Jump to content

New Middle Eastern War


padren

Recommended Posts

I disagree Lebanon's Prime Minister did offer a cease fire from the beginning.

 

However, it is not the Lebanese Prime Minister that Israel is fighting. You can be sure that a cease fire between Israel and Hezbollah would effectively be a cease fire only on the Israeli side. The cease-fire would be temporary, and this mess would start all over again.

 

Lebanon does not have the will or the resources to stop Hezbollah, so a cease-fire offered by the Lebanese government is meaningless.

 

I said that ? I'm perhaps a little naive, but I think all human life are equally valuable. Focusing all our energy on a particular region and a particular problem that is killing a few people while dozens of thousand humans life are lost each day without any mention, that's unjustifiable. A really small part of human suffering is given a disproportionate amount of attention, why ?

 

No, no. you didn't actually say that. But, it's effectively what your words boil down to.

 

You are essentially the ones who is putting value on human life, when you allow some people to be killed, in favor of a different cause. To be sure, the amount of starvation and disease killing people off is attrocious, and we should certainly invest energy into getting at the root of the problem. But we would be foolish to ignore another threat elsewhere, just because it seems smaller.

 

Yes I see the reasoning and frankly it scares me to see people this evil to suggest the preemptive murder of women and children. Which is the decision it comes down to.

 

Sane people would initiate peace talks regardless and if they had this much hatred inside them they would find it in their hearts to resign.

 

Please keep in mind, that the reason why civilian casualties have seemed so high on the Lebanese side, is that Hezbollah is rooted in many civilian buildings and infrastructure.

 

It is Hezbollah who is drawing Israeli fire to civilians. But look how the media loves to point fingers at Israel and say that they are woman and baby killers.

 

The civilian deaths are terribly unfortunate, but you should not ignore the responsibility of Hezbollah in that matter.

 

Of course, you can still argue the necessity of such a harsh response. That is still up for debate, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ecoli is right, and talking about the Lebanese PM's cease fire demand as if it were an "offer" indicates a severe misunderstanding of the political and tactical situation, not to mention what the man was actually saying. He was asking for the UN to step in and broker a deal.

 

As to whether Israel's actions constitute "terrorism", I disagree. They're attacking strategic targets, I agree, but that's not the same thing as deliberately attacking civilians. More to the point, their actions have a specific, tactical purpose that has nothing to do with instilling fear. I may not entirely agree with it, but pawning it off with an easy label like "terrorism" just undermines the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhoh...

 

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/printer_1182138.php

 

Iran's parliament speaker Gholam-Ali Hadad-Adel earlier Tuesday addressed a state-organized anti-Israel rally of thousands of Iranians who declared their readiness to be dispatched to Lebanon to fight against Israel. He threatened that no place in Israel was safe from Hezbollah attacks.

 

'The war has just begun, today is the day of resistance, today is the day of liberation of Palestine and there will be no safe spot in the occupied territories (Israel) anymore from Hezbollah attacks,' he told an anti-Israeli gathering in the Palestine Square in downtown Tehran.

 

Ahmadinejad last year called for the elimination of Israel from the Islamic world map and its relocation to Europe or America. He also termed the Holocaust a 'fairytale.' On Saturday he compared the Israeli administration to German dictator Adolf Hitler and said that 'just like Hitler, the Zionist regime (Israel) is just looking for a pretext for launching military attacks.'

 

But Iran would never stoop so low... right? Looking for a pretext to launch military attacks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhoh...

 

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/printer_1182138.php

 

 

 

But Iran would never stoop so low... right? Looking for a pretext to launch military attacks...

 

Iran is a country run by a liar and that liar takes orders from other liars. They won't take on Israel directly but rather in some sort of clandestine operations to keep the conflict going. This buys them time to continue pursuing nuclear weapons. But yes, they would stoop that low to do some clandestine activities.

 

Bee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please keep in mind' date=' that the reason why civilian casualties have seemed so high on the Lebanese side, is that Hezbollah is rooted in many civilian buildings and infrastructure.

 

It is Hezbollah who is drawing Israeli fire to civilians. But look how the media loves to point fingers at Israel and say that they are woman and baby killers. [/quote']

This raises an interesting point. The fact is Israel are killing woman and babies (as are Hezbollah). I think you would agree with me that the great majority of the casualties in this conflict (so far) have been civilians and have been on the Lebanese side. I think it all boils down to whether it is morally justifiable to kill so many civilians and destroy billions of dollars in infrastructure to get at the terrorists who only "represent" a fraction of that country.

