Middle East thread continued

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Your words would be more convincing if you were as vocal a critic of Hamas and Hezbollah as you are anything the Israelis do in a conflict.

What exactly are false with my words?

Forget one second it's been posted by Spiffor. Imagine it's been posted by, say, LordShiva (obviously not a DL, but whose preconceptions on the current conflict we don't know). What are the criticisms you bring to the content of the post?

[Winston]

So, apparently Muslims should never be held responsible for harbouring terrorists, as they lack the means of sufficiently distancing themselves from terrorist elements, be it verbally, physically or through the democratic process of their country, if one exists. Poor souls.

You will notice that we very seldomly hear a word of criticism of terrorist activities directed against Israel, from the lips of a Muslim?

Everybody else seems capable of it, but it is unfair to expect such upstanding behaviour from Muslims, is that it?

You're falling all over eachother to post excuses for people who have harboured terrorists; you seem incapable of placing any part of the blame anywhere else but with Israel and the West.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor

What exactly are false with my words?

Forget one second it's been posted by Spiffor. Imagine it's been posted by, say, LordShiva (obviously not a DL, but whose preconceptions on the current conflict we don't know). What are the criticisms you bring to the content of the post?

You have interpreted Plato's 'cost of supporting terrorism' into 'support killing civilians' as if he supports the deliberate targeting of children. Of course, you do that because he is arguing the other side and you argue yours.

And then you argue about 'punishment' instead of, once again, 'cost'.

Wars cost, Spiffor. If you want to hold up pictures of dead children you can argue against any war, anywhere since the invention of high explosives, and maybe before.

Plato is arguing aginst the emotional impact of horrid images. You are picking them up in your own propaganda.

Oh, and you are failing to make the distinction between terrorism and states at war that so many others are.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You have interpreted Plato's 'cost of supporting terrorism' into 'support killing civilians' as if he supports the deliberate targeting of children. Of course, you do that because he is arguing the other side and you argue yours.

I do not think Israel deliberately targets civilians. I criticize Israel's complete disregard for Lebanese life after paying lip-service, but I do think they aren't targetting people on purpose.
That's because I think, and hope, that Israel doesn't follow the logic that Plato laid out in his post.

I don't do that because he argues for his side, and because I argue for mine. On the rare occurences I got to speak with terrorist sympathisers, I said very similar things. In debates where the "bad guys" (whoever they be, as long as it's a broad sweeping generalization) get dehumanized, I often appear to stand for them, because I oppose all kinds of de-humanization. I've been treated as Israel's ***** in the past. Offline, obviously, considering that nobody here is radically anti-Israel (edit: except Agathon, but his trolls aren't worth responding to)

And then you argue about 'punishment' instead of, once again, 'cost'.

This is your stance, not his. I can understand that someone would consider the "unavoidable colateral damage" to be a cost that is sadly mandatory. However, when Plato speaks about "the West [dealing] horrible lessons", he doesn't have the same position. To him, dealing that lesson, i.e killing children (because that's why the link he was responding to was all about), has worthy results. He doesn't see them as accidents that should be avoided as much as possible. He sees them as a necessary evil, as something the west has to do.

And that's why his stance is very different to nearly every pro-Israeli on this forum. Yourself included.

Wars cost, Spiffor. If you want to hold up pictures of dead children you can argue against any war, anywhere since the invention of high explosives, and maybe before.

I don't think I have supported any war in my life.

Plato is arguing aginst the emotional impact of horrid images.

Where did that come from?
Plato is arguing that the Lebanese had it coming, and that hopefully all this death and horror will change their minds.

Oh, and you are failing to make the distinction between terrorism and states at war that so many others are.

Terrorism isn't only perpetrated by unconventional organizations.
Terrorism is defined as a specific form of political violence, designed to strike fear in the populations in order to obtain a change in the public opinion / public policies.

A clear-cut example of military terrorism: When the Wehrmacht locked up a whole French village in a church (indiscriminately whether the people were resitants or not), and then set it on fire. It was a clear signal, aiming to strike fear to all of those who might want to help the resistance.

