"Stop the war now" - I'd rather die tommorow

[Pangloss]

I am not defending Hezbollah's actions when saying this, but when you look at things from a slightly broader historical perspective, Israel doesn't exactly have the moral high ground when it comes to kidnapping prisoners from Lebanon during border incursions and holding them hostage. It has been carrying out this exact policy in Lebanon for almost the last 2 decades, and many of the prisoners are still unreleased, without trial. Did the world even raise an eyebrow when this happenned?

 

That's not a "broader historical perspective", that's two wrongs making a right. If it were actually a "broader historical perspective", then you would have discussed Hezbollah's history of terrorist acts in the same paragraph.

 

 

It is far from the truth that only Hezbollah members have been kidnapped as businessmen, politicians and civilians with no affiliation to the group have been held without charge for a verey long time. This makes the claim that this is a suitable reason for Israel to invade Lebanon and blatantly attack and bombard heavily populated civilian areas; just because Hezbollah has started employing their own tactics agains them.

 

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Can't fault that.

 

 

I would be shocked if anyone truly believes this war was pursued because 2 Israeli soldiers were kidnapped.

 

Yet another dismissal of the rocket attacks. These dismissals abound around the Web. It's really unfortunate to see that here.

 

 

In light of this, I think the strategy has proved to be as disasterous as the Iraq war. Why are these countries(US, UK and Israel) continuing to believe that violence can solve these problems?

 

So you see the US, UK and Israel as using violence to solve problems, but not Hezbollah -- they're only responding to Israel's provocations. Got it.

 

Congradulations: You're well on your way to becoming an apologist for terrorism. Good luck with that.

[Pangloss]

BTW, that oh-so-innocent Hezbollah killed 15 Israeli's in those non-existent rocket attacks this morning.

 

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/0-0-0&fp=44d7ee4ea34f2a82&ei=dmLXRMmiEK_qaNCntLkF&url=http%3A//www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html%3Fid%3Dce7c9ce2-2357-4d25-8c13-8500d989149e%26k%3D90456&cid=1108515307

[Pangloss]

Anyone following this story about Reuters axing a Lebanese photog over doctored photos? Quite fascinating....

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1707782.htm

 

LGF broke the story and has been carrying both real and mokingly re-doctored examples, as well as other comentary:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/

 

Here's a before/after sample of one of the doctored images:

 

[abskebabs]

It took me a while to find mooeypoo, but I think this is the article.

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/08/04/10057432.html

[darkangel199]

BTW' date=' that oh-so-innocent Hezbollah killed 15 Israeli's in those non-existent rocket attacks this morning.

 

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/0-0-0&fp=44d7ee4ea34f2a82&ei=dmLXRMmiEK_qaNCntLkF&url=http%3A//www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html%3Fid%3Dce7c9ce2-2357-4d25-8c13-8500d989149e%26k%3D90456&cid=1108515307[/quote']

 

15 soldiers, not 29 little kids and women. you should try to make sure you say al lthe facts before bringing up news stories. And i would say you're the apologist for terrorists, you simply dismiss anything Israel does. You must live in a fantasy where its clear that one side is the good guys, and the other are the "evil terrorists" right? well here's a news flash, both sides use the same tactics, the only difference is, the west has a distaste for any country in the middle east that isnt Israel, the schools, colleges, news, and poiliticians al ldo what you just did their, dismiss anything the side they favor does but pile on when it comes to someone they don't like, then it gets spit out in the news and schools and kids grow up believing the garbage and dismissing other things.

[abskebabs]

Yet another dismissal of the rocket attacks. These dismissals abound around the Web. It's really unfortunate to see that here.

 

So you see the US' date=' UK and Israel as using violence to solve problems, but not Hezbollah -- they're only responding to Israel's provocations. Got it.

 

Congradulations: You're well on your way to becoming an apologist for terrorism. Good luck with that.[/quote']

I am not an apologist for terrorism, nor am I sympathetic to Hezbollah. They are a proxy for Iran in Lebanon and quite a negative influence for Lebanon's national interests. Besides this they have a long history of terrorist attacks they have comitted.

