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

[Bettina]

budullewraagh....

 

First, you said you would allow an "unlimited" amount of soldiers/civilians to be captured and now your changing it to aproximately 10. Even with that all your doing is complaining and pointing out what you wouldn't do.

 

Unless I missed it, nowhere in this thread have you said what Israel should do to protect its people if the bombs and rockets continue to come in. I'm beginning to think (IMO) that your defense is to cut, run, and surrender.

 

Bettina

[Jim]

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.

 

When someone is dead people have to come to terms with it and move on whereas a capture is an an ongoing act of aggression. Hezbollah has the power to return these men to freedom but it cannot bring its victims back to life.

 

Capturing the enemy is a dramatic gesture of dominance. Having to let your people be in the custody of the enemy to be tortured or to have their living heart ripped from their chest, is an act of ultimate submission. The Aztecs built an entire religion, and one of the largest cities of the ancient world, around this brutal dynamic and sent their warriors into battle with war clubs so they could subdue captives for later sacrifice. In fact, their military hierarchy was built around capturing prisoners. You became an elite member of the miltary by capturing 4-5 prisoners. [This tactic didn't fare too well when the Spanish arrived with their western concepts of total war.]

 

Hezbollah's actions tap into this ancient brutal dynamic.

 

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.

 

No, but if the enemy was across your border and didnt' recognize your right to exist and if you had the power to teach them a lesson, you would.

 

This, my dear friends, is about survival and we are not so evolved as we think when survival is at issue.

.

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.

 

No, they would submit to the aggression as did the other tribes to the Aztecs for hundreds of years. They would send tribute to survive, perhaps even more captives for the altars.

 

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.

 

Compare and contrast to the the do nothing altnerative of relying on the international community that even now is backpeddling in its commitment:

 

The deployment is far below what was expected from France when it co-wrote a UN Resolution 1701 with the United States calling for a combat-ready UN force of up to 15 000 troops to bring peace to southern Lebanon.

 

That resolution, passed unanimously just over a week ago, led to a ceasefire and the withdrawal of most of Israel's forces after 34 days of war with Hezbollah Shiite Muslim guerrillas.

 

France had been expected to offer 2 500 to 4 000 soldiers to the force, but President Jacques Chirac has made a preliminary offer of just 200 troops while leaving open the option of sending more later.

 

 

Please tell me where they succeeded.

Here is Victor Hanson's take on the silver lining for Israel:

 

Yet' date=' all is not lost, since lunacy cuts both ways. Iran and Syria unleashed Hezbollah because they were both facing global scrutiny, one over nuclear acquisition and the other over the assassination of Lebanese reformer Rafik Hariri. Those problems won’t go away for either of them — nor, if we persist, will the democratic fervor in Afghanistan and Iraq on their borders.

 

We still don’t know the extent of the damage that Hezbollah suffered, but it perhaps took casualties ten times the Israelis’ — losses — not to be dismissed even in the asymmetrical laws of postmodern warfare. Hezbollah’s leaders were hiding in embassies and bunkers; Israel’s were not. For all the newfound magnetism of Nasrallah, he brought ruin to his flock, and fright to the Arab establishment around Israel.

 

A surprised Israel now has a good glimpse of the terrorists’ new way of war, and probably next time will attack the supplier, not the launcher, of the rocketry. And when the Reuters stringers go away, the “civilians” of southern Lebanon, off-camera, might not be so eager to see more real fireworks lighting up their skies — or far-off, pristine Syria and Iran in safety praising the courage of the ruined amid the rubble. Note how Hezbollah already is desperately racing around the craters to assure its homeless constituency that it has enough Iranian cash to buy back lost sympathies.

 

Even the ceasefire can come back to bite the Islamists and their supporters. Hezbollah won’t be disarmed as promised, much less stay out of Katyusha range of the border. And that defiance will only reveal the impotence of the Lebanese and the U.N., reminding both that they have talked themselves into a corner and now are responsible to keep caged their own pet 7th-century vipers. This can only work to Israel’s favor when the next rockets go off, since no one then will be proposing an “international” solution — although it will be interesting to see whether Jacques Chirac talks of the “nuclear” option once his soldiers begin to be picked off by Hezbollah.

