8 canadians killed in south lebanon.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
Switch "arab" with "jew", switch "Nazi" with "Americans", and what you just said could have come from the mouth of Al Zarqawi.

The mentality you are displaying is the root of violence. If you trully believe this, then little by little, there is no different between you and them. NONE.

Wrong. I am advocating destroying the root of an evil ideology just as someone would do by advocating the destruction of Nazism. The Jews didn't do anything to deserve the haulocast. To compare Arab societies continue to support terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. These people, like the German people, will continue to support evil until the cost becomes so great that they just can't go on. The Germans supported an evil ideology, the Arabs currently support an evil ideology. There is no grey zone.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor
GePap: why are you arguing with Oerdin? He has completed the slow metamorphosis we've been witnessing for some time. What's the use? Or alternatively, where's the fun?

Funny. Just yesterday I was accused of being a leftist.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
he is one of the few polytubbies I have met and I like him. I would prefer not to think of him as a bigot based on the statements he has been making lately.

That is why.

Alright, fine. I'm going to bed to sleep it off.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

1. You're talking about "year after year, people [keeping] dying". Since your argument seems to be based on the death toll, I don't find it stupid to wonder the extent of these deaths that pile up year after year.

If you really were not just trolling an obvious question, then I withdraw my accusation

2. No, The Hezbollah isn't a peacful neighbour. It's a guerilla made of local Shias, supported by local Shias, and that has patronage by the Iranian and Syrian government. What the hezbollah isn't, however, is an Iranian regiment posted in Lebanon.
Let me get this straight: the Hezbollah undoubtedly gets its weapons from Iran, and most probably gets order from Iran (though it would be interesting to know the extent of autonomy in the Hezbollah's command). But it's not manned by the Iranians, and the land on which they operate aren't under the control of the Iranian government. As such, the existence of the Hezbollah depends much more on the domestic conditions in Lebanon than, say, an American base located in South Korea.

Actually, Israeli intelligence is reporting a belief that revolutionary guard units are directly involved in some of the rocket attacks.

Additionally, the statement that Hizbullah's presence is more dependent on political conditions than An American base in ROK is absolutely ludicrous. I assume you are aware that the ROK government wants us there and the Lebanese government wishes like hell that Hizbullah will leave. I am sure you are also aware that major parts of the population want both to leave the respective countries. Further, I hope you are aware that if ROK government came out for us to leave we would be gone. What you were attempting to do with that remark is beyond me...but then so is the folly of the rest of your arguments.

This is why strength is not the only possible answer to the Hezbollah. Political finesse could be an answer too. An answer the Lebanese government has been recently trying.
One year ago (a short timespan!), Lebanon finally got an anti-Syrian government, and the Syrian troops were kicked out a bare 6 monthes ago.

Political finesse in Lebanon? Yeah right! The Syrians left alright...they left Hizbullah sitting ready to be theirs and Irans proxy. They also did not leave through "political finesse"...they left when riots threatened to kill their proxy leaders because of their murderous "political finesse"

The new government doesn't like Hezbollah one bit, but understandably doesn't want to risk another civil war.
As a result, the new Lebanese government has adopted a "soft" approach to dealing with the Hezbollah. They let it enter the mainstream. Their calls for disarmament, while unanswered, haven't sparked any major political crisis (the electoral alliances of convenience with the Hezb have been broken, big deal).

The Lebanese government would take up arms in a heartbeat to destroy Hizbullah if they stood a prayer of winning. They only negotiate and tolerate them because they are in a position of weakness compaqred to Hizbullah. This fact in itself...a terrorist organization being more militarily powerful than a State...should ring huge alarm bells with anyone.

If the Lebanese can live in safety, prosperity, and without fear of Israeli attacks, the hezbollah claims of resistance will become quite empty. And the "solidarity with the Palestinians" meme won't exactly be as convincing as factions that support said peace and prosperity The Hezbollah, being a resistance movement, stands to lose everything with a long-lasting peace.

Hello! So you are providing a de facto reason why Hizbullah will never negotiate peace? Hizbullah kills Israelis...Hizbullah wants to destroy Israel. Peace ends their existence? Think on this one Spiff.

This is the status quo you support? Get off the altruistic idealogical soapbox that you are on and realize that these people are the problem and that eventually they would have to be dealt with.

Yes. And I think that "dealing with them" involves politics. Not killing dozens of innocents (which is the very optimistic estimate: this **** is due to continue for days, weeks, or possibly monthes).
I'm strengthened in my belief by the fact that IRA has stopped fighting after a political deal. By the fact that ETA's weakening didn't come from the death-squadrons, but from the political situation in Spain and the Basque country. By the fact that Hezbollah has existed for decades, and survived Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon very well.