 

How many civilians, for example, would Israel be willing to sacrifice to get at one terrorist? 2? 10? 50? Would they bomb a civilian target in Israel if they knew a terrorist was hiding there? (I think not). Does this make them any better than the terrorists?

 

I keep coming back to the old saying that "two wrongs don't make a right" To me the strikes seem extraordinarily disproportionate, and almost certainly counter-productive in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran is a country run by a liar and that liar takes orders from other liars.

That made me laugh.... You could just easily replace "Iran" with "USA" in that sentence and would still be true.

 

But seriously I think people give Iran way more credit than its due.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That made me laugh.... You could just easily replace "Iran" with "USA" in that sentence and would still be true.

 

But seriously I think people give Iran way more credit than its due.

 

I won't argue with that. I have issues with my government too. :)

 

Bee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This raises an interesting point. The fact is Israel are killing woman and babies (as are Hezbollah). I think you would agree with me that the great majority of the casualties in this conflict (so far) have been civilians and have been on the Lebanese side. I think it all boils down to whether it is morally justifiable to kill so many civilians and destroy billions of dollars in infrastructure to get at the terrorists who only "represent" a fraction of that country.

 

How many civilians' date=' for example, would Israel be willing to sacrifice to get at one terrorist? 2? 10? 50? Would they bomb a civilian target in Israel if they knew a terrorist was hiding there? (I think not). Does this make them any better than the terrorists?

 

I keep coming back to the old saying that "two wrongs don't make a right" To me the strikes seem extraordinarily disproportionate, and almost certainly counter-productive in the long run.[/quote']

 

Sadly, I don't have an answer for that, though it is the sole reason why the operation is controversal, in my eyes.

 

The way I see it right now, Lebanon failed to carry out a UN resolution (I believe it was passed in 2000?) to remove Hezbollah. Lebanon failed to do so.

Therefore, Israel is somewhat justified in attacking Lebanese infrastructure, as long as they help restore it afterwards... I'm fairly certain that they will.

 

But seriously I think people give Iran way more credit than its due.

 

Perhaps. I seriously doubt that Iran citizens are going to march to Lebanon any time soon, but still, his words are still troubling. In a time of propaganda and lies, these sorts of statements and rallies can only make things worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This raises an interesting point. The fact is Israel are[/i'] killing woman and babies (as are Hezbollah). I think you would agree with me that the great majority of the casualties in this conflict (so far) have been civilians and have been on the Lebanese side.

 

In every war civilians are killed but wars do sometime have to be fought.

 

We are probably not getting the statistics on Hezbollah losses but it is Hezbollah that has nestled its rockets among civilians and it is the Lebanese who failed to dislodge those rockets from within striking distance of Israel.

 

I think it all boils down to whether it is morally justifiable to kill so many civilians and destroy billions of dollars in infrastructure to get at the terrorists who only "represent" a fraction of that country.

 

If Israel always responds to armed incursions with only predictable and proportionate responses, Hezbollah will continue to flourish. This action is about Israel changing the calculation for all of the parties involved.

 

Israel's population is made of survivors of the worst event in human history. They take the words of fascists promising genocide very seriously as should we all. Israel is facing the relatively near term possibility of a nuclear armed Iran.

 

Yet the world that once stood silent is now shocked when Israel acts as if its survival is at stake.

 

How many civilians, for example, would Israel be willing to sacrifice to get at one terrorist? 2? 10? 50? Would they bomb a civilian target in Israel if they knew a terrorist was hiding there? (I think not). Does this make them any better than the terrorists?

 

How many civilians will be lost if Israel is "wiped off of the map." Another six million plus.

 

I keep coming back to the old saying that "two wrongs don't make a right" To me the strikes seem extraordinarily disproportionate, and almost certainly counter-productive in the long run.

