Israel and Lebanon now fighting

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Maybe you should look at the firepower at each side, and realize that Israel has the capability to do more damage then Hezbollah.

Since they have the capability to kill more civilians than they have been actually killed, that automatically means they aren't intending to kill civilians? I don't think I buy that line of reasoning, mostly because it doesn't make sense.

"Gee Officer, I guess I took fifty bucks out of that fellow's wallet, but he had over a thousand dollars in there so as you can plainly see I wasn't doing anything wrong".

Originally Posted by Azure

No it wouldn't make me feel better, and I would probably get mad at whoever did it, but I don't live in a nation that supports and harbours terrorist groups, so you and I aren't in that position, are we?

No, luckily we are not in that position, but I don't know what that has to do with anything. You say you would be mad at whoever did it so obviously you have some amount of empathy but at the same time you seem to say "how dare they fight back"?

Originally Posted by Azure

Still, collateral damage has been part of EVERY war since the start of mankind. No matter HOW good your technology is, innocent people will ALWAYS die.

How far do these goofy euphemisms go for actual human beings that are suffering? My guess is that they don't provide much comfort. What the hell does "collateral damage" mean to someone whose husband and kids are dead on the side of the highway?

Originally Posted by Azure

You trying to make me feel sympathetic for their cause?

No I wasn't, but you did say you understand.

[Kobasew fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

No, luckily we are not in that position, but I don't know what that has to do with anything. You say you would be mad at whoever did it so obviously you have some amount of empathy but at the same time you seem to say "how dare they fight back"?

Personally if I were in that position I would be upset that another country came in and blew up my house. I would also be as upset if not moreso with the terrorist group who first decided to kidnap army officers from the attacking country and then decided to hide out in my neighborhood which ultimately led to the attacking country coming in and blowing up my house.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Azure

Israel is not intending to kill innocent Lebanese civilians, while Hebollah is, yet fails miserably with every attack.

That to me is the deciding factor.

If Isreal is not intending to kill civilians, they are failing miserably with every attack as well.

You arguement seems to be:
Hezbollah is trying to kill civilians, but they're not good at it. Isreal is trying to not kill civilians, but they're not good at that either.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

If Isreal is not intending to kill civilians, they are failing miserably with every attack as well.

You arguement seems to be:
Hezbollah is trying to kill civilians, but they're not good at it. Isreal is trying to not kill civilians, but they're not good at that either.

Yes and no. Israel IS doing a good job preventing casualties considering Hezbollah is operating in residential area's

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Jeez as a political science student I would have hoped for better coming from you Peter.

Fundamentalist-extremist parties in the Israeli Knesset have disproportional power. Setters and de-facto 'non-israelis' with perhaps the most extreme zionist views find themselves holding the balance between the Likud party (israel's already right party) and victory. Likud then moves even more to the extremist right in coalition building and in gaining support.

So in other words, your statement is quite wrong.

Come on... you can't just make a blanket statement there and call me wrong.
Israeli politics is built upon coalition building and democratic negotiation. Yes, the right wing Hasidics do hold a balance of power, but in volatile Israeli system that doesn't mean nearly as much as it would in say Canada.

So I stand by my statement.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Jeez as a political science student I would have hoped for better coming from you Peter.

Fundamentalist-extremist parties in the Israeli Knesset have disproportional power. Setters and de-facto 'non-israelis' with perhaps the most extreme zionist views find themselves holding the balance between the Likud party (israel's already right party) and victory. Likud then moves even more to the extremist right in coalition building and in gaining support.

So in other words, your statement is quite wrong.

Jeez Hakan, if you are a political science student, I would have hoped for some up to date research.

The governing party is the Kadima party (mainly Sharon's party that split from Likud, to form a more centrist party). It formed a coalition with Labour, the Pensioners Party, and Shas (a religious based party).
Likud (14 seats) and United Torah Judaisim (6 seats) sit outside the government. Interestingly enough, the Arab parties have a combined 10 seats. The newest radical party - that ran on an election platform of "population transfer" (euphamisim for making all Arabs move to Arab countries) got 11 seats, mainly playing to the large Russian community in Israel.

So, the so-called settler's parties (Likud & UTJ) hold 20 of 120 seats. The centrists hold 67 seats - how do the extremists hold the balance of power in Israel then?