Funny that, come to think of it, I can't think of any large terrorist group that has ceased to exist by using only force. But of course, political solutions include dealing with your enemy, and it would be seen as a national humiliation if Olmert did that. This hardline stance sure has done Israel a lot of good in history .

The simple reason why military solutions to terrorist are uncommon is precisely due to the crap political philosophy that has permeated the world for decades. Not every conflict is solvable by diplomacy no matter how bad we want it to be. This is especially true when after decades of trying the world can't get one side to even acknowledge that the other has a right to exist. (PLO recognition not withstanding. Although this is their "western" position on things, they put a much different spin on it on the Palestinian street) Think about that one too....

Their are only two solutions here...the destruction of the terrorist and/or their sponsor states or the the destruction of Israel. To believe that the islamic terrorist will accept a peaceful outcome that allows Israel to remain is to deny well over 30 years of history(actually...nearly 60 years of history).

What kind of **** is this?!
*calming down*
Do you realize what you wrote? According to you, the only solutions are either the destruction of Israel, or the destruction of Iran/Syria (cause these terrorist groups will just resurrect as long as the sponsor states are there anyway).
Do you realise that you just supported the destruction of two countries whose combined population is 89 million?!

Yes! I realize exactly what I am saying! You probably would still be "negotiating" with Nazis?? Sometimes their is no other option than to destroy thye enemy. Sad, but true. (And the Nazi's are excellent examples of this as well).

This idea is so horribly absurd. Please tell me: how come the Egyptians and Jordanians managed to stop calling for the destruction of Israel? Sure, they have been beaten militarily, but their countries weren't "destroyed", nor were their regimes. And they sure as heck hated Israel a few decades ago.
How come the PLO officially acknowledges Israel's right to exist? How come the leader of the Fatah put much political pressure for the Hamas to accept the idea as well? And the PLO used terror attacks extensively, back in the day.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Duh!!

Of course the Egyptians let tunnels be built on their side of the boarder to smuggle arms into Gaza, Fatah still conducts terrorism, and Jordon's leadership is quite questionable imho. Just to name a few complications to your above statement. In fairness, the modifications (won't say "changes" because that would not be accurate) to these state behaviors warrants continued effort. Looking at Iran and Syria there has been no modification at all. In fact, they are the impetus behind most of the attacks on Israel. They are heading in the other direction from the states you mentioned. The solution obviously lies in the other direction as well. Far from absurd, the idea I am proposing is the only realistic one. It is indeed absurd to continue to persue a pacifistic path when it is obvious that one side is using it simply as a cover to strike from.

In short: do you understand that political entities can change their minds? And that it doesn't take a total annihilation to reach that goal?

In short, I hope you understand that political entities chang9ing their mind is not a "given". I hope you understand that Iran and Syria are so worked up over israels destruction that diplomacy is really no longer an option. It is time to settle it.

Again, please let me emphasize how incredibly stupid the quoted question (again...not the poster...just the post)is to me. It reeks of niave idealism.

To me, your post reeks of naive "realism". The belief that force is the only answer is not only extremely dangerous, it is also extremely simplistic.

And this is the belief that killed those eight Canadians.

Edit: corrected Syria/Iran's population.

And the belief that will save the next generation from this type of horrible bloodshed.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap


he is one of the few polytubbies I have met and I like him. I would prefer not to think of him as a bigot based on the statements he has been making lately.

That is why.

Then my advice would be:
- Put him on ignore for the whole duration of the crisis. What he'll write will enrage you.
- Once the matter dies down, and when the time is less emotional, resume talking to him about it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Wrong. I am advocating destroying the root of an evil ideology just as someone would do by advocating the destruction of Nazism. The Jews didn't do anything to deserve the haulocast. To compare Arab societies continue to support terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. These people, like the German people, will continue to support evil until the cost becomes so great that they just can't go on. The Germans supported an evil ideology, the Arabs currently support an evil ideology. There is no grey zone.

There is nothing BUT grey zones.

There are lots of reasons why Arab populations support a variety of differeing ideologies (you are incorrect to lump even all Islamist together), and groups that employ "terrorist" tactics.

They range from basic Nationalism to an actual beliefe that political Islam is the way to redo their societies and fix their problems.

I am not surprised at all that Palestinians and the Shia in Lebanon would suport anti-Israeli groups. Honestly, is it that hard to think of a reason why they would approve of attacks against Israel??

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
If you're staunchly against vaccinations (some people are), then by all means, do it. I'd reply, and my pro-vaccination stance wouldn't be shaken, because vaccinations actually save people.

My point was that "innocent people died!" alone can't win this argument.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
You wait until those leaders aren't in a house full of civilians.

THAT SIMPLE.

