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

[Bettina]

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?

 

No it doesn't. The Bush doctrine was aimed at governments, not the brainwashed civilians who were sold a bill of goods. The people voted for the terrorist organization without reading the fine print.

 

Bee

[Jim]

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?

 

From the 9/11 Commission report:

 

In the late afternoon, the President overruled his aides' continuing reluctance to have him return to Washington and ordered Air Force One back to Andrews Air Force Base. He was flown by helicopter back to the White House, passing over the still-smoldering Pentagon. At 8:30 that evening, President Bush addressed the nation from the White House. After emphasizing that the first priority was to help the injured and protect against any further attacks, he said: "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

 

 

This doctrine was contained in the classified National Security Presidential Directve 9 which called on the Secretary of Defense to plan for military options "against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics." The NSPD also called for plans "against al Qaeda and associated terrorist facilities in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control-communications, training, and logistics facilities."

 

Here's Rumsfeld's testimony before the 9/11 commission:

 

By the first week of September, this process had arrived at a strategy that was presented to Principals and later became National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD)-9. The objectives of the new strategy were:

 

• To eliminate the al-Qaeda network;

 

• To use all elements of national power to do so -- diplomatic, military, economic, intelligence, information and law enforcement;

 

• To eliminate sanctuaries for al-Qaeda and related terrorist networks – and if diplomatic efforts to do so failed, to consider additional measures.

 

These directives were focussed on 9/11 and "al-Qaeda and related terrorist networks." Although the policy makes complete sense and I've not heard you articulate a viable alternative, I don't think Bush is hemmed in on Hezbollah. He may take a more aggressive appraoch against terror networks that have already succeeded in attacking the US at home.

[Pangloss]

Let's not stray too far from the subject. The issue being discussed here is not whether the Bush administration did X, Y or Z, or what it meant by those actions. More to the point, one does not have to be a defender of the Bush administration in order to support Israel's actions in the current conflict. Nor does one have to be an opponent of the Bush administration in order to oppose Israel's actions.

[ecoli]

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).

 

I'll admit, I don't know enough about Israel's military to say whether or not this is true. I'm not sure exactly how much effort they put into making sure civilians are in regions they are attacking. I expect that it may be more than you think, though.

 

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.

 

Oh, nobody is denying that Hezbollah's tactics are effective. They are, however, in clear violation of several international laws, so the reason why anyone in the international community would support their cause is beyond me.

 

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 don't have statistics to show how many people Hezbollah's media touches. But I do know that they run many, if not all, of the public schools in southern Lebanon. Plus, you don't have to be brainwashed to accept propaganda, that can happen to anyone at any time.

 

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.

 

I admire you for having the balls to admit so.

[Severian]

I'm not sure exactly how much effort they put into making sure civilians are in regions they are attacking. I expect that it may be more than you think, though.

 

I hope that was a typo

[Severian]

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.

 

I agree with this statement. I suspect the reasons for Israel not making this point are political: if they are in a conventional war with Lebanon they would not fall under the US's war on terror remit any more; they would also provoke Lebanon into throwing conventional troops at the war (which Lebanon has not done); finally they would remove any possibility of leaving Lebanon without a regime change, making them responsible for security in the area for years to come.

[Pangloss]

Here's what I keep wondering: Is there any doubt that Hezbollah would continue to target civilians if they had guided missile technology? Of course not, they would simply say "well Israel is attacking civilians, so we feel justified in doing so as well", as if there is no logical difference between deliberately targetting civilians and hitting them incidentally because they're packed in with soldiers and rocket launchers.

 

And because the world listens to statements from the media like "while diplomats debate the finer points of a cease fire, civilians on both sides continue dying" (from ABC News last night), and does not challenge that kind of equivocation, they would get away with it.

 

Well I think we're going to find out the answer to that question. Higher-accuracy munitions are already starting to show up in Hezbollah's deployed inventory, with a slower, more accurate unmanned drone shot down off the coast of Haifa last night. Iran is playing a risky game there, but they show no signs of stopping.

[ecoli]

I hope that was a typo

 

Oh yeah, simply negate that statement, sorry.

 

Here's what I keep wondering: Is there any doubt that Hezbollah would continue to target civilians if they had guided[/i'] missile technology? Of course not, they would simply say "well Israel is attacking civilians, so we feel justified in doing so as well", as if there is no logical difference between deliberately targetting civilians and hitting them incidentally because they're packed in with soldiers and rocket launchers.