 

In a larger sense, the foiled London terrorist plot won’t endear either Islamists or their appeasers to millions in the world who face travel delays, cancelled flights, and body searches — on top of paying billions more to the Arab oil producers who in response whine even more in their victimhood.

 

As the cliché goes: the Middle East needs to wake up and disown Islamic fascism. Otherwise, insidiously the entire world is turning against it, as radical Islam proves to be every bit as frightening an ideology as German Nazism or Soviet Communism — whether this is ascertained from the use of human shields, tribal lynchings and beheadings, Joseph Goebbles-like propaganda, Holocaust-denial, racist rants, or primordial hatred of Jews.

 

Three years ago no one was talking about profiling at airports. Now the British are exploring how best to do it. Indeed, one of the stranger developments in recent memory is now taking place the world over: Young, Middle-Eastern, Muslim men are eyed and studied by passengers at every airport — even as governments still lecture about the evils of the very profiling that their own millions are doing daily. Muslims can thank al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and an entire culture that won’t condemn terrorism for such ostracism, which only increases with each suicide bomber, human shield, hijacking, kidnapping, and macabre reference to genocide and Jew-killing.

 

In an amorphous war of self-induced Western restraint, like the present one, truth and moral clarity are as important as military force. This past month, the world of the fascist jihadist and those who tolerate him was once again on display for civilization to fathom. Even the most timid and prone to appeasement in the West are beginning to see that it is becoming a question of “the Islamists or us.”

 

In this eleventh hour, that is a sort of progress after all.[/quote']

 

Even I blanch at that next to the last sentence but this war is about finding clarity for the future and holding all accountable for their decisions. We won't storm the beaches and have a conclusion (although people forget that we fought the SS for years after WWII). We have to hold all accountable while avoiding nuclear war while Islam slowly but eventually cleans its own house.

[mooeypoo]

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.

Budul, you seem to think that your arguments are true just because you claim them. Again, you fail to learn history. The Israeli military actually WOULD have done that, and defend its own, even if it had "only 200 soldiers and 10 tanks". Israel did that against THREE FRONTS in 1948, a DAY after it was declared a state, when it in fact had NO military and no tanks.

 

Read your history before you make claims.

 

And yeah, I think that the Israeli population had reason to be angry and understandably wanted someone to pay for their transgressions.

Beyond the fact that you are, again, over simplifying things, which is another wonderfully flawed thing to do with human politics, you are also dead wrong. Israeli population did not want someone to PAY for their transgressions. Israeli military is quite strong, and quite witty (read history, Israel proven that several times). If Israel wanted to find "Someone to pay", you'd have a flattenned southern lebanon, regardless of civilians or women or children. Israel would have much less soldier casualties, since they'd never send soldiers into hazardous villages, they'd just send in choppers and jets. You are again creating a situation out of your own imagination.

 

The israeli military - lead by the government - wanted the bombings to recede or stop completely. The military knew (and the heads of the military CLAIMED IT officially in every press conference) that the war itself will not bring stability to the area, only peace talks will, but without this war, peace talks will not be able to HAPPEN. You cannot speak with a nation that harbors terrorists that fire 200 (or 100, or 10, or 5, or 3094903211234, or 10 to the power of a three, or even a single one) MISSILES A DAY (read ti again: A DAY. EVERY. DAY.) on civilian houses (Again read this one: Civilian houses. CIVILIANS. Children. Women. Elderly. SCHOOLS... Civilians..) A DAY!! Even one a day is enough to shout Stop. You just can't negotiate with a group of terrorists that want you dead, and you have nothing to discuss with a country that claims it doesn't WANT the hizbullah in its territory, but refuses to disarm, let anyone else disarm them, or get help in any way. You just CAN'T.

 

You would let your own people die. Luckily, Israel's government decided that after six years, it is time to say Stop.

 

 

Don't claim what Israel would've done, and don't pretend to know what the desire of the Israelis were, specifically if you are so much against learning about the history of the Israeli people and its fight against the enemy states around it.

 

And unlike Bettina, I gave up asking you to answer our questions. You are so far away from real reality, it is just not interresting anymore to hear your side.