 

The threat of force in response to force is called deterrence. Carrying through with that threat when attacked is called credibility. Being unpredictable in that response is called being smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hello

 

to the original question, of could this lead to a wider conflict. yes very easily. the entire region is not overly stable politically, and a number of nations there, such as syria, saudia arabia, jordan, and egypt could easily see their governments fall to fundamental islamic movements with in those nations.

in the past most of those countries have given lip service to the destruction of isreal and expect for 1 true attempt, most have aided palestinians by moving in seizing and occupying their land. so why do they not open more friendly dialogs with isreal, most of those nations have taken in large amounts of refugees who do want isreal destroyed. so if your a leader in one of those countries if you have any brains you shout death to isreal and make a token effort to aid the cause. peaceful overtones gains you a wonderful gift like the one bestowed on anwar sadat in egypt.

though a long conflict mainly it has been limited to a few hundred deaths yearly on both the parts of isreal and the islamic fighters. and though it sounds cruel to say those numbers are exceptable to most other nations. The numbers that would result from a full out war would be in the hundred of thousands. casualty numbers are exceptable if all out war can be avoided (and yes i understand no deaths should be truely acceptable, but most nations have given up on the concept that there can be peace in the region. it is becoming more a question of how we can have the fewest deaths resulting from the conflict, and how can a widing of the conflict be achieved. for to have peace you must have people that want peace, and here that is not the case now or anytime in the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately isreal sees southern lebanon as a threat to their security that may need to be occupied again to insure its safety. however syria views southern lebanon as a buffer between itself and isreal, and an occupation is a threat to their security. the lebanese would mostly enjoy the hezbollah fighters leaving their nation but have no power to arrange that. so lebanon merely gets to enjoy being blasted apart by all sides concerned. and while no true friend to the west syria does work with western intelligence to aid in the disruption of terrorist plots aimed at american and european targets. a conflict between isreal and syria that saw islamic fundamentalists taking power in syria would prove detremental to western nations.

as far as iran is concerned i fear the psychological assessments of their leader may unfortunately be more on target that would be good for all of us. that being that he somehow sees himself as an islamic messiah chosen to bring about a world wide conflict out of which an islamic nation will arise that shall rule the world. and he may aid the hezbollah cause to help obtain those ends and not just a war with isreal.

though some think iran is using the conflict as a means to test their developing weapon systems, as the u.s. does in iraq, or the nazis did in spain in the 30's. very risky unless you are hoping for a visit from the isreali air force.

will the u.s. invade iran, hardly likely being too militarily stretched, as america and the west depend on oil from saudia arabia and iraq, russia and china depend on iranian oil to help fuel their economies. allowing the americans or isreali's to destroy iranian oil production would be against their national interests. to avoid conflict between such major powers they, the west and soviet-chinese, would have officals probably meet in secret and decide upon which iranian targets would be acceptable to both sides.

also remember there is this little country called iraq, that did have chemical weapons and a biological weapons program ask the kurds if you need proof. and no one truely knows what happened to those weapons. supposedly destroyed under u.n. mandate, and none could be found in iraq by inspectors or after the war. does not mean they are not there somewhere, or simply moved to a friendly nation by the iraqi's before the invasion. as hezbollah has stated we've seen nothing of their true potential yet. enough ex-millitary officials who believe in your cause, or enough money supplied by oil revenue could buy you military grade weapons and the numerous left over scuds to deliver them. iran might not even be needed to obtain the level of technology needed to raise the level of threat significantly.

 

peace in the future? not likely as both sides are firmly entrenched in their ideology. but there could be the possibility from the simple fact that for many nations in the region there ability to produce in purchase sophisticated weapons, comes for the revenues generated by oils sales. but that oil will not last forever. and currently many of the nations in conflict are not using that wealth to better the lives of their people, or strive to educate them so they can develope into nations who have more to offer than just oil.

to see nations that follow simular paths look to many nations in africa, see what becomes of them if they have nothing to offer the industrial nations.

'

may not be politically correct, and i must say i don't much care for 'acceptable losses'. but i'm trying to look at it not as an individual, but how nations tend to look at situations.

 

 

mr d

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In advanced, Forgive me if I misunderstand anything you say mr. D, but you posts lack all form of capital letters and large paragraphs, making it difficult to read.

 

to the original question, of could this lead to a wider conflict. yes very easily. the entire region is not overly stable politically, and a number of nations there, such as syria, saudia arabia, jordan, and egypt could easily see their governments fall to fundamental islamic movements with in those nations.

