Israel invades Lebanon after new capturing of soldiers

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


One difference is that the IRA drew open financial support from Americans, especially in New England. I knew a number of Irishmen growing up who were very strong supporters of the IRA and their families sent money over. I'm sure they knew of its terrorist ties... and everyone knew the money was being sent over. No one really did anything to stop it though.

new england

assuming you aren't exagerating.

There is absolutely no excuse for anybody condoning any of the sort of terrorist BS that the IRA continually pulled in the 80's.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MRT144
maybe its just a fundamental difference in thinking that invading a country will solve the problems.

The government of the nation attacked has a responsibility to their own citizens before all else.

If they feel that a military response is appropriate to armed attacks against their land and people, I am not about to second guess them.

In the long run it might work out for them, their people, and maybe for their neighbours, or it might not.

It isn't my call, and I don't have all the information they do, nor do I walk in their shoes. Do you?

[MRT144]

i dont walk in the shoes of a lot of people but i still formulate opinions regardless.

do you second guess the bush admin because they have more info than the average citizen, etc?

[MRT144]

damnit NYE, i always seem to catch you when im drinking olde english 800

[notyoueither]

Seems like it. Last time you were advocating Israel leave Hezbollah alone and go invade Syria and Iran.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MRT144
i dont walk in the shoes of a lot of people but i still formulate opinions regardless.

do you second guess the bush admin because they have more info than the average citizen, etc?

When the United States of America was attacked, no I did not second-guess Bush in his response when he led an invasion of a country that was harbouring the source of the offence.

In fact, I was all for it. I think you mentioned that you were too.

[muxec]

People, please do not forget that IDF droped leaflets asking Beirut civilians to stay as far as possible from Hizbullah HQ and other Hizbullah objects before the actual bombing.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon

If that's your opinion, I hope you die in it.

People actually allow you to teach their children?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST

Different situation.
Germany had no history of terrorist attacks (aside from few examples) and hadn´t a culture where terrorist attacks were encouraged.
Same goes for japan.
Both states emphasized honor as one of the virtues of a soldier (at least during fight; it didn´t stop both states from mistreating POWs ornkilling civilians as revenge for partisan attacks though)
Therefore you wouldn´t have seen a lot of partisan/terrorist activity, for one because of the reason mentioned above, for the other also, because many or even most of the people didn´t like the Hitler- regime and therefore were glad as the americans came.
As for Japan, here it was much simpler, the people within the military which wouldn´t accept a surrender just commited seppuku
It might also be important to note that the war against japan and germany involved very similar cultures with a similar standard of living and a similar level of technology.

Now we have the muslim countries. Compared to Israel they have a lower tech level and a lower standard of living.
They are also culturally different and have another religion. And, as their relgiion says that you should never abandon a region populated by muslims to unbelievers, many of them are also angry towards israel and saw the population by zionists during the End of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century as a form of invasion.
Therefore I think you´ve got an entirely different case here.
The muslim terrorists have a very strong religious motivation for sacrificing their own lifes in attacks against israel, whereas the germans and japanese had absolutely no reason to do so, as soon as they were freed from their former regime.
Combine it with attacks by israel against innocent civilians (even if motivated by terrorist attacks) and you´ve got the perfect reason for people to join the terrorist ranks (i.e. anger, for example because of loved ones lost during israel attacks,combined with religious reasons like war against unbelievers)

So the world is apparently doomed to become Muslim through and through. No land ever occupied by Muslims can ever be anything else if we adopt your policy of avoiding the possibility of "creating" terrorists, and eventually Muslims will occupy ever bit of land on the planet because they will never have to defend anything they take due to the possibility that it might create terrorists. We may as well turn over Spain and the Balkans straight away, it's only a matter of time before we awake the long dormant sleeping terrorist giant in these areas as well. I guess the only alternative is for the rest of the world to wipe every Muslim from the face of the planet pre-emptively. Nice.

I don't believe that for a minute. Muslims aren't any more fanatical than the Japanese were in WW2. It wasn't some bizarre worship of order that got the Japanese to calm down at the end of WW2, it was the ruthless and relentless application of overwhelming "disproportionate" force that finally exhausted them and forced a paradigm shift. The sooner the Muslim world experiences a similar thrashing (in terms of moral effect rather than sheer numbers) the better, as it will mean fewer gross casualties in the long run. They need to be shown the limitations of fanatacism and the danger of tacit approval for or benign neglect of it in their own communities.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sandman

Well said. I don't buy the idea that it's 'in a Hezbollah area'.

But it's well known that you are "fact challenged".

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Sikander
So the world is apparently doomed to become Muslim through and through. No land ever occupied by Muslims can ever be anything else if we adopt your policy of avoiding the possibility of "creating" terrorists, and eventually Muslims will occupy ever bit of land on the planet because they will never have to defend anything they take due to the possibility that it might create terrorists. We may as well turn over Spain and the Balkans straight away, it's only a matter of time before we awake the long dormant sleeping terrorist giant in these areas as well. I guess the only alternative is for the rest of the world to wipe every Muslim from the face of the planet pre-emptively. Nice.

