palestinian national rights and the pre-1967 borders, I believe — based on extensive conversations with the players in the region — that Hamas would agree to minor and reciprocal border adjustments. The overarching moral issue for Israel is whether the additional territory it seeks to hold is worth the inevitable cost in Palestinian and Israeli lives. Siegman is a senior fellow on the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations and a visiting professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/06/26siegman_edit.htm l | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 569 Registered: 3-2005 |
Also from Siegman, New York Review of Books (2-9-07) During Israel's War of Independence, the Yishuv's defense forces acted not much differently from the way the Irgun or Palestinian terrorist groups behaved. As [Israeli historian Benny] Morris explained in an interview in Haaretz, documentation recently declassified by the IDF's archives shows that "in the months of April–May 1948, units of the Haganah were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves." "What the new material shows," Morris stated in the interview, is that during the course of this ethnic cleansing, especially in Operation Hiram, "there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought," including "unusually high concentration[s] of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion." These executions were ordered and overseen by the IDF. When asked about the number of occasions on which they were carried out, Morris replied, "Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others, the numbers were 70, 80, 100.... The worst cases were Sa-liha (70–80 killed), Deir Yassin (100–110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds), and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]; at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwassi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa." Morris reports that orders for these executions and expulsions were issued in writing by senior Haganah commanders following meetings with David Ben-Gurion. And in The Guardian, Morris wrote that while a master plan for the expulsion of Palestinian Arabs did not exist before April 1948, "pre-1948 transfer thinking" by key Zionist leaders, including Ben-Gurion, "had readied hearts and minds in the Jewish community [in Israel] for the denouement of 1948." In justification of the massacres committed by the Haganah, Morris stated in the Haaretz interview that "without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here." He added that the only fault he found with Ben-Gurion's actions is that the Haganah's ethnic cleansing was not carried out on a scale large enough to have prevented the "demographic problem" Israel faces today. . . . Siegman comments: Of course, Israel's resort to ethnic cleansing and the massacre of civilians in its War of Independence does not confer any legitimacy on the morally indefensible atrocities committed by terrorists in the Palestinians' ongoing struggle for their independence — atrocities that discredit and diminish the Palestinian national cause. But it exposes the double standard of commentators who have had little to say on the subject of Israeli atrocities, yet pounce on any hint of moral equivalence between Israelis and Palestinians. http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/21076.html Biography of Benny Morris: In addtiion to "Righteous Victims," Benny Morris is the author of "Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949." Morris argues that the approximately 700,000 Palestinians who fled from their homes in 1947 left mostly due to Israeli actions or fear of Israeli actions, but not as the result of a preexisting expulsion plan. Until that time, the official position in Israel had been that the Palestinians left voluntarily or after pressure/encouragement from Palestinian or outside Arab leaders. In the beginning of the book Morris shows a map over empty Palestinian villages, and explains why the villagers left. 228 villages were evacuated due to attack from Jewish forces. In 41 villages the inhabitants were expelled by military forces. In 90 villages the inhabitants were stricken with panic due to attack on other villages, and fled. In only 6 villages the inhabitants left because the local Palestinian authorities told them to. He was not able to find out why another 46 villages were emptied. In the 2004 book; The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, he changes his perspective, and places the major responsibility for the creation of Palestinian refugees on Jewish military groups. According to Morris, these groups massacred far more Palestinians than has been known earlier. He also writes that Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, gave orders to destroy Palestinian villages in 1948, according to the Israeli politician Aharon Cohen. In this 2004 version, Morris underlines that Jewish leaders, also before Israel was created, wanted as few Arabs/Palestinian in the areas they were conquering as possible. They wanted for demographic reasons as many Palestinians to flee as possible. In a 2004 interview, Morris said: "You have to put things in proportion. These are small war crimes. All told, if we take all the massacres and all the executions of 1948, we come to about 800 who were killed. In comparison to the massacres that were perpetrated in Bosnia, that’s peanuts. In comparison to the massacres the Russians perpetrated against the Germans at Stalingrad, that’s chicken feed. When you take into account that there was a bloody civil war here and that we lost an entire 1 percent of the population, you find that we behaved very well." (For purposes of numerical comparison, to date in the ongoing intifida, 1,000 Israelis have been killed by Palestinians.) | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1019 Registered: 4-2006 |
