budullewraagh

If you engage in an aggressive war, you are responsible for the casualties you cause. To say that the "fog of war" has set in and that "civilian casualties are inevitable" is just skirting the issue: you are responsible for killing civilians because you attacked foreign soil. Also, it should be noted that I never made any judgment of the actions of any other country so you can't compare my judgment of Israel with any other judgments I may and may not have mentally made but not expressed to you. I am wrong? No, ISRAEL said it. Are they wrong? Do they misinterpret their own words? Sorry man- I wasn't interpreting their actions- I was telling you what THEY said; that everyone in southern Lebanon was a target. I also never said that Hezbollah didn't attack civilians! I said that I am appalled by the policies of Hezbollah, Israel and the United States concerning the issue at hand. Hezbollah says they target civilians, and we all believe it. Israel says they target everyone and you don't? I don't understand! Israel isn't going all out to decimate Lebanon: this would be too hard to cover up in the Western world and the political fallout would result in its isolation and eventually its destruction. No, instead they send soldiers to shoot at anything after 3 weeks of continuous aerial assaults. Yes- for most of this war Israel has little to no ground operations. Also, please don't try to condescend me because you have military experience. Through my studies and through my father, a decorated veteran of the US Navy who served at Okinowa, I have learned a great deal about war. If they don't want to kill innocent civilians then why do they ask for cluster bombs when they allegedly "know" that Hezbollah hides amongst civilians? Or are they just lying whenever they say that civilian deaths are the result of Hezbollah militants using civilians as "human shields?" They can't have it both ways. Also, why does Israel maintain that everyone in southern Lebanon is a target? Why don't they say something like "everyone in southern Lebanon who appears dangerous is a target"? Anyway, if Israel really wanted to have any success why would they say "Psst! Yo, Lebanese civilians in houses X,Y and Z. GET OUT- We're blowing up your houses in 3 hours, 24 minutes and 38 seconds. Try not to warn Hezbollah, 'cuz that'd be bad." No, I believe that Hezbollah militants would find out when they picked up the same leaflets. Then, being able to both read and move, they'd leave, totally undermining Israel's efforts to kill them. Damn, these guys are smart! What should Israel do? Well, let's assess the options: Attacking Lebanon is one step forward and two steps back...hmm... Well, to have better results, they could just not do anything. That way at least they wouldn't be back a step. Also, they could, you know, reach out to the citizens of Lebanon and get them to turn on Hezbollah by saying "do you REALLY want these people supporting you? They may just bring about your destruction," and encouraging government action against Hezbollah. Yeah well my Uncle is really poor and has deep roots in Southern Lebanon. Besides, why should he move? He's his own man and can't be pushed around! Any member of any military should know that it doesn't matter who casts the first stone: he who casts the first stone says he acts in defense. Those who respond say they act in defense, etc etc. And I CONTINUE to maintain that the IDF is guilty of state terrorism. Prove me wrong.

Whose side am I really on? I'm absolutely apalled by the actions of Hezbollah, the IDF, and the United States. I think I'll side with India on this one. When I said that it appeared that Israel was participating in acts that could be considered to be "state terrorism" I was saying that certain actions taken by the IDF were terrorist in nature. Making a cake doesn't make one a baker. Participating in the Boston Marathon doesn't make one a racist. See what I mean? However, this is mostly irrelevant. What is clear is that I have made claims that the IDF is guilty of state terrorism. By all means, be taken aback. Be shocked. Think of me as a terrible person if you so desire. Then, once you recover, prove me wrong.

