The Middle East Continues...

[Arrian]

Originally posted by MOBIUS




Indeed I would like one of the pro-Israeli lot to point out all the things Israel has accomplished, such as destroying hezb, or at least getting them to stop firing their missiles into Israel...

All I am seeing is the systematic destruction of a peaceful neighbour, the deaths of hundreds of children and the 'Mediterranean's worst ever environmental catastrophe'...

Not quite going to plan is it...?

Oy. "Systemic destruction" of a "peaceful" neighbor. Typical MOBIUS hyperbole.

The destruction is very real, yes, but "systemic" seems like an overstatement to me. That's a quibble, though. Setting that aside, the "peaceful" assertion is just comic. Hezbollah is part of Lebanon. I understand that Lebanon is more than just Hezbollah, but the two are far too intertwined to claim that Lebanon is a simple innocent victim and "peaceful neighbor.

So once again it's the "brutal rottweiler" evil Israel against the poor, innocent defenseless [insert group here]. It's not that simple, man.

But again, Israel's plan - or lack thereof - doesn't look good to me. And I obviously dislike the loss of life and other destruction.

-Arrian

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Arrian
Oy. "Systemic destruction" of a "peaceful" neighbor. Typical MOBIUS hyperbole.

The destruction is very real, yes, but "systemic" seems like an overstatement to me.

Are you honestly trying to tell me this destruction is random instead!!? If you are going to argue semantics - at least try and do it properly...

They are doing it in a slow and methodical manner, things that are still standing they haven't gotten round to yet - can we at least agree that the transport infrastructure has been either systematically destroyed, or at least put out of action. Indeed...

That's a quibble, though.

So good of you to admit that...

Setting that aside, the "peaceful" assertion is just comic. Hezbollah is part of Lebanon. I understand that Lebanon is more than just Hezbollah, but the two are far too intertwined to claim that Lebanon is a simple innocent victim and "peaceful neighbor.

Hezb is part of Lebanon because it is part of the democratic process - I thought you yanks were supposed to be into democracy, or have you suddenly gone soft on that too not all these democracies are getting uppity and not playing to Uncle Sam's hymn sheet?

That is why hezb has a couple of cabinet ministers - but they certainly don't run the country! Indeed one of the main reasons Lebanon is unable to control southern Lebanon and adequately police hezb is that they aren't allowed to! To say that the Lebanese govt as a whole is responsible for the crimes of a small minority of its members is preposterous...

It is Hezb the IDF should be targeting - and hezb alone!

So once again it's the "brutal rottweiler" evil Israel against the poor, innocent defenseless [insert group here]. It's not that simple, man.

Actually it is. Israel's response against Lebanon is so disproportionately unjustified it defies common sense...

But again, Israel's plan - or lack thereof - doesn't look good to me. And I obviously dislike the loss of life and other destruction.

-Arrian

No it doesn't does it?

Nearly 1,000 people, most of them civilians, have been killed in the conflict, the Lebanese government has said. More than 100 Israelis, most of them soldiers, have also been killed.

I ask again. Who are the real terrorists in this conflict?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MOBIUS




I ask again. Who are the real terrorists in this conflict?

Terrorist - Someone who employs terrorism


ter·ror·ism Audio pronunciation of "terrorism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


For the claim of Isarael to be branded as a terrorist state one would have to prove Israel's intention to coerce a society or government. I see no arguement laid out for such an assertion, merely that Israel has been indiscrimanant in their use of military force.

OTOH the case is fairly clear in respect to Hezb.

[Flubber]

While I find a lot to admire in the history of Israel . . . the way in which they continue to survive, even thrive, despite hostile neighbors. The manner in which their state was created and the wars that ensued . . . its truly amazing.

I admit my bias in that I tend to favor Israel in their confliicts but this time I think they have been induced into an overrreaction. They may reduce the numbe rof missiles flying into their lands at the cost of creating hundreds and thousands of new militants that hate Israel (even among people that had been moderate)

The question for Israel is what do you do ? IT appears that pull outs andwithdrawals were insufficient to STOP attacks on Israel but perhaps with time, such actions might have lead to moderate forces gaining eneough power to prevent the bulk of these attacks. We'll never know now since both sides seemm to be headed for hard stances

[Arrian]

Hezb is part of Lebanon because it is part of the democratic process - I thought you yanks were supposed to be into democracy, or have you suddenly gone soft on that too not all these democracies are getting uppity and not playing to Uncle Sam's hymn sheet?

Yes, we like democracy over here, flawed as it sometimes is. Today I will vote in a primary election and help (hopefully) oust Senator Joe Lieberman. You may have heard of him. He enjoys Bush.

Nowhere in my post did I suggest that Hezbollah wasn't part of the democratic process in Lebanon. In fact, there was much hope that their involvement in said process would result in the moderation of the organization from a freedom-fighter/terror (take your pick) org. to a political party that exchanged its guns for campaign slogans. Unfortunately, this has not yet happened.