I'm not so sure about that. Governments don't get toppled THAT easily.

in the past most of those countries have given lip service to the destruction of isreal and expect for 1 true attempt, most have aided palestinians by moving in seizing and occupying their land. so why do they not open more friendly dialogs with isreal, most of those nations have taken in large amounts of refugees who do want isreal destroyed. so if your a leader in one of those countries if you have any brains you shout death to isreal and make a token effort to aid the cause. peaceful overtones gains you a wonderful gift like the one bestowed on anwar sadat in egypt.

Indeed. However, the Islamic fundementalists don't care about that. They don't truly want peace, they just want Jews dead and Israel 'wiped off the map'.

though a long conflict mainly it has been limited to a few hundred deaths yearly on both the parts of isreal and the islamic fighters. and though it sounds cruel to say those numbers are exceptable to most other nations. The numbers that would result from a full out war would be in the hundred of thousands. casualty numbers are exceptable if all out war can be avoided (and yes i understand no deaths should be truely acceptable, but most nations have given up on the concept that there can be peace in the region. it is becoming more a question of how we can have the fewest deaths resulting from the conflict, and how can a widing of the conflict be achieved. for to have peace you must have people that want peace, and here that is not the case now or anytime in the foreseeable future.

Right now, it doesn't look like this conflict is going to end with deaths in the hundreds of thousands. So, I'm not too sure how accurate this sentiment is. As for there being a level of acceptable deaths, I don't buy it, though I respect your opinion on the matter.

 

Unfortunately isreal sees southern lebanon as a threat to their security that may need to be occupied again to insure its safety. however syria views southern lebanon as a buffer between itself and isreal, and an occupation is a threat to their security.

Slight modification: Southern lebanon is only seen as a threat because of Hezbollah. Israel would have no problems with the Lebanese army occuping the area. In fact, this is what it desires.

the lebanese would mostly enjoy the hezbollah fighters leaving their nation but have no power to arrange that.

I would like to believe that, and I'm sure it's true. But, I have seen no poll demonstrating this. Obviously, its not a great time to send around a pollster on the matter.

so lebanon merely gets to enjoy being blasted apart by all sides concerned. and while no true friend to the west syria does work with western intelligence to aid in the disruption of terrorist plots aimed at american and european targets. a conflict between isreal and syria that saw islamic fundamentalists taking power in syria would prove detremental to western nations.

Truly, the innocent Lebanese are getting screwed from every angle. (oops that sounded worse than I intended.)

as far as iran is concerned i fear the psychological assessments of their leader may unfortunately be more on target that would be good for all of us. that being that he somehow sees himself as an islamic messiah chosen to bring about a world wide conflict out of which an islamic nation will arise that shall rule the world. and he may aid the hezbollah cause to help obtain those ends and not just a war with isreal.

I shiver at the thought.

 

though some think iran is using the conflict as a means to test their developing weapon systems, as the u.s. does in iraq, or the nazis did in spain in the 30's. very risky unless you are hoping for a visit from the isreali air force.

 

Or at the very least, distract the world, allowing themselves to make their weapons.

will the u.s. invade iran, hardly likely being too militarily stretched, as america and the west depend on oil from saudia arabia and iraq, russia and china depend on iranian oil to help fuel their economies. allowing the americans or isreali's to destroy iranian oil production would be against their national interests.

True, but I fear that conflict in this region is inevitable. It doesn't seem as if Ahmadinejad is facing too much opposition from home, so it looks like he's going to stay in power unless removed from an outside source.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the sooner he get's ousted the better... his name is nearly impossible to spell. :P

 

to avoid conflict between such major powers they, the west and soviet-chinese, would have officals probably meet in secret and decide upon which iranian targets would be acceptable to both sides.

also remember there is this little country called iraq, that did have chemical weapons and a biological weapons program ask the kurds if you need proof. and no one truely knows what happened to those weapons. supposedly destroyed under u.n. mandate, and none could be found in iraq by inspectors or after the war. does not mean they are not there somewhere, or simply moved to a friendly nation by the iraqi's before the invasion. as hezbollah has stated we've seen nothing of their true potential yet. enough ex-millitary officials who believe in your cause, or enough money supplied by oil revenue could buy you military grade weapons and the numerous left over scuds to deliver them. iran might not even be needed to obtain the level of technology needed to raise the level of threat significantly.

all conjecture, but still interesting things to think about.