I didn't. Please re-read my post. Does the fact that the US blew up villages in Afghanistan justify Israel doing the same? Speaking of oversimplification, you said: Well, no, actually. Firstly, they said that EVERYONE in southern Lebanon was a target. This includes my Uncle Mahmoud, a store owner who kind of dislikes the hold that Hezbollah has had on southern Lebanon in recent years. A few Israeli snipers shot at him but missed. He proceeded to find a grenade and lob it at a US-manufactured Israeli helicopter. The whole thing went up in flames. Now he's screaming "Jihad!" on the streets of Damascus. And to correct you, because EVERYTHING is a legitimate target (in Israel's eyes) there actually is no collateral damage to be found! Still didn't say it. Yep, Israel has been victim to lots of terrorist attacks- there's no doubt here. This still neither negates the fact that they can engage in terrorist activities themselves nor does it excuse any terrorist activities in which they may engage. Had they decided to discriminate between enemy combatant and civilian, I would have been less opposed to their efforts in Lebanon. Still opposed for other reasons, but less opposed overall. Instead they decided to disregard civilians and call everyone and everything a target. Still haven't said it. One afternoon not very long ago my Uncle Mahmoud also pondered whether he should become a terrorist. The Imam representing Islamic Jihad helped him decide. Thinking for some time about whether you should engage in terrorist activities doesn't mean that the actions you choose to pursue are suddenly not terrorist in nature. No, terrorism isn't random fanaticism happening on a whim- most all attacks are planned out long in advance. I'm sure Israel also pondered whether they should attack Hezbollah militants, Lebanese civilians or both. Incidentally they chose both, though they apparently proved to be far more adept in killing civilians than Hezbollah militants. No, but I also wouldn't expect America to (because of the attack by a few crazed extremist) declare that my brother Jean-Luc is a legitimate target, especially considering how much he resents those crazy people who attacked New York. By the way, I actually think the Lebanese government is too weak to do anything about Hezbollah. Really, they have no military. They do appreciate Hezbollah's power and ability to defend their borders, and may and may not oppose Hezbollah's actions against Israel. Well, just because of the effects that Israel has had on Lebanon, the Lebanese government is probably against Hezbollah AND Israel at this point. Yeah, but have I stated my opinions concerning those wars? Does the fact that they happened legitimize Israel's terrorist actions? Nope. Also, I'd like to add that I said that targeting civilians is a terrorist act, not invading a country in self-defense. Still haven't said it.

Looks like Israel is a bit smarter than the US. Looks also like they finally followed my line of thinking, concerning gains v losses. [link]http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2309642[/link] I'm not particularly fond of those leaflets, however- effectively it's Israel being terrorist when you think about it. By the numbers: 4.5 weeks of fighting yield: -789 dead in Lebanon, "mostly civilians" -39 Israeli civilians killed -115 Israeli soldiers dead You know, that's a lot of civilian casualties. Maybe it's because of this policy: [link]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/28/wmid28.xml[/link] Yep, that sounds like state terrorism.

Conservatives supporting a "cut-and-run" strategy? Zounds!

Like they'd ever be able to annex Lebanon.

Jim, what are you saying about the authoritarian structures? Please elaborate. And no, I completely disagree with your belief that Muslims now are just pissed off about their alleged lack of economic, military and scientific failures in recent years. Do you honestly think that a sort of "bad sportsmanship" stance would make people become this extreme? Especially when they have so many other reasons, namely their exploitation by the Western world? No way man. If I were in Israel's position I CERTAINLY would not have invaded Lebanon. When I compared it to Iraq I was pointing out the cost (in lives and in money) of the entire operation. Yes, there has been some success in Iraq. Regardless, the cost has been tremendous. Now take that kind of situation and apply it to Israel. Do you honestly think that they will ever be able to fund an operation on that scale? Hezbollah is extremely skilled in the practice of waging war with Israel and it shows- Israel has hardly made any progress in the first month of fighting and Hezbollah continues to fire rockets into Israel. What would I have done? I would have negotiated. I would have asked the UN for some help. Why? Hezbollah is far less likely to attack UN troops than its sworn enemy. What else? I would have done what Israel has been very skilled at in its history- I would have hunted down leaders of Hezbollah and killed them. I would not have invaded Lebanon without any possibility of eliminating the enemy ESPECIALLY if it were to result in the extremization of a population. Think of it now, Pangloss- you say they should fight because it can yield positive results, just like in Iraq. I say that while Israel may and may not damage Hezbollah, they are also going to make a population support Hezbollah even more and even effectively recruit more Hezbollah militants. One step forward, two steps back. There are better ways to fight- make the Lebanese people hate Hezbollah. The war is uniting Lebanese civilians (kind of like what happens in every nation, the US included- consider 9/11) against Israel and in favor of Hezbollah. Once again, it's the "they're screwing us, so let's do it back to them" mentality. Plus, the Lebanese believe that Hezbollah is actually defending them, which is actually true, considering the whole issue of Israel totally disregarding civilians. Cluster missiles are very imprecise and have a far greater area of effect than other forms of weapons, hands down. Incidentally, under the Arms Export Control Act, it's illegal for the US to give weapons to a nation that uses such weapons in violation of UN resolutions. Also, under the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the sale of weapons to nations that "engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights" is prohibited. Anyway, as far as occupation goes, it's ridiculous. Israel is still occupying the West Bank and that is what makes Palestinians hate them. Interestingly, since the election of Hamas members to the Palestinian government, there has been a cease-fire between Israel and militant Hamas. Well, aside from that week-long artillery barrage of Palestinian neighborhoods presented on World News Tonight (the reporter actually flinched several times as artillery shells exploded near him) in response to the kidnapping of Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit, but that's it. Anyway, the point is that because of this ceasefire there IS hope for a lasting peace. Now all we need to do is stop giving them reasons to hate us and hope that we're lucky. A good way to ensure our success is to help Palestinians- that way, instead of us being at the root of Uncle Mahmoud's death, we'll be the cool people who got Uncle Mahmoud a job and a footing in life. Hey, it's better to receive aid from the US than Iran and the like, which give aid on the condition that recipients join and fight for extremist groups. Also, I'd like to add that Arafat was just about as good of a representative of Palestine as Ann Coulter would be of the current US population.

