budullewraagh

Phi, I really have no reason to believe that Bettina is not bigoted. Tetrahedrite compiled plenty of quotes from Bettina that seem to indicate that she admits it herself. Quotes like this: seem to allude to bigotry. Now, as for the issue of puppetry, allow me to further my claims: Any ruling body wishes for the support of the governed. Ideally, they would get their way without having to answer to the public. Questioning the actions of one's government keeps one from becoming narrow-minded and frees the individual from potential tyrrany. Bettina has continuously ignored the facts that I have presented, more than once saying "I wonder what side your on," assuming that there can only be two polar-opposite ideologies in a debate concerning terrorism, which is exactly the ideology that those neoconservative extremists who are in positions of power wish for her to have. Her expression of her wondering "what side" I support is not only ridiculous considering the fact that I have clearly explained my position on multiple occasions but also terribly offensive in that it reeks of a "holier-than-thou" attitude. On many occasions Bettina has offended myself as well as others and frankly, I'm fed up with it, which is why I said that I had nothing more to say. Unfortunately she further insulted me and egged me on, prompting my "offensive" but completely accurate response. Once again, seeing as I will not convince certain individuals and seeing as the debate continuously moves in circles, I'm through with this it so long as I am no longer insulted.

Does this even merit response?? As I said I presented clear evidence. You did not and would not accept it. I have nothing more to say. If you want to try to call me out like you just did, while meaning to be offensive (so don't try to play down your hostility) I still have nothing more to say. Your attitude in the past several pages has been atrocious- continuously playing the same bs card just as you've been taught by the leadership of our nation. Congratulations- you're a bigoted puppet.

I really have nothing left to say. I have provided clear data and evidence incriminating Israel and the United States and explaining how Hezbollah gained significantly from the war and time and time again my arguments have been swept under the proverbial rug. If you will not be convinced, so be it. Just don't expect me to continuously reiterate.

Refer to: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/science/24stem.html?hp&ex=1156478400&en=297c7c19068ae597&ei=5094&partner=homepage Now I can't wait to see the backlash from hypocritical conservatives who will further broaden their views of the "sanctity of life" while they continue to support the death penalty. What do you all think of this new breakthrough? I think it's pretty hilarious myself and ironic in the sense that it (to me) is more disturbing than harvesting fetuses.

A note about heating H2O2 and H2SO4: this may be a bit dangerous and/or scary due to the potential formation of some quantity of peroxymonosulfuric acid- it probably depends on temperature and won't be formed in mass quantity unless for some reason your H2O2 doesn't decompose quickly at all and you end up with >50% H2O2 and >85% H2SO4 but still, be wary. Plus, even without the peroxymonosulfuric acid being formed, a hot solution of H2O2 and H2SO4 will act similar enough to pirahna bath to burn you and/or other things very easily.

Check the headlines- the numbers stayed constantly around 200/day. Well, we were discussing the success or lack thereof that Israel had in fending off Hezbollah and many people here seemed to think that Israel actually succeeded in doing something significant to prevent future attacks... This whole "they hide amongst civilians" thing is certainly not common knowledge. I have plenty of reason to believe that this is not the case at all. Prove to me that it is true. Provide sources. Have a blast. I'm begging for sources. Yes! Like the cluster bombs Israel used in Lebanon! Thank you! Bravo!