 

peace in the future? not likely as both sides are firmly entrenched in their ideology. but there could be the possibility from the simple fact that for many nations in the region there ability to produce in purchase sophisticated weapons, comes for the revenues generated by oils sales. but that oil will not last forever. and currently many of the nations in conflict are not using that wealth to better the lives of their people, or strive to educate them so they can develope into nations who have more to offer than just oil.

this is just one reason I'm praying for oil to peak soon. :P

 

to see nations that follow simular paths look to many nations in africa, see what becomes of them if they have nothing to offer the industrial nations.

You hit upon a sad truth here. When the oil runs out of the middle east, and the terrorists loose their power, we should be able to invest more money where it's needed.

may not be politically correct, and i must say i don't much care for 'acceptable losses'. but i'm trying to look at it not as an individual, but how nations tend to look at situations.

You raise interesting point, Mr. D, but I hope that in the future, you make your posts slightly easier to read. Thanks. :D

 

 

mr d

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In every war civilians are killed but wars do sometime have to be fought.

 

We are probably not getting the statistics on Hezbollah losses but it is Hezbollah that has nestled its rockets among civilians and it is the Lebanese who failed to dislodge those rockets from within striking distance of Israel.

 

This may be true for positions in the south of Lebanon' date=' but how do you justify the extensive civilian casualties in Beruit, for example, which is too far North to launch rocket attacks into Israel? Israel are not just targeting rocket positions that pose an immediate threat, they are targeting [i']civilian[/i] infrastructure such as bridges, roads, airports and media outlets.

 

 

 

If Israel always responds to armed incursions with only predictable and proportionate responses' date=' Hezbollah will continue to flourish. This action is about Israel changing the calculation for all of the parties involved.

 

Israel's population is made of survivors of the worst event in human history. They take the words of fascists promising genocide very seriously as should we all. Israel is facing the relatively near term possibility of a nuclear armed Iran. [/quote']

I'm not argueing that Israel shouldn't respond, I just think that the response is extremely disproportionate. Further to this, I think the current action (which I am sure will be seen as brutal and barbaric by the Islamic world) will actually increase the desire for Israel to be wiped off the map. In this case violence will simply beget more violence. Repeating what I said earlier, this seems wholey counter-productive.

 

Yet the world that once stood silent is now shocked when Israel acts as if its survival is at stake.

The Jewish people have had it hard in the past, but their history doesn't justify the destruction of a country.

 

 

How many civilians will be lost if Israel is "wiped off of the map." Another six million plus.

IMO, this arguement is bordering on a strawman. No country or group currently has the ability to "wipe Israel off the map". Hezbollah certainly can't. Lebanon certainly can't. Iran can't, at present (and won't try, they're not that stupid, they know Israel has a nuclear arsenal better than anything they could ever hope for). In summary, the us or them arguement is just not correct.

 

 

The threat of force in response to force is called deterrence. Carrying through with that threat when attacked is called credibility. Being unpredictable in that response is called being smart.

Unfortunately, I don't see there is anything smart, or credible about using excessive force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhhh...

 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13884768/

 

Israel, with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah, which is likely to include several weeks of precision bombing in Lebanon, according to senior Israeli and U.S. officials.

 

For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat -- or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him.

 

For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say.

 

So, uhh, this has eerie undertones of WW3... Bush wants us to declare war on the Middle East?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be true for positions in the south of Lebanon, but how do you justify the extensive civilian casualties in Beruit, for example, which is too far North to launch rocket attacks into Israel? Israel are not just targeting rocket positions that pose an immediate threat, they are targeting civilian[/i'] infrastructure such as bridges, roads, airports and media outlets.

 

Be aware, however, that this civilian infrastructure are being held by Hezbollah. Everything from weapon caches to TV stations is being controlled by Hezbolllah in Southern Lebanon.

 

As for attacking bridges and roads, obviously, breaking the transportation of the enemy is a smart tactic in any conflict.

 

I'm not argueing that Israel shouldn't respond, I just think that the response is extremely disproportionate. Further to this, I think the current action (which I am sure will be seen as brutal and barbaric by the Islamic world) will actually increase the desire for Israel to be wiped off the map. In this case violence will simply beget more violence. Repeating what I said earlier, this seems wholey counter-productive.

I don't think it's that disproportionate, considering how much influence Hezbollah has in Southern Lebanon.

 

The Jewish people have had it hard in the past, but their history doesn't justify the destruction of a country.