kathleen- You pro-Palestinian poster, you, you are BUSTED again for your selective use of experts. This time is worse because you again used someone whose flawed academic credentials, acts of historical revisionism amd factual inaccuracies were brought to your attention by me in another thread. And NOW you add Benny Morris, who has been equally suspect among his peer community and has made his bones in the academic community by being the ultra-revisionist of zionist history. Tres slick for your agenda! Tsk... tsk kathleen. As in another thread I pointed out to you the article at the Middle East Forum on the flawed Henry Siegman, who has no specialist qualifications and whose anti-Israel antipathy is well-established, see: www.meforum.org/article/751 On Benny, who BTW has attacked the W&M paper about Israeli influence over the US, see: www.meforum.org/article/207 I suggest MOL readers do some research into these two before they accept their written comments for the purposes kathleen wants to use them for to influence you. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1677 Registered: 10-2004  |
Fvf - as a matter of honesty you really should be pointing out that the purpose of the meforum article you posted was to criticize and marginalize the opinions of the authors that kathleen posted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes The biography of Daniel Pipes shows him to be an extreme right wing neo-con. It shouldnt surprise anyone that organizations that he is affiliated with both present their point of view as more correct than any other and try to undercut the people who profess to have differing views. Doing this research did help me to understand your position fvf. You are a neo-con. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 65 Registered: 5-2006  |
I’ve addresses this before but there are many people here on MOL who conflate “right wing” with “neo-con”. Further to the right than the neocons are the realists (Brent Scowcroft). The far right are actually the traditionalists, sometimes called paleocons (Pat Buchanan). Do those of you on the Left realize that the neo-con foreign policy outlook was until recently the purview of the Democratic party (hence the term neo-con) and that neo-cons are in fact viewed as interlopers in the Republican Party by the Realists and Traditionalists? There was a time when it was liberals who were accused of starry-eyed idealism or “Wilsoniaism”. Now those who believe this are derided as “Neo-cons”. You can say what you want about Bush’s foreign policy team but far right is not one of them. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2862 Registered: 6-2002 |
I don't think they are "derided" as "neo-cons". I think that is what they call themselves. I think that there are ne-cons on the "Left" to the extent that some of them are "Liberal" on domestic social policy, e.g. Tony Blair, Joe Lieberman. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1023 Registered: 4-2006 |
Hoops- Nothing personal, but you have lost any intellectually credibility to your posts on this topic, Israel, or muslim fundamentalism. Ranging from your asinine analogy about gangsters and the south orange police blowing things up, to your belief that people should lose religion since we are at war with muslim fundamentalism, (they are certainly going to listen to you). It's sad to see that when people are independent thinkers, and don't follow your blinders-on party line,you can only react by lumping them in with people you think are bad, i.e. "neo-cons" or say like you did about me that I support "genocide". Outrageous. But what is really outrageous to me is that you are allowed to vote. Now that is really scary. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro  Post Number: 3574 Registered: 5-2004  |
Hamas is the Palestinian government. If a hostile government kidnapped US soldiers, that would be an act of war. We would invade, kill lots of their people, get our people back, and piss on the country that did it. And we'd be right to. When the hostages were taken in Iran, does anyone think Carter was effective because he didn't take military action? Does anyone think Carter was effective at all? Hezbollah effectively runs a part of Lebanon. They operate in the open, with little challenge from the government. Heck, they are a part of the government there (though admittedly, not the majority party). They exist in violation of treaty, where all militant groups were to have been disarmed. Not only did they not disarm, but they are, as I said, a part of the government in Lebanon. Personally, i could are less if Lebanon is being torn apart by Syria. They should be doing everything the can to eject Hezbollah and Syria from their midst. They are not, and have not done so. I agree with ESL (I believe). If a country cannot police their own militant groups, they are not really on control of anything. Tulip, you truly do not understand the dynamic of the middle east if you think Israel is picking a fight. There is a saying that goes, "If the Palestinians laid down their arms, there would be peace. If the Israelis laid down their arms, Israel would cease to exist." Hoops, I simply disagree with you. I can understand your point, but I disagree. Tulip, true to form, goes over the deep end. Logic, Tulip, logic. Have a point, back it with relevant facts, and draw conclusions that are related to both the point and the facts. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3777 Registered: 3-2004 |