Is the average Lebanese citizen at fault for Hezbollah's actions? No. But ultimately the state of Lebanon bears some responsibility for an organization that is a part of the government and conducts military operations against a neighboring state. THAT is what I'm saying. Therefore, "peaceful neighbor" is just flat-out bull****.

It is Hezb the IDF should be targeting - and hezb alone!

Well gosh, that should be easy!

Actually it is. Israel's response against Lebanon is so disproportionately unjustified it defies common sense...

Bah. This concept of "proportionate response" is utter crap. It's the question of who is being targetted that is the problem. If Israel could manage to miraculously find and attack only Hezbollah, they could be as disproportionate as they damned well please! Unfortunately, because Hezbollah isn't about to get involved in pitched battles with the IDF, this has developed into a punative expedition against all of Lebanon, and that's the problem I see with it.

EDIT: wait a minute... "disproportionately unjustified..." meaning that it's unjustified and... what, more unjustified than Hezb's soldier-snatching?

I ask again. Who are the real terrorists in this conflict?

Everyone seems to have a different definition of "terrorism." To me, Hezbollah are the terrorists here, but as I've said many times, Israeli tactics leave quite a bit to be desired. A pox on both their ****ing houses.

-Arrian

[muxec]

At the end of our independence war our terroristic organisations either joined the army or willingly disarmed selves or were disarmed. Why can't it be done in Lebanon?

Soon DinoDoc will get company in my ignore list.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Those Bloodthirsty Christians...!!!

Originally posted by MOBIUS

.

So again, I put it to you that muslims didn't excessively start hating jews until they started muscling in on Palestine in the 20th C. Indeed jews often flocked to muslim lands to find sanctuary from those evil christians (like Martin Luther)...

So you find muslim persecution of Jews over the centuries to not be "excessive" You need to reread the history. It may be less than among christians, but it was not what id call acceptable.

BTW, at times in the middle ages Jews fled FROM muslim Spain to Christian Spain.

Also look at the history of Jews in the Ottoman empire during the 19th C.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Everyone seems to have a different definition of "terrorism." To me, Hezbollah are the terrorists here, but as I've said many times, Israeli tactics leave quite a bit to be desired. A pox on both their ****ing houses.

-Arrian

Im sure theyd appreciate tactical suggestions from you.

I dont see how a person as reasonable as you sometimes seem to be could want a pox on their house.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Flubber
While I find a lot to admire in the history of Israel . . . the way in which they continue to survive, even thrive, despite hostile neighbors. The manner in which their state was created and the wars that ensued . . . its truly amazing.

I admit my bias in that I tend to favor Israel in their confliicts but this time I think they have been induced into an overrreaction. They may reduce the numbe rof missiles flying into their lands at the cost of creating hundreds and thousands of new militants that hate Israel (even among people that had been moderate)

The question for Israel is what do you do ? IT appears that pull outs andwithdrawals were insufficient to STOP attacks on Israel but perhaps with time, such actions might have lead to moderate forces gaining eneough power to prevent the bulk of these attacks. We'll never know now since both sides seemm to be headed for hard stances

the notion that after the withdrawls and pullouts were followed by attacks, and the conversion of the areas from which Israel withdrew into terror havens, that the Israeli polity would have tolerated FURTHER withdrawls is just incredibly naive. Look at a map. Look at how far Qassams launched from Gaza land, and how far Katyushas from Lebanon land. Now imagine an Israeli withdrawl from the West Bank to the Green Line, or even to the lines proposed by Barak at Camp David. Youd have Katyushas in downtown Tel Aviv, and hardly any parts of Israel out of range. And the Israeli public knows it.

Arrian is right, that at least at this point many questions can be raised about Olmerts strategy. But from what i can gather most of those in Israel questioning Olmert, are more inclined to the idea that he should have gone in on the ground, faster and harder. The IDF seems to have underestimated how dug in Hezbollah was, and how hard it would be to take out missiles from the air.

[Arrian]

It's an expression, LotM, for goodness sake. It's just frustration.

In truth, I want nothing of the sort. I wish I could, in fact, simply cease to care at all. It would be far easier.

As for tactics... obviously I'm just a regular guy (With a regular job, I'm your average white, suburbanite slob
I like football, and porno, and books about war. I've got an average house, with a nice hardwood floor...)

but it seems to me that collective punishment hasn't worked very well for Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians or the Lebanese. I'm sure the IDF tried to target Hezbollah, but there is no way they could destroy the organization by force, certainly not via aerial bombardment (but IMO even with ground invasion). Meanwhile, the destruction was expanded to include targets that had - at best - very loose connections to Hezbollah. It became a war on Lebanon, or at least it looks that way. And that is, IMO, wrong (and stupid). But what do I know?

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
It's an expression, LotM, for goodness sake. It's just frustration.

In truth, I want nothing of the sort. I wish I could, in fact, simply cease to care at all. It would be far easier.