 

True, but Jim didn't say anything about a country being destroyed. And even if Israel is destroying infrastructure, that doesn't mean they won't help rebuild it.

 

IMO, this arguement is bordering on a strawman. No country or group currently has the ability to "wipe Israel off the map". Hezbollah certainly can't. Lebanon certainly can't. Iran can't, at present (and won't try, they're not that stupid, they know Israel has a nuclear arsenal better than anything they could ever hope for). In summary, the us or them arguement is just not correct.

If someone position is to wipe you off the map, you take them seriously, whether or not they have the resources to accomplish it.

 

Unfortunately, I don't see there is anything smart, or credible about using excessive force.

That's still up for debate, I think. And, I dont think we'll know until this is all over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just like Hitler' date=' the Zionist regime (Israel) is just looking for a pretext for launching military attacks.

[/quote']

 

Isn't it bizarre the way he trots out Hitler in every speech? And not exactly consistent, is he? One day he's telling us that the Holocaust never happened, and the next day he's telling us that Hitler was evil. I can't tell if the guy's just an idiot, or a first-rate propagandist. ("Idiot" seems unlikely, given his PhD in civil engineering.)

 

I wonder if any of this is related to Iran's nationalist identity as an Aryan nation. I thought most of that nonsense died with the 1979 Islamic revolution, but Ahmadinejad is a Persian and his party is known as a popularist and nationalist party. I can't help but wonder if there's an Aryan subtext there that's just below the social translation radar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it bizarre the way he trots out Hitler in every speech? And not exactly consistent' date=' is he? One day he's telling us that the Holocaust never happened, and the next day he's telling us that Hitler was evil. I can't tell if the guy's just an idiot, or a first-rate propagandist. ("Idiot" seems unlikely, given his PhD in civil engineering.)

 

I wonder if any of this is related to Iran's nationalist identity as an Aryan nation. I thought most of that nonsense died with the 1979 Islamic revolution, but Ahmadinejad is a Persian and his party is known as a popularist and nationalist party. I can't help but wonder if there's an Aryan subtext there that's just below the social translation radar.[/quote']

I think it is probably just good propaganda. It really takes a big swipe at the Jewish people, saying they are just like the person who tried wipe them out. Makes them seem extremely hypocritical (at least in his mind?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This raises an interesting point. The fact is Israel are[/i'] killing woman and babies (as are Hezbollah).

 

That is a moral equivalence argument. It denies the clear and obvious fact that Hezbollah is deliberately targetting civilians, and Israel is not. By your facile argument the state of Massachusetts is just as guilty of terrorism as Hezbollah because poor engineering at the Big Dig got a woman killed last week!

 

I happen to share your general viewpoint, I just think that kind of cheap-shotting completely fails to advance the discourse.

 

For that matter, I'm going to chastise you for this one too:

 

That made me laugh.... You could just easily replace "Iran" with "USA" in that sentence and would still be true.

 

Same deal -- you slide in a cheap shot that you know you cannot support and that nobody can respond to without taking the thread off course (and rest assured, I am monitoring this thread closely -- fair warning).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a moral equivalence argument. It denies the clear and obvious fact that Hezbollah is deliberately targetting civilians' date=' and Israel is not. By your facile argument the state of Massachusetts is just as guilty of terrorism as Hezbollah because poor engineering at the Big Dig got a woman killed last week!

 

I happen to share your general viewpoint, I just think that kind of cheap-shotting completely fails to advance the discourse.

To be fair, what I said, was exactly what I was trying to point out. I did not mean to infer that Israel was purposely targeting civilians, what I meant (and did say) is that Israel is willing to accept the deaths of X number of civilians in order to achieve its aims, and further asked what sort of civilian casualties they are willing to accept. I believe this this is a legitimate question, if not a pleasant one. I perhaps should have been less ambiguous.

 

 

For that matter' date=' I'm going to chastise you for this one too:

 

 

 

Same deal -- you slide in a cheap shot that you know you cannot support and that nobody can respond to without taking the thread off course (and rest assured, I am monitoring this thread closely -- fair warning). [/quote']

I accept that this probably was not on-topic, however I was trying to illustrate a point. Everything that Bettina said in that post I was replying to is her opinion, an opinion which I share about several other countries, including my own (thus the comment). I also believe the threat from Iran is mostly a creation of politicians (but that is for another thread); some people seem to have a belief that the current crisis has been directly instigated by Iran. To my knowledge there is very little, if any, evidence to support this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair' date=' what I said, was exactly what I was trying to point out. I did not mean to infer that Israel was purposely targeting civilians, what I meant (and did say) is that Israel is willing to accept the deaths of [i']X[/i] number of civilians in order to achieve its aims, and further asked what sort of civilian casualties they are willing to accept. I believe this this is a legitimate question, if not a pleasant one. I perhaps should have been less ambiguous.