 

Interesting notion, Pangloss. But, I think if both parties had that kind of technology, HEzbollah wouldn't have the excuse. If Hezbollah had the technology and didn't operate in civilian territory, there would be virtually no civilian casualties. In this particular case, it doesn't serve HEzbollah's twisted interests to have precision technology.

[ecoli]

And because the world listens to statements from the media like "while diplomats debate the finer points of a cease fire' date=' civilians on both sides [i']continue dying[/i]" (from ABC News last night), and does not challenge that kind of equivocation, they would get away with it.

 

I'm not well aquainted with the 'equivocation fallacy'. Could you explain how this is equivocation?

[Pangloss]

That's an interesting point, and may serve to explain why they haven't acquired more accurate munitions. Perhaps they're focusing more on damage amount than on accuracy.

 

However, I suppose it's also possible that their purposes would be suited by more accurate munitions very well, because it would allow them to selectively target concentrations of people, instead of relying on a few dead people in whatever house they happen to hit, if anybody happens to be home at the time, and if they're not all locked up in their bomb shelter, etc etc etc.

[ecoli]

But the last thing Hezbollah would want would be an equal death toll on both sides. Right now, pretty much the whole thing that's keeping Israel protesters on the streets are the 900 dead Lebanese but 'only' 50 or so dead Israelis.

[Pangloss]

I'm not well aquainted with the 'equivocation fallacy'. Could you explain how this is equivocation?

 

Sure. The reporter was basically dismissing the root cause of the current conflict. He's making the case that whatever caused the current conflict is no longer important, and that what matters is the fact that people are dying. That goes right to the heart of the mainstream media agenda, which has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. If it bleeds, it leads. Cameras love crying women and babies. They care nothing about root causes.

 

A "root cause" is normally a politically-correct thing to look for, but in this case it isn't, because political correctness demands that we focus instead on dying civilians, which is certainly an understandable thing to want to do.

 

The great irony of this position is that it claims to place human life above all else, but in fact it does exactly the opposite. Human life isn't a priceless heirloom, it's actually a very pricable commodity. We have (essentially) decided in Western society that its owner has (more or less) the right to spend it however he or she sees fit, so long as that spending doesn't harm anyone else. And can anyone think of anything more valuable to spend it on than the attainment of freedom?

 

At this point the media agenda corresponds to the agenda of many on the far left AND the far right who place human life above the level of human responsibility and freedom. Many in the extremes believe that the Middle East cannot determine its own course, and should be prevented from doing so. They should all be placed in a great big Star Trek holodeck with the safeties turned on, and then we in the enlightened world shall grant them freedom from On High.

 

These people have forgotten that freedom comes at a price. They sit in their air conditioned homes, 5, 10, 15 THOUSAND miles from the violence, enjoying the fruits of their forgotten ancestor's own fight for freedom, and talk about how awful it is that people are dying. They don't care why. They just care that they are.

 

Woe be unto us if those people win.

[Pangloss]

But the last thing Hezbollah would want would be an equal death toll on both sides. Right now, pretty much the whole thing that's keeping Israel protesters on the streets are the 900 dead Lebanese but 'only' 50 or so dead Israelis.

 

Well yes, that seems to be part of the current rubric. But that's not always the case, and I'm sure they have an eye on the big picture.

[Pangloss]

George Will's column in the current issue of Newsweek is worth a read.

 

There have been blue U.N. helmets in southern Lebanon for 28 years. Hence Israel's insistence on a "robust" force—perhaps at least 15,000 soldiers, with armor—operating under rules of engagement that permit it to fight if attacked by Hizbullah, which has seen how attacks by Iraqi insurgents drove the U.N. and several nations' troop contingents out of Iraq. Such a force is unlikely to be deployed soon, if ever.

 

But because of the lethality of modern munitions and the ubiquity of graphic journalism, Israel must do whatever it does quickly. It has been noted that two of Israel's greatest military achievements—the Six Day War and the 1981 bombing of Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor near Baghdad—were finished before world opinion could be brought to bear against Israel. Presumably Olmert remembers the words of Israel's prime minister during the Six Day War. "We Jews," said Golda Meir, "are used to collective eulogies, but Israel will not die so that the world will speak well of it."