Rastro, what makes you an expert? I know that once a forceful nation attacks, other nations form quick alliances. This is stupid of Israel, and as Pat Buchanan says, immoral, for it to blame and punish Lebanon when Lebanon can really do nothing about this. Lebaonon did not "invite" Hezbollah into its midst. Hezbollah was elected in one of Bush's democratic elections. Face it. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1665 Registered: 9-2004 |
I think they should fight it out, for another 20 years. Unless someone thinks they can win it. Or maybe they could talk, or they could just kill each other. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3782 Registered: 3-2004 |
Foj, You are absolutely right. They deserve each other. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4493 Registered: 12-2001  |
Rastro, You wrote: "If a hostile government kidnapped US soldiers, that would be an act of war. We would invade, kill lots of their people, get our people back, and piss on the country that did it. And we'd be right to." That simply isn't true. The United States has held fire as a nation many times in the face of serious provocation (USS Panay, USS Reuben James, to name two). Or more recently (1997?), when the Serbians captured a few of our soldiers, we didn't not initiate an aerial assault. This current round of fighting is about a lot more than 3 captured IDF soldiers. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1678 Registered: 10-2004 |
fvf - really all your posts boil down to are insults and postings of ultra right wing neo-con web sites. You claim intellectual superiority but in reality you bring zero to the table. You give zero answers to the direct question you are asked and instead decide to misdirect and point to what you say are my failings. Sorry fvf that is entirely weak. You deny you want genocide but you present no solution to what to do about islamic extremists, nor show the causes of islamic extremism, nor talk about how it might be possible for Israel to get out of the mess they are in politically without any more loss of life. tulip has been totally concerned about the loss of life and has been skewered for her views because she has not capitulated to the Israeli proponents here. Loss of life on either side is a tragedy. That Israel must defend her people is a reality. The question remains, is the current Israeli policy the BEST policy for her defense? What other options does she have and can they be employed without further loss of innocent life? Choke on those questions fvf. Answer one or two and show us how intellectually superior you are. sbenois - sorry for my overreaction yesterday. I accept the criticism, I may not be the most knowledgable person about Israels trials and tribulations, nor may I be totally up to date at all times but I do know that life is precious. I hate to see Israel under siege and I hate to see people suffer needlessly. There must be another way for this to play out without guns, without bombs and without war. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5755 Registered: 8-2003 |
Back to the US has lost it's moral authority. Or Bush has, or whatever. Here's a snippet on a larger story dealing with Sunnis wanting the occupier to stay around a bit in today's NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/17/world/middleeast/17sunnis.html?pagewanted=prin t ......Investigations into possible wrongdoing by American troops in two major cases — the deaths of 24 civilians in Haditha last November, and the rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl and the killing of her family in Mahmudiya in March — have ignited anger among Sunnis, but not nearly to the same degree as they might have in 2004, when the Abu Ghraib prisoner scandal emerged. But back then, Iraq had not crept to the brink of full-scale civil war. Of much greater concern now is the massacre of up to 50 Sunni civilians in the Jihad neighborhood of Baghdad on the morning of July 9, when Shiite militiamen dragged people from cars and homes and shot them in the head. Some families fled the area for a makeshift tent camp in the backyard of a mosque. “The problem is that American crimes are only a hundredth of the crimes committed by the militias,” said Omar al-Jubouri, the human rights officer for the Iraqi Islamic Party, a powerful Sunni group that still considers itself the vanguard of political resistance to the Americans. “It’s like one hair compared to all the other hairs on a camel.” | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4498 Registered: 12-2001 |
What's that have to do with moral authority? It seems to be an indication that the everyday Sunnis can distinguish between the lesser of two evils when caught between a rock and a hard place. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5756 Registered: 8-2003 |
I think it's a far bigger a distinction than simply the 'lesser of two evils,' just in the follicle count offered alone. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1038 Registered: 4-2006 |