The way I see it when someone joins any form of military or militia, he or she signs up to die. What I don't understand is why when a soldier gets shot in the head it's a "sad thing" but when a soldier gets taken prisoner it suddenly becomes a whole lot worse. Had the people who abducted the prisoner just shot him in the head people would hardly care. I consider kidnappings and deaths to be both bad occurrences but not particularly different in the magnitude of "badness." If I were a leader I certainly wouldn't automatically start a war just because 1, 2 or 10 soldiers were abducted. I also wouldn't necessarily start a war even if 1, 2 or 10 civilians were abducted and/or killed. Let's flip the scenario around a bit. Imagine that Israel had little to no defense whatsoever and Hezbollah was slowly picking off civilians one by one. Sure, this would be a really bad thing. Absolutely terrible. However, would I, as Israel's PM, want to attack Hezbollah with my 10 tanks and 200-man army? No, of course not- this would make Hezbollah increase the rate of abductions and killings. If I were to try to figure out a better way, sure, my inaction wouldn't solve the problem but at least it wouldn't make the problem worse. And yeah, I think that the Israeli population had reason to be angry and understandably wanted someone to pay for their transgressions. Unfortunately those who paid were the wrong people: the Lebanese. The Israeli population during the war became as ridiculously extremist as the population of Lebanon is becoming now; they all supported the war despite its horrible failures in harming Hezbollah and its massive success in messing up Lebanon for the civilians. The thing that we have to remember is that mob rule is not a good idea. The fact that the Israeli population wanted the war doesn't mean the war was in their best interest. We'll see the negative results show up for years. Hezbollah never cared about what the international community or Israel thought of it. All they care about is Syria and Lebanon. What can the west do? Impose economic sanctions? Nobody trades with Hezbollah in the first place! Support Israeli attacks in Lebanon? Hezbollah wants to pick fights with Israel, hence the rocket attacks and abduction of soldiers! Make the Lebanese government take action to regain control of its nation? Too late! Hezbollah already has the hearts of the Lebanese people because nobody else is providing anywhere near the amount of humanitarian aid that Hezbollah is providing. Sure, the world knows about it but what can we do? Please tell me where they succeeded. Last I checked, a bunch of Hezbollah's long-range missile launchers were destroyed but Hezbollah attacks on Northern Israel did not decrease in frequency throughout the war. Also, Israel left a gigantic vacuum that resulted in Hezbollah winning over the hearts of the people of Lebanon. Oh, and Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah is still alive. Also, the Syrian population apparently is now calling for action to remove Israeli occupying forces from their lands. So, where's the success?

Does what I say not stick with you at all? If Israel was so amazingly good at disarming Hezbollah then why is it that Hezbollah fired over 200 rockets/day into Israel every day during the war and staged its strongest attacks the night before the ceasefire?

HSO4- shouldn't be considered a strong acid by any means, espcially considering the relative weakness of HNO3 as an acid. Maybe if you have something like 1.2 equivalents of KNO3 to your 1 equivalent of H2SO4 you'll see full conversion but a 2:1 would not work.

Unlimited if the other option is to suffer even greater losses. Well, I'd have to make a limit if popular support in my nation were to fall significantly. But actually, while not attacking I'd figure out better solutions. I think the obvious no-brainer would be to do everything in my power to avoid civilian casualties if I were to have no choice but attack. Also, excessive destruction of infrastructure would be something else to avoid, unless I were to have enough money to repair said infrastructure. Once again, Israel terribly mishandled the situation they had: they called everyone in southern Lebanon a terrorist and totally ravaged the country while not slowing down Hezbollah attacks. Then they didn't even offer to provide reparations, allowing Hezbollah to do so and win over the hearts of the Lebanese people. What would I have done? I would have waited and formulated a better mode of attack than declaring everything a legitimate target.

In their territories, yes. In Lebanon? Hezbollah was hardly harmed by the recent Israeli attacks in Lebanon, as I've already discussed. If you disagree, please feel free to try to prove me wrong.