 

 

 

I accept that this probably was not on-topic, however I was trying to illustrate a point. Everything that Bettina said in that post I was replying to is her opinion, an opinion which I share about several other countries, including my own (thus the comment). I also believe the threat from Iran is mostly a creation of politicians (but that is for another thread); some people seem to have a belief that the current crisis has been directly instigated by Iran. To my knowledge there is very little, if any, evidence to support this.

 

Yes, it is my opinion but its based on the actions of Irans president that I see and read every day.

 

I have a question for you....

 

Do you believe (your opinion) that Iran is secretly trying to produce a nuclear weapon?

 

Bee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Jim

How many civilians will be lost if Israel is "wiped off of the map." Another six million plus.

IMO' date=' this arguement is bordering on a strawman. No country or group currently has the ability to "wipe Israel off the map". Hezbollah certainly can't. Lebanon certainly can't. Iran can't, at present (and won't try, they're not that stupid, they know Israel has a nuclear arsenal better than anything they could ever hope for). In summary, the us or them arguement is just not correct.[/quote']

 

IMO, it borders on a straw man to suggest that I said anyone currently has the ability to wipe Israel off the map.

 

Iran is promising to complete the Holocaust. The Holocaust was an incremental process - virulent anti-Semitism, racial laws, promises of death, rumors of atrocities, ghettoization, deportation, extermination.

 

Wiesel in his novel wrote that Jews being unloaded from the trains were cursed by long-term inmates for allowing themselves to be brought to Auschwitz. “Fools! How could you let yourselves be brought here in 1944?” The answer was partly an understandable refusal to believe that a fascist in a nearby country meant what he said he meant. Wiesel recalls neighbors saying something like, "it's not as if Hitler can kill all of us". Another part of the answer was that the incremental approach of genocide gave individual Jews standing alone no good choices as the heat was gradually increased until it consumed them all.

 

If I were Jewish, I would never again (i) be without a nation state to protect my race, (ii) disbelieve a fascist leader’s promise of death or (iii) hesitate to act forcefully to disrupt the process of genocide.

 

 

Unfortunately, I don't see there is anything smart, or credible about using excessive force.

 

I'm not going to debate or research the specific target list of Israel. I agree they should have valid military objectives such as preventing the soldiers from being taken out of the area. However, there are times when a forceful, unpredictable response is the only thing that works.

 

Bottom line: Until Islamofascist genocidal rhetoric is universally condemned in the area, I'm going to cut Israel a lot of slack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, what I said, was exactly what I was trying to point out. I did not mean to infer that Israel was purposely targeting civilians, what I meant (and did say) is that Israel is willing to accept the deaths of X number of civilians in order to achieve its aims, and further asked what sort of civilian casualties they are[/i'] willing to accept. I believe this this is a legitimate question, if not a pleasant one. I perhaps should have been less ambiguous.

 

That's a valid point, I agree.

 

 

I also believe the threat from Iran is mostly a creation of politicians (but that is for another thread); some people seem to have a belief that the current crisis has been directly instigated by Iran. To my knowledge there is very little, if any, evidence to support this.

 

There's no evidence of it at all, it's just speculation/opinion, based on the well-established, factual connections between Hezbollah and Iran.

 

Kinda like when people say that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. Hint, hint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil:

 

The way they compare is if, for example, Iran develops nuclear technology and deploys nuclear weapons across America and Europe. On top of the initial death toll, which could easily match 30,000 (and I'd like to see a good/reliable source which matches that figure, which you gave) you also have all the radiation sickness and after effects of such a massive radioactive blast. As well as this it would destroy modern day life and be the start of WW3.

 

And regarding that #116. I was saying that to some people the Israelis are not strangers 10,000km away. They have some kind of connection. And so whilst there is a physical distance there is still a connection which means they are valued over someone else where there is no connection.