Hoops- Let me give you a Hoopsian analogy, so the people in Montrose start shooting missles into Newstead....oh....sorry... that's offbase. Listen I understand your need to be defensive, you are spouting off about a place in the world you know nothing about, and have never lived. You think broad and fuzzy-headed ideas of the left are the solution to everything without regard to understanding the culture or religious issues of the region. I have tried to give you some insights before. For a start, I think it would be great if you read Bernard Lewis' works on arab history. Contrary to what you may think I appreciate arab culture and history. One aspect of arab civilization has been that there are cycles of religious extremism. Some might say we are in a current cycle. One of the problems is that we are in the 21st century but arab countries have been left behind due to entrenched elites, and high birth rates and no jobs. In such cases many turn to religion and more so the radical kind. The means of ending such a cycle is the defeat of proponents of the extremist ideas. Perhaps it can include modernized economies and more open societies. You are incredibly naive if you think a war on terror can be won without loss of life, especially the war Israel is fighting now. Terrorists locate within civilian areas and no doubt the launch sites of Hezbollah rocketry are in such areas. Israel actually has done a magnificent job in minimizing casualties. The defeat of Hezbollah's millitary abilities is a benefit to the US. Not only is this the group that killed 200 plus US marines in Lebanon and murdered a US navy diver in cold blood, it is also the group best capable of taking terrorist action on behalf of its main supporter, Iran, in the USA should a conflict with Iran develop. Hoops read some on the ME, especially starting with the Lewis stuff, and I would enjoy discussing it with you. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7555 Registered: 10-2001 |
Hoops- Let me give you a Hoopsian analogy, so the people in Montrose start shooting missles into Newstead....oh....sorry... that's offbase.   | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1683 Registered: 10-2004 |
fvf - insight, no sir, you have certainly given me nothing that can be considered insightful. You have continued to play the condescension game in your posts as if you are in some way superior, or your ideas have something of greater value. again - weak. If your ideas are that strong then they should stand on their own merits.
finally an answer to some of the questions directed towards you and one that we actually agree upon. Education, modernization and information are the best ways to turn this around. Certainly not nuclear weapons bombing Iran as you suggested in the past.
you are the naive one if you think that there can be a 'war on terror'. The only thing that can be warred on are people. I do not think that the Israeli response has targetted only those places that are 'known' Hezbollah strongholds. Nor do I think that the civilian loss of life is totally accidental. I think it has been long planned as acceptable casualties in the middle of a military action. I think the policy is flawed. A benefit of the military action taken this week will be the disarmament of Hezbollah but by doing it in this way Israel opens itself up for future organized initiatives to try to cripple her. Violence used for defense is moral, but violence used to teach a lesson, which I believe is happening in Lebanon, is bad policy. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5757 Registered: 8-2003 |
Hoops -- you believe if Israel manages to disarm Hezbollah without civilian loss of life -- even those civilians that support Hezbollah and the destruction of Israel, the same people Hezbollah surrounds itself with -- then by your logic Israel would be closed to "future organized initiatives to try to cripple her"? | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 158 Registered: 2-2006  |
From cjc- "Back to the US has lost it's moral authority. Or Bush has, or whatever." The amount of nothing that the administration has done since this war broke out astounds even me. Do they think this is going to bring on the rapture and thus excite their base, or are they simply unable to do anything except say Syria must be held to account? The latest gem, the Bush and Blair open mic kabuki performance art featuring how they need "Hezbollah to stop doing this sh*t". "What they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this sh*t, and it's over," It's not that that statement is untrue, or even unintelligent, it's just that that statement is the only statement put forth in the name of Americans, by the president, except for the holding Syria to account bit. Is it me, or do we deserve better? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1684 Registered: 10-2004 |
cjc - I am having some difficulty deciphering your post so I will try to simplify my statement. If innocent civilians are not harmed or better if the harm is intentionally minimized, while at the same time Israel achieves its objective of disarming Hezbollah, then the result will be a Lebanese people who will not be mourning the loss of loved ones and therefore not become mortal enemies of the state of Israel. If you create enemies it stands to reason that those enemies will plot and plan their own revenge. Violence breeds more violence. Stopping the cycle of violence is the only way to achieve Israels goals in the long run. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1873 Registered: 5-2001 |
Hoops, How can Israel disarm Hezbollah peacefully? I've been critical of Israel in the past, but I don't know how they can peacefully protect the citizens of Haifa (which is region full of progressives/liberals seeking to live harmoniously with their Arab neighbors). | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 976 Registered: 10-2005 |