No, it's more like walking by and hoping the bully doesn't beat you up, then running away when he takes a swing at you. According to this analogy Israel's actions could be equated with the kid punching the bully, then getting punched back before running away. In the end we know that tomorrow the kid (Israel) is going to have to walk by that bully the next day with the hopes that the bully doesn't attack again. Actually, to make this a bit more accurate, Izzy (Israel) has to punch Hezekiah's (Hezbollah's) best friend's mom in the process, prompting the new friend to join Hezekiah's cause. There are a few things wrong with y our logic. Firstly, Hezbollah, you and I are fully aware that Hezbollah lacks the ability to invade and/or destroy Israel. They can, however, have economic and social effects on Israel by firing 200 or so rockets into northern Israel, killing 2-3 people daily. Secondly, as I've said on numerous occasions, Hezbollah was strengthened by this war. They are now able to exploit the situation they were given: they are doing the reconstruction and they are also telling everyone how bad Israel was for killing civilians and destroying the Lebanese infrastructure. Finally, Hezbollah wants to actually do their best to make life hellish for everyone in Israel. If they all charge into Israel they're stupid and self-destructive. The fact that they don't charge towards Israel en masse, stand in a big line waiting for Israeli guards to shoot them, or burn themselves to death does not mean that they are not willing to die for their cause if they lose a fight. Besides, what could a deserter do? He'd be shot on the spot! Better to lose them than strengthen the enemy. Har har. Who liked Hezbollah before the war? Iran? Syria? Think they'll start hating Hezbollah now? Nah- Iran just gave Hezbollah a blank check for reconstruction. Now, think that Hezbollah really cares what ANYONE (save Iran and Syria) thinks of them? Nope. No, but in case you didn't notice, every day reports came in of 200+ rocket attacks in northern Israel. On the day before the ceasefire the number was at its all-time highest: 250. What this means is that despite their efforts to defend themselves, Israel made no progress. Now that Israel is NOT a presence in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah is even less inhibited and Israel basically needs to hope Hezbollah doesn't attack again. After all, the UN forces that will be in southern Lebanon will certainly not be as effective as the IDF was when they were around. So, as I said, because they have made no progress in disarming Hezbollah, Israel just needs to hope they aren't attacked again.

Who said they had to make a trade? If I were the Israeli PM I'd rather have two of my soldiers executed than suffer the losses Israel has suffered during this war. Plus, they failed to make much of a message. They attacked and Hezbollah used their attacks to further its agenda. In effect Hezbollah was unharmed. Israel is no better off than they were before- sure, UN peacekeepers will arrive in 10 days but if Hezbollah wants to attack, they will. UN forces certainly are not nearly as effective as the IDF was and the IDF failed miserably at diminishing Hezbollah's attacks.

I was responding to Moo's statement that the physical help (rebuilding stuff, etc) provided by Lebanon was the bare minimum. Moo, when you answer, please be sure to justify that. Now, in response to you, Jim, I'd like to propose an alternate perspective. The Lebanese government did nothing to defend its civilians from Israeli strikes on their soil. The Lebanese did not take the initiative to quickly propose a solution to the destruction in their nation. Hezbollah, on the other hand, did both. Sure, they may have prompted Israeli strikes but at least they played a strong defense and have provided aid. Think about it- they're doing a better job than the US government in its response to hurricane Katrina! If Hezbollah is the best form of government for the people of Lebanon, I can't find myself in support of the current Lebanese government. Anyway, Moo, when you get the chance, pleeeease tell me why you think Hezbollah is doing the very least they could do to help the Lebanese population.

I still don't see how not invading Lebanon was a bad option.

I was referring to what they are doing now when I prompted a response from Moo as to what made him think that Hezbollah was doing anything less than their best to help the Lebanese people. But as long as you brought it up, I also ask you what makes you think that Hezbollah militants hid amongst civilians. It seems a bit farfetched that civilians wouldn't, you know, run away as soon as they heard rockets being launched right next to them. But really, tell me why you think Hezbollah militants hid behind civilians as they shot rockets. Also, so my other question doesn't get lost, I feel obligated to repeat my prompt to Moo: I'd like to know why you have any reason to believe that Hezbollah is doing anything less their best to help the Lebanese people.

I'd like to know why you have any reason to believe that Hezbollah is doing anything less their best to help the Lebanese people.

Didn't I cite that?