I don't believe that for a minute. Muslims aren't any more fanatical than the Japanese were in WW2. It wasn't some bizarre worship of order that got the Japanese to calm down at the end of WW2, it was the ruthless and relentless application of overwhelming "disproportionate" force that finally exhausted them and forced a paradigm shift. The sooner the Muslim world experiences a similar thrashing (in terms of moral effect rather than sheer numbers) the better, as it will mean fewer gross casualties in the long run. They need to be shown the limitations of fanatacism and the danger of tacit approval for or benign neglect of it in their own communities.

But the situation in japan was, that their tenno, who was revered just like a god personally signed the capitulation.
Had he, some time thereafter, called the US occupation forces to be subhumans which have to be thrown into the ocean, I´m sure, a lot of people would have followed his word and had begun to openly or secretly work against the US forces (very probably also involving acts of terror).

To compare the situation to the present situation within the arab world:
I think, the tenno signing and supporting the capitulation would be comparable to all of the highest ranking muslim clerics openly declaring that they support any attempts for a peace with israel and that they condemn all terrorist acivity aimed against Israel and the western world, with none (or only a handful) of the muslim clerics disagreeing.

As long as the military attacks aren´t able to silence the popular clerics who want Israel to be wiped from the landscape (or at least are able to persuade them to recognize Israel [which is very improbable ]) you won´t have any reduction in the formation of terrorist cells IMHO.
(i.e. as long as these attacks are half hearted and you don´t take steps to invade all mulsim countries who tolerate terrorists,occpy them and turn them into polivce states )

[Saras]

I think we should build on Proteus' proposal of the last paragraph .

Oh, and Aggie is a sick ****.

[Az]

does such a scenario mean that the americans should've compromised with imperial japan?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, NO, its not. But then of course your bringing up the idiotic "pearl harbor" scenerio shows that.

So, lets go back to Pearl Harbor: the Japanse attack was part of a new all out military campaign to remove US and Western powers from Asia. Therefore the US and UK reponse, all out war, WAS PROPORTIONATE. If one state declares all out war against another, then all out war is what there will be.

Hizbullah launched a raid against Israel (which Hizbullah has for months been saying was a possibility) in roder to force Israel to bargain with repsect to prisoners. A proprtionate response would be for Israel to launch raids into southern Lebanon, attack Hizbullah positions, and then, quietly both sides would come up with some sort of deal. The crisis ends, both sides saved face.

With this response, Israel might well bring down the new Lebanse government, start a regional war, or a new Lebanese civil war, all without actually being able to destroy Hizbullah, which has the support of the over one million Shia in Lebanon, and all that supposedly to free two soldiers?

Hizb. launched a raid on Israel in order to destroy any chance that the Israeli policy of withdrawing from occupied lands could bring peace to the region, and to keep the Lebanese government from having any chance of succeeding in establishing control over the whole country, thus extending the hegemony of Syria, Iran and the Shiite minority. What's a proportional response to an attempt to maintain a state of constant violence and misery in two states in perpetuity?

Another question I have about your theory of how wonderful proportionality is. Suppose population A consists of 10,000 people and population B consists of 1,000,000 people. Population B begins to kill people from population A at a rate of 500 per year. What's a proportional response to the killing for population A in your mind? 500 a year? 50,000 a year? Or should population A simply face the fact that they will be completely wiped out within a couple of decades and they deserve it because their great grandparents / grandparents / parents squatted on a tiny percentage of the land once occupied by a small number of people from population B decades ago?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Az
does such a scenario mean that the americans should've compromised with imperial japan?

Japan = one country, where the highest ranking religious figure is one person (and, at the same time, head of the state [even if he had no real political power]).
It is rather easy to invade a single country

Current situation:
Several coutnries with the same religion.
Highest ranking religious figures:
Several, mostly working from secret locations, spreading their propaganda save from any retaliation attacks.

Invading all of the countries which openly and secretly support these religious figures would be a hard task.
Therefore a better way would be, to follow a more peacefuil way.
As said before, IMHO religion is one of several compontents which can turn a person into a terrorist.
An important other one is anger against Israel, either by losing relatives to israel attacks, watching other die due to them or bying into the anti israel propaganda which was made with the support of the israel attacks.

Using a more peaceful way would (IMHO) lead to lessening the importance of this component (the hatred/anger) and thereby to the creation of less terrorists.

One poster mentioned, a better response by Israel to the kidnappings in Gaza would have been, to work closely with the government there. I agree with this.

What about giving lots of money to the palestinian government (and perhaps to other muslim neighbors) for antiterrorist activities (of course with keeping a tight control on where the money flows ) and offering to aid them in every possible way.

Therefore not more using the stick, but rather the carrot to persuade them into showing the behavior you want.

And of course, stop all plans for enlarging the settlements within the Westbank or building new ones, or better still, abandon them like you did to the ones in Gaza.