Besides, I don't see why you're talking about "states at war" in this thread, considering that Israel is supposedly waging a war against Hezbollah and not against Lebanon. Or did I miss somehting in the past few hours?

[notyoueither]

They're not accidents, at all.

Tell me, Spiff, who is responsible for dead children when you park a rocket battery in a tightly packed residential area?

The people who are at war and attacking weapons of war that are shooting at themselves, or the people who thought that someone's back yard was a good place to put a rocket launcher?

[notyoueither]

And actually, the more I read about it, the more it seems that Hezbollah is not an outlaw organization in Lebanon.

The consequences for the carnage lay at the feet of the people who think that a war should be continued with Israel over ~24^2 km of land that is part of Syria on most maps, and the GoL looks to be part of that.

How insane is that?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
They're not accidents, at all.

Tell me, Spiff, who is responsible for dead children when you park a rocket battery in a tightly packed residential area?

The people who are at war and attacking weapons of war that are shooting at themselves, or the people who thought that someone's back yard was a good place to put a rocket launcher?

"Accident" was a bad choice of words.
Let's say "it could be only better if no innocents were close to Israeli targets." Is that phrase acceptable to you?

Now please adress the point.

[notyoueither]

That is the point.

The responsibility for the images linked to earlier is not solely on the IDF. They are a result of decisions taken on both sides.

[notyoueither]

As to the point about terrorism and terrorist organizations...

It's funny. It's looking to me as if the GoL is using a terrorist organization to perpetrate attacks on another nation while hiding behind the skirts of the said terrorists. If this is the case, I guess they miscalculated, eh?

As to the distinction between terrorist organizations and governments... do you really need me to explain this to you? Responsibility, consequences...

Do you really think it's a good idea to have gangs of armed people running around killing people because they're pissed off? Who elected them? Who are they responsible to? Who is going to hold them accountable?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
That is the point.

The responsibility for the images linked to earlier is not solely on the IDF. They are a result of decisions taken on both sides.

Well, duh. Of course. Hezbollah are manipulative propaganda-whores. They have no problem putting the population at risk if it can increase the sympathy for their cause. It wouldn't surprise me one bit that they do the same as the Hamas bastards, putting their (expadable) hardware close to their opponents, so that their opponents are exposed to Israeli bombs. If Hezbollah wasn't scum, we'd know it already.

Now that the obvious has been repeated, could you please tell me what your point has to do with the following quotes? Because remember, they're the ones that started our discussion, and they're the ones I would have liked to discuss so far, without having to go through plenty of digressions.

Originally posted by PLATO


From the "West" back to them:

Your Welcome.

Now that you know the price for supporting Terrorist in your country, will you do something about it?

Or does the "West" continually have to be forced to deal horrible lessons like this to those who support people that want the total genocide of another people?

If you want peace: Recognize, at the very least, the right of Israel to exist!!

Originally posted by Spiffor
Do you notice that you show all signs of a terroristic mindset?

Let me flesh it out. It is not a troll. It is very sad to see someone like you falling like that.

1. You support killing civilians because they support an idea (and not for their actual actions)

2. You support collective punishment: for something an organization has done (in this case, Hezbollah), you see the punishment of civilians in a positive light (you did notice that all these pics are of very young children, who are very unlikely to be Hezbollah members)

3. You support the murder of people so that you can scare them enough that they change their mind. Yet, striking terror in the public opinion to obtain a policy change is the very raison d'être of terrorism.

Please Plato, I bid you. Stop and think criticially a few minutes about your stance in this issue. Your support for Israel blinds you, and makes you say things that would very well fit bigots, but that don't fit you. Please realize that you aren't reational here, and that your emotions are leading you to support the very logic of murder that you despise.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Now that the obvious has been repeated, could you please tell me what your point has to do with the following quotes? Because remember, they're the ones that started our discussion, and they're the ones I would have liked to discuss so far, without having to go through plenty of digressions.

Plato lashed out emotionally at emotional images.