And please define "Defacto non-Israelis"? I am not sure who they are. Are they 'forgien settlers'? Recent immagrants? Jews living out side of Israel who donate money to "settlers' parties'?

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yes, the right wing Hasidics do hold a balance of power

Not any more so than the Arab parties, or the secular 'dove' parties, or the modern religious party, or the secular 'hawk' party, or the 'Russian community' party, etc....

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

You referred to them as freedom fighters, people that fight to get the "evil" Israel out of Lebanon.

Freedom fighters are NOT terrorists.

Holy spin Batman! Now you're talking semantics. Terrorism is tactic, and may be used by any side at any time. As an example, "shock and awe" was meant to terrorize the people people of Iraq into laying down and welcoming the Americans as heros. It was a show of force, saying that we have the ability to reach out and do damage to you, which is the same as a suicide bomber walking into a crowded hotel and detonating his payload and his organization immediately taking responsibility. The difference is that one side wears uniforms and has trillions of dollars of arms at their disposal, and the other side scrapes together their weapons.

The term freedom fighter strictly depends on which side of the engagement you are on. The Mujahideen were freedom fighters when they were financed, supported and trained by the CIA, but when they were cast aside and fractured into two camps (the Northern Alliance and al Qaeda) they became terrorist organizations. Ironically, when the Northern Alliance became an alternative to the Taliban, they ceased to be a terror organization and became "a warring faction", which turned into an important ally again. Depending on what terminology you wish to apply to a group strictly depends on which side of an engagement you are on.

Originally Posted by Azure

Maybe you should look at the firepower at each side, and realize that Israel has the capability to do more damage then Hezbollah.

Relevance? None. Having more firepower does not make one side more or less just, nor does it make their actions acceptable.

If I knew my area was a hotbed for terrorism, and KNEW that a certain nation would be targetting that area, I'd get the hell out.

So you admit to being a coward and not wanting to fight for a cause you believe in? I guess that is why you refused to answer any of the hypothical situations posed to you in regards to similiar circumstances and what you would do. You didn't want to expose your soft yellow under belly!



I think this is a simplistic position as well. That's like saying the people that stayed behind in New Orleans deserved to die because they refused to heed the warnings of potential disaster. Many of the people that stayed behind had to stay. They could not afford to leave, didn't have the ability to leave, or just had no place to go. Bugging out is not an option for a lot of people. A lot of people are not prepared, nor have the assets to do what you suggest.

No it wouldn't make me feel better, and I would probably get mad at whoever did it, but I don't live in a nation that supports and harbours terrorist groups, so you and I aren't in that position, are we?

Refusal to walk a mile in someone else's shoes! Cop out. Classic dodge.

Still, collateral damage has been part of EVERY war since the start of mankind. No matter HOW good your technology is, innocent people will ALWAYS die.

So that makes it forgiveable?

Israel is not intending to kill innocent Lebanese civilians, while Hebollah is, yet fails miserably with every attack.

And you know this how? For a guy that doesn't talk about **** he doesn't know about, you talk a lot of **** about stuff you don't know about. You have no idea what the intentions of the Israelis are, and you have no idea what their intentions for collateral damage are. Just because they fly expensive jets and drop (supposed) laser guided bombs does not mean they are showing any more restraint or care for civilians. The fact that they are dropping bombs into civilian areas says to me that they don't give a rats ass about collateral damage and are just going after their targets of opportunity as they see fit. They may say one thing, but their actions indicate another.

That to me is the deciding factor.

No, I think the deciding factor is the side they claim to be on. I personally flip flop on the Israel/Palestine issue, depending on the actions of either side. There is no way you would ever support the Palestinian cause. If Israel lined up 10,000 women and children and publicly gunned them down you'd spin it as "a measured response to actions by Hamas and Hezbollah, and an effort to defend Israel from future generations of terrorists".

You trying to make me feel sympathetic for their cause?

I have a feeling the only way you would feel any sympathy for them is if they put on a uniform, drape themselves in the American flag, kiss King Dubya's ring, and swear allegance to the empire.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

So, the so-called settler's parties (Likud & UTJ) hold 20 of 120 seats. The centrists hold 67 seats - how do the extremists hold the balance of power in Israel then?

Probably in the same way that the NDP "hold the balance of power" in Canada.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Probably in the same way that the NDP "hold the balance of power" in Canada.