No, I never missed the Milgram effect, nor did I miss the Zimbardo effect. Of course people will put their morals on the back burner if they have to. The thing is, this only happens AFTER they submit to an authority. When they are poor and starving, they are not at the mercy of powerful Islamic extremist leaders. When they realize that they can gain security, stability and acceptance in an extremist group they compromise their morals, just as the subjects of Milgram's experiment, Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment and members of crack gangs in Chicago compromise(d) theirs. I'm not saying that terrorism started because of our actions. What I am saying, however, is that terrorism is a very poorly defined word. On news reports we hear that Iraqi insurgents are "terrorists." This may and may not be true- any of the individuals that reports refer to may actually have no intentions of ever killing civilians and may only fire at enemy soldiers. We also never consider Israeli soldiers to be terrorists, but tell that to the Palestinians and Lebanese, whose children are being killed every day as "collateral" damage. The legitimacy of these claims lessens significantly if you really take a close look into the issues. For example, every time there are civilian casualties, Israel blames "terrorists" for using "human shields." This is not necessarily true in any scenario, but it's a good excuse. On the other hand, Israel is now using cluster missiles and actually asking for a rushed delivery of said missiles so they can use them against Hezbollah. If they actually cared at all about civilians they would use more precise weapons- they claim that Hezbollah hides amongst civilians, so why kill more innocents with more devastating explosive devices? THAT is terrorism, and THAT legitimizes the fight that Hezbollah brings to Israel's doorstep. Again, it's the "if they did it to my uncle Mahmoud, I can do it to them" mentality that is now extremizing the Muslim world. Again, Israel is going out of its way to kill civilians. And really, what do they have to gain from this war? In 1982 they were in Beirut in 2 days. This past month they've gained a few hundred yards. Furthermore, all they've done is ruined the infrastructure of Lebanon- Hezbollah has hardly been hurt. Lebanon is turning into another Iraq, except this time we're seeing a FAR weaker force than the US that is on the offensive. Really, the operation is pretty much doomed to fail, so I have to ask what the point is.

A few points: Jim, please do speak for Bush. As you said, it's difficult for him to be articulate. Interpret away! Bettina, your logic makes no sense. If I were to stand on a busy street corner with a microphone and I were to continuously advertise my island as a great place to stay, with no running water, no shelter and daily executions, but different from such terrible places as the Ritz Carlton hotel, how many people do you think would come to my island? No, the average Muslim doesn't join a group that says "Hi, we want you to fight for us, with high likelihood of you dying, in order to try to bother those terrible "free" people and in order to make sure that we can continue to oppress you and your family." Put yourself in the shoes of the average Muslim in, say, Syria. Your government is oppressing you and you hate it. You're poor and if you have a job you make barely enough to survive. What do you do? You join a radical group and get food, shelter and acceptance. Plus, you also kill those people who killed your new best friend's dad. @Jim: Of course terrorists won't stop if we stop. If the US were to become an isolationist state, maybe in 50 years terrorist groups seeking to destroy the US would stop getting support in the form of new members for the reason that the US has done bad things to Muslims. Eventually they would change their goals away from destroying the US and towards other things, but as I said, this would be a long time from now and no politician wants to just back off. It should be understood, however, that every innocent killed in the US' and Israel's "meddlings" legitimizes terrorist attacks against the US and Israel. If I were some guy from Iran and my uncle Mahmoud, an innocent civilian, was killed in some Israeli attack in Lebanon I'd be far more likely to support the fight against Israel than I would otherwise. Had Israel not been self-destructive and actually cared about civilians, it wouldn't have effectively won me over for terrorist groups. Come to think of it, my whole poverty case is mirrored in Freakonomics. Check out the part on crack gangs in Chicago- apparently a great number of these gang members actually really oppose the concept of doing crack. However, because there are great benefits in being in such gangs, they stay. As a footnote, I'd like to commend Sayo for an excellent post.