 

I apologise for this though: I am not sure if the rocket attacks started before or after Lebanon began to be bombarded by Israel. Can you shed me some light on this? I suppose some of my comments were premature in light of this.

 

Instead of worrying about what I think of this situation, why not look at it this way; Despite the fact that Israel has said it has not been intentionally attacking civilians, it has been killing them mostly, in what appear to most ppl in the middle east in indiscriminate ar strikes. Hezbollah makes no attempt to deny its actions and has been targeting Israeli civilians. Regardless of what Israel claims it is doing it has invaded and attacked Lebanon disproportionately, and this will just be fuelling sentiment against them. This is because in the middle east it is being judged on its actions rather than its words. What they are doing is only making their current problems worse.

 

This may sound ridiculous or far fetched to you, but realistically couldn't a political solution to the initial problem have been reached? It may make you sick to your stomach, but Hezbollah is a political party and has a sizeable presence in the Lebanese Parliament. Despite the animosity on both sides, a negotiated solution could have been reached, couldnt it? It's the British were negotiating with Sinn Feinn when it still had an armed wing(aka the IRA), but would probably rule out anything similiar with Hamas or Hezbollah.

 

The biggest problem is that ppl on both sides focus on what the other one has done to them and gloss over the attrocities they have committed against each other.

[darkangel199]

There is a reasonable threshold where you weigh how much an action is going to punish the millions of innocents and the collective population vs. the chances it may hurt the opposing group (hezbollah in this case). Its safe to safe Israel has far, far exceeded this threshold in this situation. All the infrastructure damage is guaranteed to make Lebanon and its citizenry suffer for many years to come, while it is unknown whether it will have any substantial effects on the fighting capability of hezbollah. The thing is, Israel always seems willing to take these types of actions which exceed this threshold, with utter and complete disregard to the consequences.

 

This is a good article written by an Israeli newspaper. Basically he is saying Israel has done more damage than any "terror" group could ever do and has set its own self back by more than two decades. '

 

"Unprecedented achievements'

By Nehemia Shtrasler

 

Even the Six Day War was dwarfed this week by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's impressive spin. Olmert spoke of a war with "impressive achievements that are unparalleled, perhaps even unprecedented," adding: "We can say with certainty that the face of the Middle East has already been changed." And in order to enhance the achievements even further, government spokesmen upgraded Hezbollah from a small terror organization to an elite army, the spearhead of the Iranian army, which has come to destroy us. And if we are facing destruction, all means are permissible.

 

"They will never again be able to threaten this nation with missiles," Olmert continued. And the next day, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah replied with another 210 missiles on the north - the largest number since the start of the war. Experts say that he has another 9,000 of them.

 

Olmert is disturbed by the criticism of the failure to achieve the war's goals, and he is trying by words alone to turn this reality into achievements, both for the government and for himself. But the sad truth is that our situation today is worse than it was at the start of the war, and time is not on our side.

 

Advertisement

 

Three days after the start of the war, after a series of heavy bombardments of Hezbollah, Israel's standing in the world was at its height (even in some Arab countries). At that point, we could have stopped, embraced the excellent agreement proposed by the G-8 and turned to negotiations. Today, it is impossible to obtain the agreement proposed then. Today, it is difficult to obtain any agreement at all.

 

The situation in general is worrisome. Although Israel hurt Hezbollah and killed hundreds of its members, it has not succeeded in causing the organization to collapse. That is the strength of a guerrilla organization that enjoys sweeping support from the population. Nasrallah will always declare that he won. He can always claim that with 2,000 fighters, he succeeded in confronting the huge Israeli army honorably, and even caused it casualties. He can always claim that he caused us tremendous damage by bombing the north of the country with rockets and even paralyzing Haifa.

 

Nasrallah's status has been strengthened, both in Lebanon and throughout the Arab world, and there is a chance that his strength will increase following the next elections in Lebanon. That is not "restoring deterrence." It is a serious blow at Israel's deterrent capability.