Not this time. Please refer to: http://roguestatesmen.blogspot.com/ Actually I'll just copy my post: Sometimes I really think that the world should elect me to be their Supreme-Dictator-For-Life. From the beginning of Israel's attacks against Hezbollah I've criticized the effectiveness of their actions as well as their motives. In response, I've been asked the question: "Well then, what should Israel have done? Should they have just sat back and been continuously attacked?" My response: "No, but that would have been better than attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon." One step forward, 6 or 7 steps back. What did I say? I said that Hezbollah would gain support from the Lebanese population and that even if Israel thought they had a good chance at damaging Hezbollah and gaining territory they would only be encouraging the growth of Hezbollah's power and would ultimately suffer great losses. Josh said that if Israel really thought they would be able to bring about positive change, they did the right thing. I doubted the goodness of Israel's intentions, citing their apparent urgent need for cluster bombs and their everyone-in-Southern-Lebanon-is-a-terrorist policy. So, what happened? Well, Israel made no progress in a month of attacks in Lebanon. They did, however, destroy 15,000 homes (refer to article) and kill 789 Lebanese, most of whom were civilians. What did this do? It created a vacuum, a l'Iraq, that made it so easy for Hezbollah to claim even more dominance over the Lebanese government. Did I call this? Yes. Put my name on the ballots for Israel's next PM election. Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, after being offered a signed blank check from Iran, did not only offer to help those Lebanese need, he offered to rebuild Lebanon as a whole, offering $10,000 to every Lebanese family whose house was destroyed. Already Hezbollah has begun efforts to clear paths through the rubble. And one would ask the question: Where is the Lebanese government? Lebanese Defense Minister Elias Murr put it best: "The (Lebanese) army is not going to the south to strip the Hezbollah of its weapons and do the work that Israel did not." No, the Lebanese government lacks both the money required to rebuild Lebanon and the support required to challenge Hezbollah. The bold moves Nasrallah has made indicate that he has effectively staged a coup d'etat, according to political analyst Jad al-Akjaoui. What has happened in Lebanon shows the achilles heel of a neoconservative foreign policy. It's high time for us to consider other options before the Western world destroys another fledgling democracy.

Yeah, the GOP and Dem websites tend to show a whole lot of bad things about one another and are full of red, white and blue. Interestingly, http://www.gp.org looks a whooole lot more inviting and really nice. Well, until you go to click the "take action" link.

Don't give up yet! Think of it- the industrial method involves SiO2 taking the cation and an O out of phosphate salts, then thermiting with carbon, so you're definitely on the right track- instead of using the SiO2 you do the same thing by removing water. How extensive were your efforts to get this to work? Theoretically the carbon should do thermite with the P2O5/P4O10. Perhaps you had too much oxygen present in your atmosphere?

Who won? Nobody ever wins in a war. All parties lose but the war usually ends on terms more favorable to one side. Let's assess: Israel: lost some civilians, lost more soldiers. Also lost plenty of support due to tactics. Bothered the UN and everyone else AGAIN. Came to a ceasefire but is still as susceptible to Hezbollah attacks as they were before should such attacks resume. Lebanon: Destroyed. Lebanese civilians? Extremized in support of Hezbollah. The government? With even less power than before. Hezbollah: Lost some militants but is now able to exploit the damage caused by Israel and use their success in fighting to recruit more members. Make your own calls on this one. Fascinating how this one turned out.

I'm not so sure Israel has all good intentions. They definitely see the possibility to exploit the situation and I'm positive that they have done so. 1. It was an act of war. 2. No. It was a death hope. 3. Morally correct? Shooting rockets randomly into Israel? No. Terrorism? But of course. I'm sure you have a point to make now, so go for it.