Why do you assume Violence breeds more violence? It's a phrase that is accepted by many, yet proven by few. The statement sounds nice, but in no way is an absolute. The cycle of violence exists in your mind. In the minds of Hezbollah and Hammas, there is only one stroke to this cycle...on, always on, always focus on defeating the Zions, crush the Zions, destroy the zions. There is no off. Read their own doctrines...listen to their own statements. Look at their own definitions of themselves and why they exist as organizations. We, however, are more comfortable believing this is simply a cycle of violence...it makes us feel better about believing Israel is equally to blame for this, therefore satisfying our need to be benevolent to all sides. Unfortunately, this is the real world, and there is a right, and a wrong side. There are "goodies" and there are "baddies".....People who purposefully instigate a war, in an effort to spark a regional conflict = "Baddies".....people who saw off peoples heads, and post on the internet for the world to see, are "Baddies".....People who kidnap soldiers during an otherwise semi-cease fire, are "Baddies". People whose sole stated purpose is the death of another society (in its entirity) are "Baddies". | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1685 Registered: 10-2004 |
dave23 - I have not stated that they can do it peacefully. I said previously that they had no choice but to take military action to protect themselves but the actions that I see them taking are not defensive actions. They are bombing strategic targets and they are bombing housing projects. They are bombing roads and they are bombing bridges and they are bombing Lebanese military. I am not advocating peaceful disarmament but rather advocating retalliation against the antagonists not against those who happen to live nearby. Smarty - I dont know if there are any goodies anywhere. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1874 Registered: 5-2001 |
Hoops, They are bombing Hezbollah. I know I'm not the first to say this, but Hezbollah situated themselves in suburban areas for obvious reasons. If they don't obliterate them, it's death by a thousand cuts while Hezbollah rearms with ever-more effective weaponry. Here's hoping that this ends soon and that the Lebanese government does whatever it can to oust Hezbollah. I'm hoping to vacation in Beruit (and Tehran) someday. | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 979 Registered: 10-2005 |
Hoops....you've gone to a very very very dark place...let me bring you back: Goodies: The Ghost Buster Team Rebel forces in Star Wars The Jedi (except Darth Vadar) Ewoks Bond Traders Speed Racer and Friends Star Blazers Crew Crew on board the Starship Enterprise Spidey Elliot Spitzer Rocky Balboa Joe Paterno and the Penn State Football Team The Fightin Phillies and last, but not least....Austin Powers | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1044 Registered: 4-2006 |
Hoops- Since dave 23 and Smarty already have you on the intellectual ropes, I see no need to add to the general self-befuddlement your articulated "positions" have caused you. Lets keep it simple :When terror succeeds people pratice it, when terror doesn't they don't. You would have harshly criticized Israel if it had gone in to Lebanon in the past six years to destroy the Hezbollah buildup of missles that the Lebanese government allowed, and the Syrians and Iranians supplied. Instead Israel did it the way "peaceable" types like you prefer, ignore it and it will go away, or we should not do things that could hurt people. That is why thousands of Israeli kids are sleeping in bomb shelters, close to two hundred are wounded, and a number have died. About 1,000 Israelis have also died at the deliberate hands of the Palestinians, their southern cities shelled by qassams, but Israel is supposed to negotiate endlessly with their intentional murderers by types such as yourself. Can we take up a collection to send Hoops to Israel and get him a flat in Sderot? I almost guarantee Hoops would be trying to call up Olmert every day demanding that he bomb the s#$% out of the Palestinians if we did. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 160 Registered: 2-2006 |
Fact says- "Given his position on the crisis, I believe Bush should be allowed to enjoy a dinner roll. Don't you people?" No moral authority, that's what I mean! What position? Fact- No I don't. The guy's the leader of the free world for f#*k's sake and you stick your head in the sand at this country's peril if you don't think his behavior matters. It's part of the reason the Israel thing is in the shape it's in. Should I point out your apparent anti Americanism? On the president at the G8 meeting, from another blog, very well said, I think......... I'm not sure this is such a minor story. Many people who frequent this and other blogs have internalized the fact that Bush is, at best, less than statesmanlike when not scripted and surrounded by political props. Outside of this, this message does not appear as much outside of the late night talk shows. People ask why the U.S. is in the midst of this crisis. This recording provides a simplistic but understandable answer. While none of the major media will directly offer this intepretation, I think it's clear that they feel that this brief clip captures a president who does not look emotionally or intellectually capable of leading in this crisis. In a world where our media is incapable of directly stating that view, clips like this exist as a proxy for honest analysis. It's news because of it stands for what the media feels it cannot say. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1050 Registered: 4-2006 |