The people in this thread, up until now, had mostly done their research before suggesting alternatives or critisizing either country. Some I disagree with, obviously, but at least I have common grounds for an argument, and a logical point of view.

 

With you, it's like fighting a radio transmission. You ignore what you wish, and throw invalid FALSE claims that are not even supported by not very distant history.

 

When you say "What would ISrael do.. this and that" it is pretending to understand a situation you didn't even bother to study. You are flat out mistaken. Israel WOULD do what you claim is "obviously not". And you'dve seen that if you'd read a bit of background information.

 

The PROOF, is what lies on the ground; Israel DID those things before. This is the ultimate proof of what it could, would, or wouldn't do.

 

One of Israel's DRIVING FORCES is the ultimate sacrifice for captured civilians or soldiers. Throughout history (if you'd bother to read it), the fight to return POWs or Civilian casualties or prisoners was RELENTLESS. It was a battle taht was completely and utterly supported by the people of Israel, and a battle that was done (and still is done) politically through talking, or if that is not an option, through military operations.

 

You claim one thing in one post, and then claim a completely different thing in another, expecting everyone to take your word for it.

 

The irony in this entire situation, is that if this was a scientific-subject we'd be debating, you'd be utterly crunched in the debate for not preparing your arguments, and claiming circular logic and false facts. You'd be asked to go study the material before making claims.

 

What an irony that such unfounded claims keep repeating themselves by the same person in a political forum that is run by Scientific-POV Forum Network.

 

 

This is not the way to discuss politics. Or anything, for that matter.

 

 

~moo

[mooeypoo]

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.

 

Another thing that popped up from your repeated arguments (which you refuse to answer, again, our question, which is a completely valid one, and I don't blame you that you can't answer it):

 

What you are SAYING, essentially, is that you would expect Israel to sit there, letting its civilians be slaughtered, its soldiers captured (and probably murdered, if not a lot worse), slowly. Why? No reason.. just to "not escalate things". But then, your enemies WOULD (and have!) escalated things by adding the ammount of rockets on your civilians. No. you sit quiet. You let your enemies escalate, and you won't do anything.

 

What would you wait for? The distruction of your entire country? That IS what your enemy wants. It is what they try to do. They will not stop until they have that.

Are you waiting for the world to react? Israel's been waiting for the world to react for 6 years in terms of Hizbullah, and a LOT longer than that seeing kids board busses to school and blow up to tiny bits. All you find from these kids (and I had the misfortune of being in some of these sites, I don't wish it to anyone, trust me) is a hand holding a doll, and bits of hair strands somewhere in the near park.

 

Stop telling us what you WOULDN'T do.

 

Tell us what you WOULD do.

 

Don't be a coward, and refuse to answer a question just because you are afraid to live in a world that is not perfect. Good morning, sir. The world ISNT perfect. Waiting and doing nothing IS making things worse; it gets your children into tiny bits, and a third of your nation locked inside their basements, many of them killed.

 

Give. Us. A. Solution.

 

Stop hiding behind meaningless statements of "I don't know what to do but whatever israel did is flawed". It would've been, if the world was perfect.

 

It isn't.

 

Sucks, isn't it.

 

~moo

[Pangloss]

This thread has more re-runs than NBC. Find some common ground, or at least something new to say, or I'm going to shut it down.

[mooeypoo]

Pangloss, since it has been twice now that a remark like that has been posted after one of my posts, I will take it as me being the problem.

 

I disagree completely, but I respect your authority as a moderator.

 

Since this discussion handles my PEOPLE - my friends, people I have lost in battles, children I have seen torn to bits and pieces, and my personal experiences in this specific war, it seems I can't just let go some of the more emotional aspects of this.

 

When a person deals with this type of argument in an illogical, inconsistent, inappropriate debating method, makes flawed claims, unbased assumptions and puts "words" into my people's mouths and thoughts, it is not easy for me to stand idly by and see this. Specifically not when the arguments he is making recieve legitimate answers, and some seem to even take his flawed and decieted claims as truths.

 

Unfortunately, I had to repeat the fact that these arguments are flawed, since they are. I was utterly ignored.