When is the last time you heard about lost of civilians being killed when the US or hell, even the Russian, went after some major militant or terrorist? You think the people we target never go to houses with civilians?

Oh, plenty of times. It used to be we had stories a few times a month about how some house in Afghanistan was bombed because we thought it held Taliban fighters and innocents died. A couple weddings got blown up too.

Civilians do not make themselves targets simply be being near a wanted militant.

They do when they invite militant leaders into their homes.

And responsible militaries take great pains to avoid killing innocents.

They don't go so far as to make civilians a shield for the enemy.

So it is completely correct to expect more from the IDF.

The Geneva Conventions don't. In fact, they explicitly make using human shields a war crime.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Funny. Just yesterday I was accused of being a leftist.

I think he was refering less to your position on the political spectrum than to your controversial beliefs WRT Islam.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Oh, plenty of time. It used to be we had stories a few times a month about how some house in Afghanistan was bombed because we thought it held Taliban fighters and innocents died. A couple weddings got blown up too.

That is blamed on faulty intelligence, IA, we hit the wrong targetn or at the wrong time. As opposed to knowing there would be civilians there and hitting anyways.

They do when they invite militant leaders into their homes.

Sorry to break this to you, but you can invite whomever to your home. That does not make you liable to die for your hospitality, at least, to reasonable people.

They don't go so far as to make civilians a shield for the enemy.

Anyone shielded behind civilians can't act. They come out eventually.

The Geneva Conventions don't. In fact, they explicitly make using human shields a war crime.

YOu said it yourself, those people invited someone to their home. The crime then is with the ones who attacked without regard for innocent lives.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
That is blamed on faulty intelligence, IA, we hit the wrong targetn or at the wrong time. As opposed to knowing there would be civilians there and hitting anyways.

Of course we wouldn't have hit there if there were civilians inside

Sorry to break this to you, but you can invite whomever to your home. That does not make you liable to die for your hospitality, at least, to reasonable people.

If you invite military targets into your home during a war, you make yourself a target. The international law you love so much explicitly forbids using civilians as a shield.

They don't go so far as to make civilians a shield for the enemy.

Anyone shielded behind civilians can't act. They come out eventually.

Why not? A general can give orders from a home. A sniper can pick off targets from window with a 5-year old sitting next to him.

YOu said it yourself, those people invited someone to their home. The crime then is with the ones who attacked without regard for innocent lives.

"The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, art. 28)

[GePap]

I will stop waisting my time with you Kuci.

Anyways, a very good article I found, with some great insights.

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story-07140612543.htm

I highly recommend it, specially for Spiff and Elok.

[Jaguar]

If I'm not mistaken, he just completely destroyed your argument by arguing from sources, not attitudes, and you just responded by backing out of the argument as quickly as possible.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO
Additionally, the statement that Hizbullah's presence is more dependent on political conditions than An American base in ROK is absolutely ludicrous. I assume you are aware that the ROK government wants us there and the Lebanese government wishes like hell that Hizbullah will leave. I am sure you are also aware that major parts of the population want both to leave the respective countries. Further, I hope you are aware that if ROK government came out for us to leave we would be gone. What you were attempting to do with that remark is beyond me...but then so is the folly of the rest of your arguments.

Simple. You might notice that the Hezbollah is mostly present where there are people sympathetic to their cause. They're widely popular in southern Lebanon, and in southern Beirut. And that's where they're implemented. Remove the popular support, and you remove the implementation.

Political finesse in Lebanon? Yeah right! The Syrians left alright...they left Hizbullah sitting ready to be theirs and Irans proxy. They also did not leave through "political finesse"...they left when riots threatened to kill their proxy leaders because of their murderous "political finesse"

Syria could have easily sent his army in Lebanon to crush the riots. They have an established military that can hurt civilian populations very badly if they so wish, and Hezbollah is loyal to them.
Syria chose to leave, with a mix of internal and international pressure, as well with the probable idea. That's what I call "political finesse": not just nice words whispered in the ear of baby Assad, but a combination of political tools, that can reach a result without bloodshed (or with a very marginal one).
As to Syria leaving because some stooges risked to get killed... I fear you are completely off. Since when did they respect the life of their minions?

The Lebanese government would take up arms in a heartbeat to destroy Hizbullah if they stood a prayer of winning.

Yeah! I too am sure they're eager to live the nightmare again

Hello! So you are providing a de facto reason why Hizbullah will never negotiate peace? Hizbullah kills Israelis...Hizbullah wants to destroy Israel. Peace ends their existence?

1. With shifting conditions, the Hezbollah might change its doctrine, so that the group can exist even if the raison d'être doesn't. Many political groups change their values in order to continue existing despite the conditions for their support being gone.
2. Even if the Hezbollah remains hardline through and through, the lack of support from the lebanese population will considerably weaken it. Ordinary people, being against Hezbollah, will rat them out to Lebanon's/Israel's intel. They will have a much harder time hiding their logisitcs, and generally, they'll lose their effectiveness as an undergound fighting force.