 

In terms of our status in the world, Israel has suffered a disaster. Anyone who has seen the pictures of dead children being removed from the ruins, which are being shown on foreign television networks, can understand the growing demonstrations against Israel, both in Arab countries and in the West. Hatred of Israel and of Jews in general is on the rise, and European leaders are pressing for an immediate cessation of the war, even before any agreement is signed. Even the United States is losing patience.

 

The portion of the Arab world that sided with Israel at the start of the war - Saudi Arabia, for example - has now aligned itself with Hezbollah. The president of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, yesterday called on all Arab countries to embark on a war against Israel, and there are even volunteers waiting in line. It turns out that even with the most sophisticated planes, Israel will never succeed in killing enough terrorists to reduce their overall number.

 

Even Israel's socioeconomic situation has declined. The economy was in the midst of fast growth, and the 2007 budget included far-reaching social-welfare plans. Now, however, there is a drastic change in the order of priorities: more for the army and less for society.

 

And all this is in addition to dozens of dead on our side, both civilians and soldiers, and hundreds of dead in Lebanon.

 

In the corridors of power, people this week began blaming the Israel Defense Forces and the chief of staff for the outcome of the battles. But the army must not become a scapegoat. The strategy and the goals were approved by Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and the responsibility is entirely theirs. They said that Hezbollah would be disarmed of its rockets, the Lebanese Army would replace it on the northern border, and the two kidnapped soldiers would be returned without compensation. None of that has been achieved.

 

Now, Olmert is talking about an entirely new goal: seizing a security zone six to eight kilometers wide until the arrival of a multinational force of "at least 10,000 soldiers," which will replace the IDF and disarm Hezbollah.

 

That is how we have suddenly gone from surgical air force strikes, without a single soldier entering the area, to the security zone from which we withdrew six years ago because of the large number of dead and wounded caused by that very same Hezbollah.

 

It is amazing that suddenly, we are relying on the soldiers of France or Poland to protect us. Judging by past experience, they will not sacrifice their lives for us, but will turn a blind eye to what is happening. And if no significant multinational force arrives, the IDF will be forced to remain in the security zone for a long time - and that is the familiar Lebanese swamp, which is once again pulling us in.

 

And when we are sitting in the middle of the swamp, Hezbollah will once again arm itself and attack our stationary army, whose only goal will be to protect itself. Thus in one fell swoop, we will go back 24 years, to the first Lebanon War.

 

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746308.htm

 

So, as you can see they are not going to continue but now they have basically called out Iran and by proxy Syria and most other Arab nations. THey are the ones wanting a massive regional war here, their own political officials say so in so many words. and of course the U.S. will follow in lock step like a sheep dog following its master. They know even if they bomb or attack Iran first or any other country, if that country attacks back the U.S. will jump in. they are using the U.S. to accomplish their own goals and the governmento f this countryi s too blinded by politics to care or notice, much like its populace.

[ecoli]

I apologise for this though: I am not sure if the rocket attacks started before or after Lebanon began to be bombarded by Israel. Can you shed me some light on this? I suppose some of my comments were premature in light of this.

 

http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/hezb_00-06.html

 

Years and years before this conflict.

 

Instead of worrying about what I think of this situation, why not look at it this way; Despite the fact that Israel has said it has not been intentionally attacking civilians, it has been killing them mostly, in what appear to most ppl in the middle east in indiscriminate ar strikes.

To me, these attacks don't appear indiscriminate. To me, it appears as if Hezbollah is using innocent Lebanese civilians as a publicity shield and using it's own media power so the innocent remains unaware that they are being used this way.

 

Hezbollah makes no attempt to deny its actions and has been targeting Israeli civilians. Regardless of what Israel claims it is doing it has invaded and attacked Lebanon disproportionately, and this will just be fuelling sentiment against them. This is because in the middle east it is being judged on its actions rather than its words. What they are doing is only making their current problems worse.

 

You could make that argument certainly. But, should Israel allow Hezbollah to endure, allowing Hezbollah to successfully employ it's despicable tactics? It comes down to appeasement again.