As for tactics... obviously I'm just a regular guy (With a regular job, I'm your average white, suburbanite slob
I like football, and porno, and books about war. I've got an average house, with a nice hardwood floor...)

but it seems to me that collective punishment hasn't worked very well for Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians or the Lebanese. I'm sure the IDF tried to target Hezbollah, but there is no way they could destroy the organization by force, certainly not via aerial bombardment (but IMO even with ground invasion). Meanwhile, the destruction was expanded to include targets that had - at best - very loose connections to Hezbollah. It became a war on Lebanon, or at least it looks that way. And that is, IMO, wrong (and stupid). But what do I know?

-Arrian

The expression "pox on both their houses"is one I use selectively. Like if two nasty dictatorships fight one another.

1. I dont think they ever intended to wipe out Hezb top to bottom by force. They DID intend to wipe out its rocket inventory, its military command and control, and enough of its fighters to make its militia a non-force in Leb politics. They could STILL do that, if they had the time. Which they dont. I dont know if they could have done it by going in sooner.

2. Most of the Leb targets were transportation infra, which they took out to prevent it being used for the benefit of Hezb.

3. I wouldnt judge the political impact on Lebanon yet.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
It's an expression, LotM, for goodness sake. It's just frustration.

In truth, I want nothing of the sort. I wish I could, in fact, simply cease to care at all. It would be far easier.

As for tactics... obviously I'm just a regular guy (With a regular job, I'm your average white, suburbanite slob
I like football, and porno, and books about war. I've got an average house, with a nice hardwood floor...)

but it seems to me that collective punishment hasn't worked very well for Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians or the Lebanese. I'm sure the IDF tried to target Hezbollah, but there is no way they could destroy the organization by force, certainly not via aerial bombardment (but IMO even with ground invasion). Meanwhile, the destruction was expanded to include targets that had - at best - very loose connections to Hezbollah. It became a war on Lebanon, or at least it looks that way. And that is, IMO, wrong (and stupid). But what do I know?

-Arrian

some of my friends would say that restraint, negotiation, concession and withdrawl havent worked to well. I try to tell them that if they havent gotten Israel peace, theyve at least gotten Israel support in the world. They laugh and point to Europe. Well at least support in the US. If it hasnt even won over American "moderates" and the firmest supporters of Israel in the US are folks whod like Israel to be tougher, I dont have much left to say to them. That Israel has a moral obligation to sacrifice its people, or that Israel was founded based on injustice, is NOT something Im going to say them, or that I believe, as Im sure you understand.

[Arrian]

some of my friends would say that restraint, negotiation, concession and withdrawl havent worked to well.

Nothing has worked very well. It's a very difficult situation. But military force hasn't worked in the past either, and it has costs just like "negotiation, concession and withdrawl." Which is better? Gotta pick one, right?

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Nothing has worked very well. It's a very difficult situation. But military force hasn't worked in the past either, and it has costs just like "negotiation, concession and withdrawl." Which is better? Gotta pick one, right?

-Arrian

Its not military force vs not military force. Its military force with restraint, (plus the negotiations and concessions and withdrawl) vs military force with less restraint, and absent the other 3. Some would argue the costs of military force without restraint (say really flattening Bint Jubail from the air, instead of sending in ground troops to die there, and dropping "precision" bombs on select targets, with the result that Israeli is called barbaric ANYWAY) are not higher than the costs of military force WITH restraint. Again, my argument is that Israel would lose US support, a major cost. But, honestly, I know Israel wouldnt lose support from the Republican Right (some of whom are disappointed at Israeli restraint) If Gentiles on the center dont see the difference between Israel and Hezbollah, to the point where they can say "pox on both your houses" or "id rather not care" the political benefits of restraint and concession look increasingly thin.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


the notion that after the withdrawls and pullouts were followed by attacks, and the conversion of the areas from which Israel withdrew into terror havens, that the Israeli polity would have tolerated FURTHER withdrawls is just incredibly naive. Look at a map. Look at how far Qassams launched from Gaza land, and how far Katyushas from Lebanon land. Now imagine an Israeli withdrawl from the West Bank to the Green Line, or even to the lines proposed by Barak at Camp David. Youd have Katyushas in downtown Tel Aviv, and hardly any parts of Israel out of range. And the Israeli public knows it.
.

You just said better what I was trying to say. If you thought otherwise I must have been unclear. Israel saw attacks after major concessions on their part. The hope in making concessions is that peace can ensue but if it does not, there is little tolerance to sit by quietly while under attack.

So understandably IMHO Israel reacted (the scope is a bity less understandable . But in the hardening of its own stance, a hardening of Lebanese positions is also inevitable and we are probably further from a real peace than we were. But perhaps that real peace is an illusion and the best Israel can hope for is to be perpetually degrading the abilities of their enemies to prevent the effectiveness of their strikes. Thats not a happy thought though....


I do believe that any real lasting resolution can only come if moderates rule Lebanon and are strong enough militarily and politically to stand up the hezbollah or whomever else may wish to fire into Israel. I don't know how you get that to occurr though . .. If it ever does happen, you may get away from the situation where Israel dfeels the need to attack every so often in the name of their own security