You took the bait and went full steam ahead with the propaganda. You've fallen into the reactionary camp of criticizing Israel for doing what the government of Isreal deemed necessary in the face of provokation that would lead any nation on Earth to war with a neighbour.

There is nothing but digressions in this debate. Anyone who thinks this is a clear cut case of Israelis being brutes, or angels is a simple minded person.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It's funny. It's looking to me as if the GoL is using a terrorist organization to perpetrate attacks on another nation while hiding behind the skirts of the said terrorists. If this is the case, I guess they miscalculated, eh?

It's funny, I don't interpret it like that at all.

1. For fifteen years, Lebanon has undergone a nightmarish, horrible civil war. During the conflict, many many parties were involved. Shia, Sunnis, Druze, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholics, Communists, fascists, other brands of communists... All these factions killed each other. And in such a long conflict, loyalties have shifted constantly, every faction has been the enemy of any other at some point. All interpretation of Lebanese domestic politics should be done in light of this major trauma.

2. In 2005, after nearly two decades of Syrian domination, Lebanon finally manages to elect an own government, and kicks out Syrian troops 6 monthes later. However, Syria remains a threat, and the very powerful, and largely supported Hezbollah (by a big minority) is still here.
And before you start yelling "see, them Shia are terrorist supporters!", try to walk a mile in their shoes. Hezbollah is credited to be the resistance movement that managed to push back the invader. The Hezbollah also has charities that do things the destitute government can't do.

3. The anti-Syrian government knows full well that the Hezbollah serves Syrian interests, and looks for a way to make it harmless for Lebanon. One of the strategies is to make it mainstream (by granting it one seat in the government), so that the large part of the population it represents doesn't get alienated. Another aspect of making it harmless would be to see the end of the excuses for armamaent. The Sheeba farms are the excuses used by hezbollah to tell they still have resistance to do. No more sheeba problem = more support among the Shia to disarm Hezbollah.

4. Nobody in Lebanon wants to start a new civil war, in order to get rid of Hezbollah. And the military (pruned for two decades under Syrian control) is too weak to take them on anyway. Such a civil war would only bring back the nightmare into Lebanon (something the Lebanese definitely don't want), and would opnly serve the enemies of Lebanon.

As to the distinction between terrorist organizations and governments... do you really need me to explain this to you? Responsibility, consequences...

Do you really think it's a good idea to have gangs of armed people running around killing people because they're pissed off? Who elected them? Who are they responsible to? Who is going to hold them accountable?

I don't think that armed groups are a good idea, especially in a democratic country. Why is it that you assume I'm pro-Hezbollah? In this entire crisis, I've been pro-Lebanon.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Plato lashed out emotionally at emotional images.

You took the bait

That I can agree with. Howveer, I haven't been used to Plato writing things like that, and I remain worried about it.

and went full steam ahead with the propaganda. You've fallen into the reactionary camp of criticizing Israel for doing what the government of Isreal deemed necessary in the face of provokation that would lead any nation on Earth to war with a neighbour.

Huh?
I was talking about Plato's "teaching a lesson" ramblings. NOT about Israel's actual strategy. The only moment I spoke about Israel in my reply (though, upon re-reading it, it isn't clear enough), was to say that his support for Israel creates strong emotions, and that these emotions lead him to say such tripe.

I don't think his post mirrors Israel's strategy, fortunately. Because the logic he presented (which is not the focus of Israel in this war IMO) is ucking murderous. Any force that follows such logics and acts on it would deserve to be called terorirstic.

[Krill]

*shrug* Kill them all and let God sort them out.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't think that armed groups are a good idea, especially in a democratic country. Why is it that you assume I'm pro-Hezbollah? In this entire crisis, I've been pro-Lebanon.

Because Hezbollah has 2 (not 1) ministers in the GoL, plus a third they endorse, and the statements of the GoL are not distancing themselves from Hezbollah, but rather are embracing their goals.

When it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and you are supporting them, chances are you are supporting a duck even if you dream of a swan.