 

People are saying that Israel should immediately cease-fire because the lives of the Lebanese civilians take precedent. But what about Hezbollah's responsibility for these deaths? What about the future deaths of Israeli innocents that could be caused by Hezbollah rockets, should Hezbollah be allowed to endure?

 

This may sound ridiculous or far fetched to you, but realistically couldn't a political solution to the initial problem have been reached? It may make you sick to your stomach, but Hezbollah is a political party and has a sizeable presence in the Lebanese Parliament. Despite the animosity on both sides, a negotiated solution could have been reached, couldnt it? It's the British were negotiating with Sinn Feinn when it still had an armed wing(aka the IRA), but would probably rule out anything similiar with Hamas or Hezbollah.

 

A politcal solution would be ideal, but I don't see how it's possible. The UN has some good ideas, but they take too long to act, and they have little clout to back up their own resolutions anyway. Condi is trying to broker a deal that I like, but will probably be rejected by Hezbollah, because it calls for their own disarmament.

Anything less shouldn't be considered, I think. For the interest of future peace...

[ecoli]

So, as you can see they are not going to continue but now they have basically called out Iran and by proxy Syria and most other Arab nations. THey are the ones wanting a massive regional war here, their own political officials say so in so many words.

Israel doesn't want a large costly war, but it does want it's boardering nations to recognize it's right to exist.

 

Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and Syra and Iran are arming it's enemies, people who want to kill or chase out everyone living in the country. Should Israel not want to defend themsevles against such sentiment?

 

and of course the U.S. will follow in lock step like a sheep dog following its master. They know even if they bomb or attack Iran first or any other country,

This will probably not happen. Israel doesn't initiate armed combat very often. But if Iran, a country has called for the complete destruction of Israel, develops nuclear weapons, then I don't see what choice Israel has.

[Pangloss]

15 soldiers, not 29 little kids and women. you should try to make sure you say al lthe facts before bringing up news stories.

 

In fact it was 12 soldiers and 3 civilians. Perhaps you should try to make sure you say all the facts before bringing up news stories. I, on the other hand, made no statement about whether they were civilians or soldiers.

 

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=ce7c9ce2-2357-4d25-8c13-8500d989149e&k=90456

 

 

And i would say you're the apologist for terrorists, you simply dismiss anything Israel does. You must live in a fantasy where its clear that one side is the good guys, and the other are the "evil terrorists" right? well here's a news flash, both sides use the same tactics, the only difference is, the west has a distaste for any country in the middle east that isnt Israel, the schools, colleges, news, and poiliticians al ldo what you just did their, dismiss anything the side they favor does but pile on when it comes to someone they don't like, then it gets spit out in the news and schools and kids grow up believing the garbage and dismissing other things.

 

In fact you haven't known me long enough to make that case, and if you had you'd know it to be false. I've *STARTED* threads on this board about Israel's more outrageous actions over the years. You just could not possibly be more wrong.

 

You are furthering exactly the kind of useless invective and pointless blame-gaming rhetoric that has created the situation in the middle east today. As I said above, good luck with that. I think you will find that it will continue to be less than productive.

[abskebabs]

To me' date=' these attacks don't appear indiscriminate. To me, it appears as if Hezbollah is using innocent Lebanese civilians as a publicity shield and using it's own media power so the innocent remains unaware that they are being used this way.

[/quote']

What percentage of civilian deaths do you think will have been caused by Hezbollah employing these tactics? Do you seriously think they have that kind of capabillity? They are able fight a guerilla war, launch missiles into Israel and hide civilians place their own civilians in areas they know will be bombed simultaneously?

 

I know Western media and the IDF keeps emphasizing this scenario, but do you really think this is the main cause of Lebanese civilian casualties? Personally I am doubtful, though I concede I do not know the "facts on the ground" as I am not in Lebanon, so I am left uncertain.

[Pangloss]

I apologise for this though: I am not sure if the rocket attacks started before or after Lebanon began to be bombarded by Israel. Can you shed me some light on this? I suppose some of my comments were premature in light of this.