The simple reason why military solutions to terrorist are uncommon is precisely due to the crap political philosophy that has permeated the world for decades. Not every conflict is solvable by diplomacy no matter how bad we want it to be. This is especially true when after decades of trying the world can't get one side to even acknowledge that the other has a right to exist. (PLO recognition not withstanding. Although this is their "western" position on things, they put a much different spin on it on the Palestinian street) Think about that one too....

If the Palestinians overwhelmingly considered that Israel had no right to exist, explain me something: when Abbas wanted Hamas to adopt the "prisoner's text" (that implicitely acknowledges Israel's right to exist), he threatened to make a referendum on it. Hamas definitely didn't want, even considered legal quibbling against the referendum, and finally chose to give in.
If the recognition of Israel was just lip-service to the westerners, which had no existence in the Palestinian public opinion, then why did Hamas fear that referendum so much?

Yes! I realize exactly what I am saying! You probably would still be "negotiating" with Nazis?? Sometimes their is no other option than to destroy thye enemy. Sad, but true. (And the Nazi's are excellent examples of this as well).

This is wonderful. You are no better than Ahmadinejad. Congrats
BTW, if I really had to choose between destroying two countries worth of 89 million people, and one country worth of 7 million people, I'll take the smaller genocide. This way, it would turn me into a monster on par with hitler. I'll let you the pleasure of being 15 times more murderous

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Duh!!

Of course the Egyptians let tunnels be built on their side of the boarder to smuggle arms into Gaza, Fatah still conducts terrorism, and Jordon's leadership is quite questionable imho. Just to name a few complications to your above statement. In fairness, the modifications (won't say "changes" because that would not be accurate) to these state behaviors warrants continued effort.

Funny that, I thought Egypt had become the most important Arabic diplomatic partner for Israel, and there was even speculation of putting Gaza under Egypt's control at some point.
I'm not saying the relation is all peachy. It isn't. But there is a complete difference between the Egypt-Israel relations of today, and those of 40 years ago.

Looking at Iran and Syria there has been no modification at all. In fact, they are the impetus behind most of the attacks on Israel.

No, that would be the Palestinians. The Pals don't need any help to want to attack Israel, considering that their territory is still very largely occupied, and that plenty of them have to live under the yoke of Israel.

They are heading in the other direction from the states you mentioned. The solution obviously lies in the other direction as well. Far from absurd, the idea I am proposing is the only realistic one. It is indeed absurd to continue to persue a pacifistic path when it is obvious that one side is using it simply as a cover to strike from.

What was the pacifistic path wrt Syria again? Syria is constantly under the threat of an Israeli attack. The Israeli menace is what constantly looms over Assad's rule, and over the Syrian's daily life. This is a "pacifistic" as the relation between the US and the USSR at the height of the cold war.
Syria would be much more cooperative if it could feel secure about its borders, and if an agreeable deal could be brokered on the Golan heights.

As to Iran: funny, but all this horror about Iran came when Ahmadinejad rose to power. Under Khatami, very few people were alerted. yet, it was the Islamic Republic all the same (and Ahmadinejad is actually less religious that any government of the Islamic Republic so far)

In short, I hope you understand that political entities chang9ing their mind is not a "given". I hope you understand that Iran and Syria are so worked up over israels destruction that diplomacy is really no longer an option. It is time to settle it.

I don't see the immense difference between Syria and Egypt, that made Egypt into an acceptable neighbour, while Syria is doomed to always be evil. Please explain me where the difference lies, I'm curious.

And the belief that will save the next generation from this type of horrible bloodshed.

After killing untold millions
Thanks, but I see you have managed to show a "solution" that happens to be even worse than the status quo. between the "solution" and the status quo, I'll happily choose the latter, thankyouverymuch.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jaguar
If I'm not mistaken, he just completely destroyed your argument by arguing from sources, not attitudes, and you just responded by backing out of the argument as quickly as possible.

You are mistaken. But that is no uncommon a thing, now is it?

If you invite someone to your home, is that person acting in a military capacity? NO.

So, for example, if you start shooting at people from a Mosque, or using that mosque for military observation, the Mosque becomes a valid military target.

If someone, even a wanted militant, goes to a mosque to pray, the mere precense of that Militant does not make the mosque a valid target.

So no, just because you invite someone to your home who happens to be wanted dead by an enemy military does not in any way make you a target. If you allow your home to become home base, a site were plans are made, then yes, but if you just invite them to your home, NO. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

I can try tyo draw it in crayon if you would like.