 

I will repeat my point however: If this type of debate-handling by this person was conducted in a Scientific Thread, and the inconsistencies, flawed assumptions, oversimplifying the situation and unbased "facts" were raised, in relation to an evolutionary debate or an experiment thread, the things that were raised (regardless of the contents, but more of the logical fallacies) would recieve utter criticism.

 

But, I seem to be raising the wrong kind of response, specifically from Administrators.

 

I will be the bigger person, and leave this thread be, at least for now. I will have to strongly try to ignore it, and try to trust people to not fall for fallacies of any kind.

 

Have a good one.

 

~moo

[Jim]

This thread has more re-runs than NBC. Find some common ground, or at least something new to say, or I'm going to shut it down.

 

Here's something new: Pfft!

 

Just kidding.

[Jim]

I didn't have the heart to start another thread on this news:

 

"UK police arrest 16 in anti-terrorism raids"

 

British police said on Saturday they had arrested 16 men in two separate anti-terrorism operations just three weeks after uncovering a suspected plot to bring down U.S.-bound airliners over the Atlantic.

 

Fourteen of the men were held in London in an operation that a police source said focused on suspected "training, recruitment and encouraging others to take part in terrorist activity."

 

---

 

The arrests came soon after the head of London police's anti-terrorist branch, Peter Clarke, said in a television interview that police were keeping tabs on thousands of British Muslims who they suspect may be involved in or support terrorism -- higher than previous official estimates.

 

 

Thousands?

[mooeypoo]

I think - oh heck, I hope - he's overreacting.

 

I would not be surprised if he isn't, though. Europe is a very good safehaven for Terrorists. It's fairly large, you can be quite mobile without the need to have complex documents with you as you travel out of borders, and it is a good link with the rest of the world in terms of trade and airports.

Many terrorist cells are chosing Europe as either a base of operation, or a "branch". I had, once, an article explaining this, but I can't find it now.. I'll look it up for you guys, and post it.

 

~moo

[abskebabs]

I think - oh heck' date=' I hope - he's overreacting.

 

I would not be surprised if he isn't, though. Europe is a very good safehaven for Terrorists. It's fairly large, you can be quite mobile without the need to have complex documents with you as you travel out of borders, and it is a good link with the rest of the world in terms of trade and airports.

Many terrorist cells are chosing Europe as either a base of operation, or a "branch". I had, once, an article explaining this, but I can't find it now.. I'll look it up for you guys, and post it.

 

~moo[/quote']

I think you may be underestimating the No of homegrown terrorists there are here. Politicians like to deny it but I think Iraq has been a major factor in helping recruit homegrown terrorists, especially in the UK. I think the whole of idea unity based on belonging to communities in categories like "British Muslim," has not encouraged enough integration, and there has been a lot of dissafection among muslim youth.

 

The problem is a complex social one, and needs dilligent attention to detail and foresight in order to be addressed.

 

Also, if I ran the British government, I would not trust or humour the"Muslim council of Britain" as far as I could throw them. They are representative of no-one apart from themselves, and are pursuing their own agendas.

 

The biggest crisis facing Islam is and has been, IMO is its politicisation and exploitation by political oppurtunists.

[mooeypoo]

I completely - and sadly - agree with you.

 

The problem is that you can't just throw the entirety of Islam aside. It's time to at least TRY and seperate Islam and Terrorism (which, btw, the "Muslim Council of Britain", judging by their responses to things, don't yet do that themselves, quite alarmingly).

 

This is not going to be easy, specifically politic-wise..

 

~moo

[ecoli]

...Thousands?

 

Well, wasn't there some poll showing that 20% of British muslims felt the London underground bombings were justified? That's well over a million people who were willing to admit to a pollster that they felt the the indiscrimite murder of British people is a good thing. Perhaps they should be keeping track of more poeple than that!

[Bettina]

Well, wasn't there some poll showing that 20% of British muslims felt the London underground bombings were justified? That's well over a million people who were willing to admit to a pollster that they felt the the indiscrimite murder of British people is a good thing. Perhaps they should be keeping track of more poeple than that!

 

Sure....right here...

 

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1145782006

 

Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it....

 

Bee