 

Your last post seemed much more sensible and reasonable to me' date=' so while I don't agree with it in the end, I respect your opinion on it. So let me just answer this question (more relevently than ecoli has, IMO, because history before this event is irrelevent to this event, in my view) by linking a couple of pretty good summaries at the Wikipedia. These should not be taken as SOURCES, but just as information starting-points and a reinforcement to the point that [b']it is generally accepted that Hezbollah initiated the current conflict[/b].

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict

[ecoli]

What percentage of civilian deaths do you think will have been caused by Hezbollah employing these tactics? Do you seriously think they have that kind of capabillity? They are able fight a guerilla war, launch missiles into Israel and hide civilians place their own civilians in areas they know will be bombed simultaneously?

 

I know Western media and the IDF keeps emphasizing this scenario, but do you really think this is the main cause of Lebanese civilian casualties? Personally I am doubtful, though I concede I do not know the "facts on the ground" as I am not in Lebanon, so I am left uncertain.

 

Plenty of evidence exists on this. One only needs to look for it. Here are some links on the matter.

 

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060730-093558-9976r.htm

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=123&art_id=qw1154562480313R131

 

 

Hezbollah hides it's weapons in mosques and public infrastructure, uses civilian roads and communications to operate. They fire their rockets from civilian areas, and [albeit allegedly] convince civilians to remain in areas targeted by the IDF.

 

Incidents such as the Qana attacks and the UN post that was bomb were two events known to be a result of Hezbollah using civilian structures as a way of attracting IDF fire, to attract public sympathy. And let's face it, it's certainly working.

[Pangloss]

What percentage of civilian deaths do you think will have been caused by Hezbollah employing these tactics? Do you seriously think they have that kind of capabillity? They are able fight a guerilla war' date=' launch missiles into Israel and hide civilians place their own civilians in areas they know will be bombed simultaneously?

 

I know Western media and the IDF keeps emphasizing this scenario, but do you really think this is the main cause of Lebanese civilian casualties? Personally I am doubtful, though I concede I do not know the "facts on the ground" as I am not in Lebanon, so I am left uncertain.[/quote']

 

It is almost impossible to tell what that percentage is, because the fighters are, by design, completely intermingled with the civilians. In a manner of speaking (and by some direct arguments, both for AND against) they ARE civilians.

 

Lebanon has CHOSEN to make Hezbollah part of its government. The people made a decision. They still believe in that decision, with polls showing over 80% support for Hezbollah! The international community warned them that it was a mistake. That warning was completely non-partisan and well aware (and NOT dismissive) of Israel's own mistakes over the years when it gave them that warning. And yet Lebanon failed to act on that internationally-recognized problem. Even then, everyone was willing to continue diplomatic efforts -- it was only when HEZBOLLAH began shooting that the situation changed.

 

Either Lebanon has made a mistake, or it has not. Either the people of Lebanon have made a mistake, or they have not. As I've said before (IN THIS THREAD), it is a tragedy that innocent lives have been lost and are being lost. But equivocating about casualties and insisting only that the violence be stopped is both pointless and moronic. Hezbollah has absolutely zero incentive to cooperate with the international community, and until the international community is willing to do something about that, Israel has every right to continue their current actions. Period, full stop, end of sentence.

 

The equivocation, the meandering, the uncertainty, the empathy, the wavering, THAT's what is damaging this situation and making it worse. The fact that Hezbollah sees us criticising Israel. The fact that we cannot enforce peace because we simply do not have the guts to do what it takes to keep the peace. These are the very facts that keep Hezbollah going.

 

Mind you, I'm not saying the Lebanese civilians should lie down and take it. I'm saying that our equivocation and lack of resolve means that there is no way for us to send in a peacekeeping force. If France (or anybody else) sends troops in, do you know what those troops will do the moment Hezbollah opens fire? They will stand aside. They will get out of harm's way. That's IT. How can we even consider that we have any kind of capability to "stop the violence" here, when we are completely unwilling to do what it takes for that to happen?