Or it could possibly be that like the American system, certain external entities hold the balance of power. Those that define policy are more powerful than those to implement it, especially if they are not accountable through oversight or election.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

You referred to them as freedom fighters, people that fight to get the "evil" Israel out of Lebanon.

Freedom fighters are NOT terrorists.

Doesn't that depend on your perspective? Wouldn't the early VietCong have been 'terrorists', though today they're (technically) regarded as freedom fighters? The line is never, ever blurred?

[Regorium]

Full scale invasion of Lebanon eh...
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/mideast_conflict

Here's a non-north American article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/stor...824750,00.html

Israel is going FAR beyond what it NEEDS to do to get rid of Hezbollah. This is beyond ridiculous. 57 dead civilians today.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Israel is going FAR beyond what it NEEDS to do to get rid of Hezbollah. This is beyond ridiculous. 57 dead civilians today.

And how would you know what needs to happen to get rid of Hezbollah?

Lebanon can't (or won't) do it. US can't get rid of Al-Queda. UN (Canada incl) can't get rid of the Taliban. etc.

I'm guessing that it is a LOT harder to do than you think.

[Flame4Ever]

Lanny,

I just wanted to say that it is extremely rare to find somebody as informed as you about the situation in the Middle East as you are in Canada. I've seen far too many people being brainwashed by CNN that it's frustrating to discuss it with most people I meet.

I wanted to thank you for taking a wll thought out position on this matter. Personally, I'm not a big fan of Israel and have disliked them since they bombed my native land (Tunisia) in the 80s to destroy suspected PLO training camps.

While I dislike Israel, like you I flip flop over what happens in that area based on the actions of poth sides. I think you have reasonably argued why what Israel is doing right now is wrong in so many ways. It always pains me to here that a people who have suffered so much persecution can have so little regard for human life.

Aside from the people they have killed directly with their bombs, Israel will harm thousands more by destroying Lebanon's infrastructure and isolating Beirut.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by calculoso

And how would you know what needs to happen to get rid of Hezbollah?

Lebanon can't (or won't) do it. US can't get rid of Al-Queda. UN (Canada incl) can't get rid of the Taliban. etc.

I'm guessing that it is a LOT harder to do than you think.

Well, fine. That was a poorly worded statement.

How's this? "Israel has gone far beyond what is acceptable in the international community." And I say international as in anywhere but North America.

As for getting rid of Hezbollah? A tactical nuclear strike is probably the only way. What they're doing now just strengthens them. Sure, they may have no roads, no missiles, no rockets, no infrastructure, no power. But they have a cause and an idea, and as long as there is people, there will be war.

At this point, they really have no other choice. Retreating won't do any good as the damage has already been done.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Not any more so than the Arab parties, or the secular 'dove' parties, or the modern religious party, or the secular 'hawk' party, or the 'Russian community' party, etc....

Yeah, that is kind of what I was trying to get at. But it was late and I just didn't want to go into detail.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Doesn't that depend on your perspective? Wouldn't the early VietCong have been 'terrorists', though today they're (technically) regarded as freedom fighters? The line is never, ever blurred?

When have the VietCong ever been regarded as freedom fighters??

Ever heard of the Hue City Massacre? It makes My Lai look like a picnic.

[Hakan]

Originally Posted by peter12

When have the VietCong ever been regarded as freedom fighters??

Ever heard of the Hue City Massacre? It makes My Lai look like a picnic.

I'm sure you'll find many Vietnamese people that called them freedom fighters.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Hakan

I'm sure you'll find many Vietnamese people that called them freedom fighters.

Probably not the families of the 1000s buried in mass graves outside of Hue.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by peter12

When have the VietCong ever been regarded as freedom fighters??

Ever heard of the Hue City Massacre? It makes My Lai look like a picnic.

Uh... the people of Vietnam consider them to be freedom fighters. Isn't their point of view the most important one? Oh... but you used rolly-eyes, so I guess you're right... touche.

My Lai was one incident. The US killed 1.5-4 million Vietnamese between '65 and '75 hunting down 'terrorists' (which the indigenous population did/does believe were freedom fighters).

Though, I suppose if the only valid viewpoint is a Western one, then the Godless commies won, and the dominoes are... just... about... to... fall. Gimme a break.