ae35unit- The country's peril comes from idiots who think moral equivalency and mutual tolerance will buy us peace in this world. It won't. Our enemies, and they are real, non-negotiable enemies, are clear and direct in words and writing what they want and intend to do. I didn't say Bush was an intellect, many of our Presidents weren't. I did say he got it right in this instance. As for anti-americanism, it is a hoot that radical left progressives can even think they are for America when they favor us fleeing the world with our tail between our legs on a sad dim assumption that will buy us peace at any price from our enemies. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 161 Registered: 2-2006 |
Fact- 1) I may be an idiot but I didn't say anything about "buying us" (or anyone) peace. 2) "Our enemies, and they are real, non-negotiable enemies, are clear and direct in words and writing what they want and intend to do." No argument there, are to trying to paint me as a "terrorist hugger"? I'm actually pretty hawkish. I just don't like idiots who weren't elected running America, but maybe that's all right with you. 3) "I didn't say Bush was an intellect, many of our Presidents weren't. I did say he got it right in this instance." -The guy's brain damaged for God's sake and not properly elected. He was appointed by the Supreme Court after a failed election in a state where his brother was governor- but that's all Kosher to you, huh? 4) "it is a hoot that radical left progressives can even think they are for Americawhen they favor us fleeing the world with our tail between our legs on a sad dim assumption that will buy us peace at any price from our enemies."- Besides that being straight from the "Limbaugh Letter" it's meaningless strawman bullsh*t and once again you've proven that you can't even pretend to engage in factual discussion. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1055 Registered: 4-2006 |
ae35unit- When did I call you an idiot? History shows us that few of our presidents were "ideal". Intelligent Presidents may not be the best in terms of actual performance. Abe Lincoln, quite a failure in life, may have been one of our more successful Presidents. Bush despite his shortcomings has the right general concepts for the enemies we are dealing with. Radical islam does not share the concepts of western, secular thought, and has a different take on the value of human life. Our radical left does not understand the enemy because it speaks and thinks in a different set of assumptions and values. Our enemies only understand power, and the US must be perceived as willing to use millitary force in order to be safe in this world. Due to the nature of weaponry today we cannot be an isolationist country, and many of the progressives today remind me of those who tried to keep the US out of WWII. We are involved in a global war, and while I never liked Newt Gingrich ,I agree with his take on us being in WWIII. I don't listen to Limbaugh or read his letter. Among the conservatives I do enjoy listening to Michael Savage, primarily for his stories about growing up in Brooklyn. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 163 Registered: 2-2006 |
I hate it when people go, wow, just wow, like it's never been said, but wow.. check this out! Factvsfiction thinks this is moral authority! http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/17/212531/190 | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1056 Registered: 4-2006 |
ae35unit- When did I call you an idiot? History shows us that few of our presidents were "ideal". Intelligent Presidents may not be the best in terms of actual performance. Abe Lincoln, quite a failure in life, may have been one of our more successful Presidents. Bush despite his shortcomings has the right general concepts for the enemies we are dealing with. Radical islam does not share the concepts of western, secular thought, and has a different take on the value of human life. Our radical left does not understand the enemy because it speaks and thinks in a different set of assumptions and values. Our enemies only understand power, and the US must be perceived as willing to use millitary force in order to be safe in this world. Due to the nature of weaponry today we cannot be an isolationist country, and many of the progressives today remind me of those who tried to keep the US out of WWII. We are involved in a global war, and while I never liked Newt Gingrich ,I agree with his take on us being in WWIII. I don't listen to Limbaugh or read his letter. Among the conservatives I do enjoy listening to Michael Savage, primarily for his stories about growing up in Brooklyn. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1686 Registered: 10-2004 |
I disagree that because what you believe is that it is impossible to get the actual terrorist without blowing up everything in the neighborhood the terrorists live in, that it is not better to just kill the damn terrorists. Sorry, I dont believe that the task of getting the bad guys requires so much innocent loss of life and so much suffering. fvf - you are no mensa candidate, you dont hold a stronger position on this subject, just a more popular one on the board. your arguments are still weak. |