[abskebabs]

Hezbollah hides it's weapons in mosques and public infrastructure' date=' uses civilian roads and communications to operate. They fire their rockets from civilian areas, and [albeit allegedly'] convince civilians to remain in areas targeted by the IDF.

 

Incidents such as the Qana attacks and the UN post that was bomb were two events known to be a result of Hezbollah using civilian structures as a way of attracting IDF fire, to attract public sympathy. And let's face it, it's certainly working.

I think Hezbollah has learnt from the lessons of the PLO in the early 1980s so it does not keep any obvious infrastructure or bases which can be targeted. This makes it harder for Israel to destroy it, and as it's weapons and operations are embedded within civilian areas it makes it harder to destroy. On top of that this causes civilian casualties when Hezbollah targets. In this sense Hezbollah are more like a shadowy secret society that masquerade as civilians, inevitably drawing the conflict into civilian areas as it is the only place they can escape detection.

 

This is an alternative theory, which would not require Hezbolah having an elaborate strategy of using Lebanese civilians as "human shields." Regardless of either theory, the IDF knows about this, but it does not stop it firing at many civilians to kill a few terrorists. I ask an open question; can this be justified just because it is the only available means of attack should it be pursued?

 

Also what about the UN post bombed in this war and the one bombed 10 years ago? I doubt Hezbollah was using them as "human shields", so why were they targeted? Or were they caught in crossfire?

[abskebabs]

Lebanon has CHOSEN to make Hezbollah part of its government. The people made a decision. They still believe in that decision' date=' with polls showing over 80% support for Hezbollah! The international community warned them that it was a mistake.

[/quote']

Does this really surprise you? Hezbollah is viewed in Lebanon and other Arab countries, unfortunately perhaps; as the only body in the region truly standing up and taking the fight to Israel for attacking Lebanon. Also they generally have taken the credit in Lebanon for causing the withdrawal of Israel in 2000. Israel so far has only helped bolster support for Hezbollah and boost it's political standing.

 

However naive or short sighted the collective opinion is of the Lebanese ppl with regard to Hezbollah; do they deserve to pay for this with their lives? It seems to me your answer may be yes, which alarms me.

[ecoli]

I think Hezbollah has learnt from the lessons of the PLO in the early 1980s so it does not keep any obvious infrastructure or bases which can be targeted. This makes it harder for Israel to destroy it' date=' and as it's weapons and operations are embedded within civilian areas it makes it harder to destroy. On top of that this causes civilian casualties when Hezbollah targets. In this sense Hezbollah are more like a shadowy secret society that masquerade as civilians, inevitably drawing the conflict into civilian areas as it is the only place they can escape detection.

 

This is an alternative theory, which would not require Hezbolah having an elaborate strategy of using Lebanese civilians as "human shields."[/quote']

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The situation above are some ways that Hezbollah are using Lebanese as human shields.

 

Regardless of either theory, the IDF knows about this, but it does not stop it firing at many civilians to kill a few terrorists. I ask an open question; can this be justified just because it is the only available means of attack should it be pursued?

I personally think so. Hezbollah violates the Geneva convention and international law by treating it's civilians as sheilds. There is no question in my mind that Hezbollah must be stopped. But considering the fact that they aren't going to change their tactics because we ask them nicely, we really have little choice in the matter, don't we?

 

 

Also what about the UN post bombed in this war and the one bombed 10 years ago? I doubt Hezbollah was using them as "human shields", so why were they targeted? Or were they caught in crossfire?

 

I already supplied a link dealing with this. Hezbollah WAS using the UN post as a shield, as per the eye-witness account that one Canadian UN observer sent in an email.

 

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50

[Pangloss]

This is an alternative theory' date=' which would not require Hezbolah having an elaborate strategy of using Lebanese civilians as "human shields." Regardless of either theory, the IDF knows about this, but it does not stop it firing at many civilians to kill a few terrorists. I ask an open question; can this be justified just because it is the only available means of attack should it be pursued?