Sorry guys, but it's completely ridiculous to say things like "uh, they hate us because they hate our freedom." Really, do you honestly think that anyone is going to buy the argument that freedom is terrible and that they must honor God by killing everything representative of democracy, freedom, and the like? The Real Reasons: -Poverty Young, poor Muslim men from a number of nations are likely to embrace groups such as Al Qaida and Islamic Jihad in order to find stability and acceptance- think of it as similar to how troubled youths around here join street gangs. They may not even believe in the cause that they fight for but they are members of radical groups in order to survive. During their stay they may radically change their beliefs through the propaganda that comes with their education. -Israel/Palestine/Lebanon Muslims really hate it when the US <a http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F6061EFB395D0C7B8EDDAE0894DA484D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fB%2fBoycotts">sanctions</a> terrorist actions by the Israeli army (if you really doubt this I can PM you dozens of links). Nations like Syria and Iran help Palestine enough to show that they are supportive, but little enough to not have any significant impact- they know that radical Islam thrives on exploitation of the Palestinians' plight. Now they are able to exploit problems in Lebanon. Israel isn't exactly <a href="http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/24/isrlpa13798.htm">helping</a> themselves and I am very <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/11/world/middleeast/11military.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin">skeptical</a> of their intentions (refer to the last link: don't they always blame civilian casualties on Hezbollah using civilians as "shields?" If they actually cared about civilians wouldn't they choose something aside from cluster bombs?) <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/02/qana.inquiries/index.html">Yes, I believe so</a>). They know they cannot rid Lebanon of Hezbollah- in 1982 they were able to make it to Beirut in 2 days. Now they've spent a month gaining a few hundred yards. So, what do they have to gain? Hardly anything. What do they have to lose? Well, they can certainly <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745185.html">lose</a> political power and <a href="http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34254">extremize</a> a population against them. What you have to realize is that most Muslims are moderates, like you and I. You have to ask yourself the question: "What would it take to make me become a crazy radical militant?" If you really think that some group of people far away having a different lifestyle is enough, you may want to seek psychiatric evaluation.

Here's a good question: Why do you think the US and Israel are hated by so many Muslims?

It was indeed a bad way for Zidane to go out especially after that perfect header that nearly won his team the cup. On the other hand, good for him, not taking anything from the Materazzi. France wasn't losing, so he obviously wasn't just being a bad sport. It was a bit of an extreme reaction, no doubt, but not necessarily red-cardable considering how Mataerazzi was practically molesting him before. And who knows what was being said? Zidane also waited until the ref wasn't watching, so he technically shouldn't have gotten the card, though FIFA disagrees. My initial reaction was one of shock and awe: shock that he actually headbutted the guy and awe that he was able to totally level the guy with a headbutt square in the sternum. Mighty strong neck muscles required to do that.

SO2 is not necessarily particularly soluble. The reaction will increase the temperature of the water, causing the SO2 to become less soluble in the water. Yes, at 25 celsius, SO2 may dissolve 9.4 grams (approximately 0.147 moles) in 100mL of water, but that number decreases rapidly with temperature increase, almost halving (5.0g/100mL or approximately 0.078 moles/100mL) at 50 celsius. The enthalpy from the oxidation of sulfur from sulfite to sulfate should be sufficient to make SO2 significantly less soluble than at room temperature unless we are to consider consider very dilute solutions.

SO2 isn't very soluble. a fun way to make SO3 is to take SO2 and oxygen and pass them over vanadium pentoxide at 450-600 degrees celsius. That'll give you SO3

the worst part is the whole "support our troops or support bin laden" thing

The reaction actually results in HCl and your chlorinated propane

not EPA troubles. check out my post (control+f and search for united nuclear) at this site: http://www.independent-thinkers.blogspot.com/

Mods, if this is the wrong place for me to post this, I apologize in advance. Come see a political blog that myself and three friends recently created: http://www.independent-thinkers.blogspot.com Feel free to respond to posts with comments.

don't forget hydroboration!

well, the white stuff that is sprayed everywhere when a cannon is fired is the K2S, correct?

wouldnt it be that some of the S is oxidized and then the rest is reduced to K2S?

hephaestus, i only mentioned the S oxidation+hydrolysis because it's madly cheap. if you do it properly, the SO3+H2O won't blow up. mineral acids are arrhenius acids that arent organic. this is inclusive of H2SO4, HNO3, H3PO4, HF, HCl, HMnO4, H2CrO4, HClO4, and a host of others.

i think it would be interesting to make a generator using burning S and a V2O5 catalyst to form SO3, which bubbles into water

removed due to copyright infringement. that's too bad

alcohols may react with hydroxide, as mentioned above. however, something like ethanol really won't. the pKa of ethanol is approximately 16, whereas the pKa of water is about 15. ethoxide (EtO-) is therefore a stronger base than hydroxide, and so it holds onto its protons more strongly.