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14206045/

[Chupacabra]

The great irony of this position is that it claims to place human life above all else, but in fact it does exactly the opposite. Human life isn't a priceless heirloom, it's actually a very pricable commodity[/i']. We have (essentially) decided in Western society that its owner has (more or less) the right to spend it however he or she sees fit, so long as that spending doesn't harm anyone else. And can anyone think of anything more valuable to spend it on than the attainment of freedom?

 

To enjoy your freedom, you should in the first place stay alive, shouldn't you?

 

In my opinion, the problem is, the human life presently has different value depending on where the human live. Israel has a history of killing dozens of civilians in Gaza while hunting for single terrorists. Now, Israelis were well aware that their actions will inevitably lead to the death of hundreds

civilians in Lebanon. This has no difference at all with deliberate murder. The lifes of two captured Israeli solgers is regarded more valuable then lifes of thousand innocent Lebanese civilians. Likewise, US invasion in Iraq has led to death of more than 100 000 Iraquis, all to the purpose of defending Americans from the illusory threat of Iraq WMD.

 

I would consider it a kind of modern racism: discriminating people by the place they were born is no better than discriminatating by the skin color.

[Bettina]

To enjoy your freedom' date=' you should in the first place stay alive, shouldn't you?

 

In my opinion, the problem is, the human life presently has different value depending on where the human live. Israel has a history of killing dozens of civilians in Gaza while hunting for single terrorists. Now, Israelis were well aware that their actions will inevitably lead to the death of hundreds

civilians in Lebanon. This has no difference at all with deliberate murder. The lifes of two captured Israeli solgers is regarded more valuable then lifes of thousand innocent Lebanese civilians. Likewise, US invasion in Iraq has led to death of more than 100 000 Iraquis, all to the purpose of defending Americans from the illusory threat of Iraq WMD.

 

I would consider it a kind of modern racism: discriminating people by the place they were born is no better than discriminatating by the skin color.[/quote']

 

Your so misinformed that I just don't know what to say.......

 

Bettina

[ecoli]

To enjoy your freedom' date=' you should in the first place stay alive, shouldn't you?

 

In my opinion, the problem is, the human life presently has different value depending on where the human live. Israel has a history of killing dozens of civilians in Gaza while hunting for single terrorists. Now, Israelis were well aware that their actions will inevitably lead to the death of hundreds

civilians in Lebanon. This has no difference at all with deliberate murder. The lifes of two captured Israeli solgers is regarded more valuable then lifes of thousand innocent Lebanese civilians. Likewise, US invasion in Iraq has led to death of more than 100 000 Iraquis, all to the purpose of defending Americans from the illusory threat of Iraq WMD.

 

I would consider it a kind of modern racism: discriminating people by the place they were born is no better than discriminatating by the skin color.[/quote']

 

You're ignoring root cause as well as the actions of Hezbollah.

[Jim]

To enjoy your freedom, you should in the first place stay alive, shouldn't you?

 

For me to enjoy freedom, men and women had to sacrifice their own lives and kill. The same remains true today.

 

In my opinion, the problem is, the human life presently has different value depending on where the human live. Israel has a history of killing dozens of civilians in Gaza while hunting for single terrorists.

 

Kind of like Hezbollah demanding the release of 1,000 prisoners held by Israel in exchange for 2 Israeli captives held by Hezbollah.

 

Now, Israelis were well aware that their actions will inevitably lead to the death of hundreds civilians in Lebanon.

 

I'm with you so far...

 

This has no difference at all with deliberate murder.

 

*thunks forehead with Black's Law Dictionary and then hands it to you, with the page open to the definition for "murder"*

 

The lifes of two captured Israeli solgers is regarded more valuable then lifes of thousand innocent Lebanese civilians.

 

I'm sure Israel would have been delighted to face Hezbollah on an open field of battle and saved those civilians.

 

Likewise, US invasion in Iraq has led to death of more than 100 000 Iraquis, all to the purpose of defending Americans from the illusory threat of Iraq WMD.

 

*grits teeth and says for the 1,000th time on these boards:* No, we invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein invaded a strategically important US ally, lost, agreed to disclose the destruction of his WMD programs as a condition for the ceasefire, violated his agreement, funded terrorist's families for about $25MM as I recall, attempted to assassinate a former US president, had used WMDs in the past, played games with his WMD programs even as the UN & EU dithered and as the US gathered its forces to strike. At any moment, he could have trotted out his videotapes showing the destruction of the WMDs and Bush would have been left without the ability to react.