[/quote']

 

Absolutely. What choice do they have? Hezbollah is killing Israeli civilians from those Lebanese civilian areas. And neither Lebanon nor the rest of the world is willing to do ANYTHING about that.

 

 

Also what about the UN post bombed in this war and the one bombed 10 years ago? I doubt Hezbollah was using them as "human shields", so why were they targeted? Or were they caught in crossfire?

 

Since there is zero motivation for Israel to deliberately attack a UN outpost (and in fact just the opposite is true), this is either misdirection and obfuscation for the purpose of agenda, or two wrongs making a right. Either way your point is irrelevent, and I'll let you decide whether you're an apologist or a spin doctor.

 

 

Does this really surprise you?

 

I'm at a loss to explain what it is about my post that indicated surprise on my part at the fact that much of the Arab world supports Hezbollah. What does surprise me is the way people in more open, enlightened, progressive, educated, and ostensibly objective societies support them by equivocating the details about Israel's actions.

 

 

However naive or short sighted the collective opinion is of the Lebanese ppl with regard to Hezbollah; do they deserve to pay for this with their lives? It seems to me your answer may be yes, which alarms me.

 

It would be more accurate to say that because of their actions their lives are less important than dismantling Hezbollah, and that I hold them, not Israel, responsible for the loss of those lives when it happens.

 

One of the problems with equivocation is that it's created a politically correct environment in which people are so obsessed with peace at any cost that they've forgotten that peace ONLY COMES at great cost. It's just that the cost is not always so readily apparent.

[Bettina]

.....However naive or short sighted the collective opinion is of the Lebanese ppl with regard to Hezbollah; do they deserve to pay for this with their lives? It seems to me your answer may be yes, which alarms me.

 

If Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government then the government has technically declared war on Israel by Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel and kidnapping Israeli soldiers. The Lebanese government is totally responsible....

 

And no, no innocent civilian deserves to pay for their governments mistakes but this is the way wars are.

 

Something I got from another BB....

 

[i'] “We can perhaps forgive them for killing our children, but we can never forgive them for making us kill their children.” [/i]

 

Bettina

[abskebabs]

If Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government then the government has technically declared war on Israel by Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel and kidnapping Israeli soldiers. The Lebanese government is totally responsible....

 

And no' date=' no innocent civilian deserves to pay for their governments mistakes but this is the way wars are.

[/quote']

It is the lebanese ppl who elected their government, and are not exactly rebelling against the lebanese government or hezbollah(in fact they are supporting them more). As Bush says he would not distinguish between the harbourers of terrorists and terrorists; adopting his logic, wouldn't Lebanese civilians become legitimate targets? On top of that, Hamas a terrorist organisation, enjoys widespread support among the Palestinian populace and was elected with a large majority. Does this make them harbourers of terrorists too?

[ecoli]

Absolutely. What choice do they have? Hezbollah is killing Israeli civilians[/i'] from those Lebanese civilian areas. And neither Lebanon nor the rest of the world is willing to do ANYTHING about that.

 

a fact that organizations like the EU are willing to omit in the interest of 'peace.'

 

Since there is zero motivation for Israel to deliberately attack a UN outpost (and in fact just the opposite is true), this is either misdirection and obfuscation for the purpose of agenda, or two wrongs making a right. Either way your point is irrelevent, and I'll let you decide whether you're an apologist or a spin doctor.

It was a combination. Hezbollah was definately using the post as a sheild (due to an impartial eyewitness account), and so the person who actually fired the rocket was confused to what he actually was firing at.

 

It would be more accurate to say that because of their actions their lives are less important than dismantling Hezbollah, and that I hold them, not Israel, responsible for the loss of those lives when it happens.

I would say that it is especially important to dismantle Hezbollah because they ARE responsible for the deaths of Lebanese civilians, and that I believe askebab's original question was loaded.

 

He asks: "do they deserve to pay for this with their lives? It seems to me your answer may be yes, which alarms me. "

 

It's not that the Lebanese deserve to die, and nobody (though I suppose there always expections) would say that. It's just that Israel sees the civilian casualties as the fault of Hezbollah. They see the civilian deaths as the result of a attrocious warcrimes commited by Hezbollah.