Does this even merit response? No- your logic is skewed. Kindly re-read my posts. I responded to your question with two answers. Wait a minute, you eventually responded to my answers. You said that doing nothing didn't work. Yeah, net losses did occur, but the net losses from the war were bigger. So, maybe by not doing anything the wind blows them back a few inches. By engaging in this war they gain maybe 4/5ths of a step (because of the wind blowing them) and then they go 2.4 steps backwards for a net loss of 1.6 steps. In this same time frame they could have lost only 0.6 steps! Yeah, the situation blows. Actually, a better solution would have been to handle the war better (we've heard that before) by actually caring about the Lebanese civilians instead of calling them all enemies. Had they brought about death and destruction but aided the Lebanese and also told them something like "This is what Hezbollah brings upon you. They don't sound like any friends of yours. Oh, btw, sorry about your village." You have to win over their hearts to really succeed. That would be a step in the right direction (forward) but I'm sure other ways would help. Ex: aid the Lebanese government with conditions that they do what you want with the money. Tell them to make a real army, for example. Get the US to help Lebanon- we have lots more money and will do anything to eliminate terrorism. Such strong words from someone who missed things of which I have already written. I already provided the link. Here it is again: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/28/wmid28.xml Here's another related link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/the_moral_culpability_for_qana.html And another: http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=150983 The quote: "Everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist and is connected to Hizbollah." -Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon, July 27, 2006. To be pleased with the actions of Israel, the US and/or Hezbollah. Refer to Haim Ramon's aforementioned quote. Maybe he didn't explicitly say "we're gonna kill everyone!" but he sure implied it. I mean, if everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist then the IDF wouldn't be doing its job if it were to let anyone live. So, terrorism or not? Consider my challenge once again reissued. Also when you say "I know better than you because I fought in a war" I take it as condescending. Sorry man. Do you work for the IDF or something? Have you seen the Lebanese army? It looks like Hezbollah except less skilled and smaller. Need I remind you that Hezbollah held its own against Israel and effectively "won" the recent month-long war. (Disclaimer: I actually think that wars are never won- they are only ended on terms more favorable to one side.) No, Lebanon has no real ability to rid itself of Hezbollah. Hezbollah also has widespread support amongst the Lebanese population, and for good reason- they warded off the Israeli invaders. For over 20 years they've represented a defiant face standing up to anyone that would attack Lebanon. What do Lebanese civilians care if Hezbollah also attacks Israeli civilians? What do Israelis care if IDF forces attack Palestinians and/or Lebanese civilians? What do Americans care if US soldiers kill Iraqi and/or Afghani civilians? They're all far more concerned for their safety. Then they must be lying when they say that Hezbollah sits around holding babies over their heads just in case someone starts shooting at them. I think it'd be interesting to see who that would hit. Right, and because they don't care about civilian casualties they use cluster bombs that will succeed in blowing up Granny Latifah and her family as well as the 2 adjacent homes. It's like getting 3 for the price of 1! But with whom? I still think they should reach out to the government of Lebanon and help them fix their government. It may be too late now with all the civilians shouting "Jihad!" but maybe it's worth a shot. Well, after awhile they did offer to send in 15000 soldiers. Not a lot but they don't have much. Also, think of it from their perspective- Israel wasn't making much progress so what would they make? Plus, with their population supporting Hezbollah, the government would have been considered to be misrepresenting its people by "helping the invading enemy" and then we would have had an even more disturbing Lebanon, with Hezbollah actually being the legitimate government.

Cap'n, I agree. I apologize for furthering irrelevant discussion. Tetrahedrite, I'm glad that I'm not the only one who isn't convinced that Israel is in every way righteous. It's good to hear your support! Bettina, do you actually think Israel had no malice in mind? Were they only acting out of righteousness to kill those who attacked their civilians? Then why did they make the bold statement that everyone in southern Lebanon was a target? Why did they ask for the rushed shipment of cluster bombs when they themselves said that Hezbollah militants use human shields? Or are they just lying about the whole "human shields" thing just to try to justify the deaths of innocents. Personally I'm going for the latter because support for Hezbollah would not be increasing amongst the Lebanese population if Hezbollah were using civilians as shields. For more concerning the Lebanese perception of Hezbollah, please see: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34254 And why do I have to keep asking these questions. Once again, I maintain that the IDF is guilty of terrorism. I extend an open challenge to those who would like to try to prove me wrong.