 

MM:

 

Lebanon's PM has no control nor say in the matter. In fact Israel wants the Lebanese army to take over from the Israelis. Israel wants Lebanon to control it's own country, like it was meant to according to a UN resolution. However Lebanon is not militarily strong enough to overcome Hezbollah and so far they have been disregarding the UN resolution which says that the Lebanese army must control its south border with Israel and stop is from being inhabbited by terrorists.

 

New talks have now started between Israel and Lebanon. Now Hezbollah is become slightly weaker there are hopes that the Lebanese army can take control (whereas before Hezbollah was in control). This is one of Israel's main aim. To give the Lebanese army and not Hezbollah control of the country.

 

mr d: I'm not even gonna start reading that. Paragraphs, punctuation (incl. capitalised letters) etc. is needed! I hope ecoli replied in a satisfactory way.

 

More generally:

 

I got a lift with someone today who raised an interesting point. I can't remember the statistics but Hezbollah has a few thousand militias as well as many thousands of reserved people who support them.

 

Except for a few more senior members of Hezbollah, all the militias and supporters (and by supporters I mean people who will fight for Hezbollah) are all "civilians". They are people with everyday jobs who live in civilian areas. However just like people support their Prime Minister or President, so these people support Hezbollah. And just like there are rallies and protests which Westerners go on, so there are wars and fights which these people participate in. They're everyday civilians, but they also fall into the category of "terrorist". So when you hear about a "civilian" death (it could of course be a poor civilian) however it could also be someone who would readily fight for Hezbollah, and whilst is a civilian they should also be classified as a terrorist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran's president is screwed up. I'm a persian and i hate the islamic government and the president and all that stuff. Originally Persians were not islamic, but islamic palestinians came to Iran and the religion and rules were forced on the people. When my mom was at university in Iran she was in one of the groups where they were against the islamic republic, but they killed so many of them and ruined thier lives and kicked them out of university and never let them back in.

I don't undrestand why the Iranian government involves itself in to these wars. They already ruined the country in war with Iraq n killed so many...

I think most of these fights are becuz of religion, and personally i hate the fact that religion causes the death of so many innocent people.

I hate the islamic government (i hope i won't get shot for saying this). They screwed up our country and people in Iran, specially women, have no freedom. It's really really sad and un fair. All i care about right now is my 2 aunts, my 4 cousins, n my grand ma. And if there is going to be war in Iran i will rather die than wait to see what will happen to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

MM:

 

Lebanon's PM has no control nor say in the matter. In fact Israel wants the Lebanese army to take over from the Israelis. Israel wants Lebanon to control it's own country' date=' like it was meant to according to a UN resolution. However Lebanon is not militarily strong enough to overcome Hezbollah and so far they have been disregarding the UN resolution which says that the Lebanese army must control its south border with Israel and stop is from being inhabbited by terrorists.[/quote']

 

What do you mean "not militarily strong enough". Maybe the Lebanese don't want a civil war.

 

New talks have now started between Israel and Lebanon. Now Hezbollah is become slightly weaker there are hopes that the Lebanese army can take control (whereas before Hezbollah was in control). This is one of Israel's main aim. To give the Lebanese army and not Hezbollah control of the country.

 

I belive it's wishful thinking that Hezbollah has been weakened. Common sense would suggest that a unjust aggression be met with anger/radical thinking and thus more support for the Hezbollah.

 

 

More generally:

 

I got a lift with someone today who raised an interesting point. I can't remember the statistics but Hezbollah has a few thousand militias as well as many thousands of reserved people who support them.

 

Except for a few more senior members of Hezbollah' date=' all the militias and supporters (and by supporters I mean people who will fight for Hezbollah) are all "civilians". They are people with everyday jobs who live in civilian areas. However just like people support their Prime Minister or President, so these people support Hezbollah. And just like there are rallies and protests which Westerners go on, so there are wars and fights which these people participate in. They're everyday civilians, but they also fall into the category of "terrorist". So when you hear about a "civilian" death (it could of course be a poor civilian) however it could also be someone who would readily fight for Hezbollah, and whilst is a civilian they should also be classified as a terrorist.[/quote']

 

No wonder some Lebanese people support the Hezbollah, in their mind they are freedom fighters. Considering the long occupation of south Lebanon by the Israelis. Terrorists are those one's guilty of terrorism. The kind of collective punishment you think is justified is itself a crime against international humanitarian rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.