 

His question is loaded in the fact that, if you support Israel's defensive position, then he labels you as inhumane... which is not the case. Because people who support Israel view the civilian causalties as a direct result of Hezbollah tactics, and while they realize that IDF bombs killed them, the real killer is in fact Hezbollah.

 

One of the problems with equivocation is that it's created a politically correct environment in which people are so obsessed with peace at any cost that they've forgotten that peace ONLY COMES at great cost. It's just that the cost is not always so readily apparent.

 

Well said... 'Freedom isn't free, it costs a hefty F-ing fee.

[ecoli]

It is the lebanese ppl who elected their government, and are not exactly rebelling against the lebanese government or hezbollah(in fact they are supporting them more). As Bush says he would not distinguish between the harbourers of terrorists and terrorists; adopting his logic, wouldn't Lebanese civilians become legitimate targets?

 

not in my opinion. The Lebanese support from Hezbollah probably stems from propaganda, and mis-education coming from HEzbollah itself. Which can be expected when a terrorist organization runs your major news outlets AND schools.

 

I believe the Lebanese civilians are innocent, as long as they haven't taken up arms directly or habor a terrorist. There opinions stem largely from ignorance and hateful propaganda, that many of them grew up with and can not avoid.

[Jim]

Hezbollah is viewed in Lebanon and other Arab countries' date=' unfortunately perhaps; as the only body in the region truly standing up and taking the fight to Israel for attacking Lebanon. Also they generally have taken the credit in Lebanon for causing the withdrawal of Israel in 2000. Israel so far has only helped bolster support for Hezbollah and boost it's political standing.

[/quote']

 

Throw in the attack on US marines sleeping in their beds and you will have persuasively explained why Hezbollah can not be allowed to come out of this conflict looking like a winner.

[Pangloss]

It is the lebanese ppl who elected their government, and are not exactly rebelling against the lebanese government or hezbollah(in fact they are supporting them more). As Bush says he would not distinguish between the harbourers of terrorists and terrorists; adopting his logic, wouldn't Lebanese civilians become legitimate targets? On top of that, Hamas a terrorist organisation, enjoys widespread support among the Palestinian populace and was elected with a large majority. Does this make them harbourers of terrorists too?

 

This argument is predicated on the premise that Israel is deliberately targetting civilians, which I don't accept.

[abskebabs]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The situation above are some ways that Hezbollah are using Lebanese as human shields.

I concede I did not read the first 2 links you provided and was a little dismissive. I should abstain from such behaviour. I guess I was unaware of the definition of a human shield as well. I suppose they have just 2 alternatives; to stay in the same position and get hit by a bomb or move into a civilian building or populated area and attract publicity and sympathy along with their death. This may not have been their intention initially though, maybe they expected Israel to attack civilians or even the UN.

 

Israel however has not hesitated in attacking either. I find it depressing that such actions are now viewed as the only choice here. I still find the tactics employed by the Israeli army against civilians utterly disagreeable(I am not talking about just the bombings).

 

On a separate point, I suppose if Hezbollah tried to fight Israel in the open, they would be wiped out quicker than a pack of fleas, so I suppose it may be rational from their perspective to hide in civilian areas and infrastructure.

 

not in my opinion. The Lebanese support from Hezbollah probably stems from propaganda' date=' and mis-education coming from HEzbollah itself. Which can be expected when a terrorist organization runs your major news outlets AND schools.

[/quote']

One more thing, you cannot use this to explain support for Hezbollah outside of Shiite areas in the South and North East of the country where they exert the most influence. I think Pangloss has already mentioned 80% of the populace support Hezbollah, and Shiites are a minority community in Lebanon(albeit a sizeable one).

 

I think I'll take a rest from posting on this thread, as my posts have become somewhat unproductive and a little ignorant. I apologise for this. I need to contemplate and investigate more before proverbially raising my voice.

[sigh]............................................