 

I don't mind coming up against opponents who are smart and aggressive. Aggressive and dumb, however, kills everyone. Saddam was dumb to invade Kuwait, attempt to assassinate Bush Sr and then not provide iron clad proof that he had destroyed his WMDs. He had to go.

 

 

I would consider it a kind of modern racism: discriminating people by the place they were born is no better than discriminatating by the skin color.

 

Not all forms of discrimination are racist or even wrong. You discriminate every day of your life but that doesn't make you a racist.

[Pangloss]

To enjoy your freedom, you should in the first place stay alive, shouldn't you?

 

Whom do you feel is more free?

 

Person A) Makes a choice to sacrifice himself so that others can be free.

 

Person B) Does what the state tells him to do, and stays alive.

 

I realize there are plenty of other possibilities, but your question represents an absolute, so I'm responding on that basis. No, I don't think you must stay alive at all costs in order to be free. Absolutely not.

 

 

Israelis were well aware that their actions will inevitably lead to the death of hundreds civilians in Lebanon.

 

You're arguing that they should have just sat back and took it from Hezbollah. Previously dismissed in this thread as a two wrongs logical fallacy.

 

 

This has no difference at all with deliberate murder.

 

This is a moral equivalency argument, similar to others that have been attempted in this thread. The counterpoint is the same, that there is a difference between deliberate targetting of civilians and the incidental death to civilians who are being deliberately placed in harms way.

 

Nobody seems to have an effective counter-argument to this point beyond the level of "well that's my opinion so there". (shrug)

 

 

The lifes of two captured Israeli solgers is regarded more valuable then lifes of thousand innocent Lebanese civilians.

 

An obvious logical fallacy of false cause and effect.

[Pangloss]

Hehe, interesting post Jim.

[MM]

This is a moral equivalency argument' date=' similar to others that have been attempted in this thread. The counterpoint is the same, that there is a difference between deliberate targetting of civilians and the incidental death to civilians who are being deliberately placed in harms way.

 

Nobody seems to have an effective counter-argument to this point beyond the level of "well that's my opinion so there". (shrug)

[/quote']

 

Are you claiming Israeli intelligence is so low that they cannot foresee civilian casualties, the consequences of their actions? Don't you agree that the perpetrator's guild is irrelevant to the value set upon the victim and that all human's have an equal value.

[Bettina]

What do you think Israel should do to protect its innocent women and children from being blown up in a shopping mall or bus by terrorists who hide across the border among their civilian population. Could you answer me that? Does anyone here have a better plan than all the ones which previously have not worked?

 

I really would like an answer from the constant Israeli bashers here.

 

Bettina

[ecoli]

Are you claiming Israeli intelligence is so low that they cannot foresee civilian casualties, the consequences of their actions?

That's not what he was saying at all.

 

Don't you agree that the perpetrator's guild is irrelevant to the value set upon the victim and that all human's have an equal value.

 

Im not sure who you are refering to as 'perpetrator' and 'victim' here.

 

As to the value of human life: it may be Israeli rockets that are landing on Lebanon, but it is Hezbollah that is killing Lebanese civilians.

[Pangloss]

MM, I don't appreciate being misquoted. My "moral equivalency" response was to a different portion of the message I was responding to than the one you refer to in your response. If you did that on purpose, shame on you.

 

Israelis were well aware that their actions will inevitably lead to the death of hundreds civilians in Lebanon.

 

You're arguing that they should have just sat back and took it from Hezbollah. Previously dismissed in this thread as a two wrongs logical fallacy.

 

 

This has no difference at all with deliberate murder[/b'].

 

This is a moral equivalency argument' date=' similar to others that have been attempted in this thread. The counterpoint is the same, that there is a difference between deliberate targetting of civilians and the incidental death to civilians who are being deliberately placed in harms way.

 

Nobody seems to have an effective counter-argument to this point beyond the level of "well that's my opinion so there". (shrug)[/quote']

[MM]

What do you think Israel should do to protect its innocent women and children from being blown up in a shopping mall or bus by terrorists who hide across the border among their civilian population. Could you answer me that? Does anyone here have a better plan than all the ones which previously have not worked?

 

I really would like an answer from the constant Israeli bashers here.

 

Bettina

 

This what I here from your side all the time. What else could we do. For starters one have to understand that civilizations came about cause of trade and with trade comes mutual interests. It then doesn't matter whose fault it is and who started what. This overall strategy has to come before various tactics like destroying infrastructure or other collective punishments.