Slashdot Mirror


Cyberwar on NASA Websites

Vexorian writes "Two NASA websites were hacked today by a group of Chilean activist hackers. The reason was to protest against the war on Lebanon. The mirror of the defaced site contains an image of an injured child and claims that the sites were running MacOSX."

568 of 737 comments (clear)

  1. I, for one... by metasecure · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new Chilean activist overlords.

    1. Re:I, for one... by acoster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right... and defacing a NASA website for sure is a good way to "do some good".

      Although some say that only active protesting works, I'm sure they didn't mean to sit on your chair and "h4x0r" some sites. Actually it's pretty sad to see one defacing websites in name of "peace and justice". It also concerns when someone say thats hacktivism, as it can create a bad impression about legit hacktivism activities (such as providing privacy for people in China, etc.).

      --
      "Go forth, and be excellent to each other" --Bill & Ted
    2. Re:I, for one... by DesertWolf0132 · · Score: 1

      Add to that, the site the hacked is one for scientific exploration and not tied to the military in any way, other than using Air Force and Navy pilots to fly the shuttle missions. While they are at it maybe the should do the same to the EPA and Department of Education web sites. It would make sense if the had hit an armed forces website like goarmy.com.

      --
      No animals were harmed in the making of this sig.
      Well, there was that one puppy, but he is all better now.
  2. And now... by Billosaur · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This group goes with the others that in last days carried out attacks against governmental and commercial websites both from America and Israel, whereas other blackhat groups attacked Israeli websites provoking a denial of service (DDoS) of that particular webpage.

    On the one hand, this is news; NASA is a big target. On the other hand, why are we posting a link to the defacement? We don't need to see it -- just report the story.

    Look, I seriously doubt you're going to find that many people who think the war in Lebanon is a good thing, besides anyone with a vendetta against the Lebanese or the people selling bombs and rockets. You want to protest the war, fine -- but don't exepct me to care what you have to say when you can't make your voice heard in a public and legal forum. Defacing a website, any web site, is not the way to make me feel sympathy for your point of view.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:And now... by mrcdeckard · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You want to protest the war, fine -- but don't exepct me to care what you have to say when you can't make your voice heard in a public and legal forum.

      just curious, what public and legal forums do anti-war activists in chile have at their disposal to have their message heard (in america)?

      for that matter, what forum does *anyone* have in america to have their voices heard -- we're an ADD society...

      mr c

      --
      "Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - R. Feynman
    2. Re:And now... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 3, Insightful
      > [...] why are we posting a link to the defacement? We don't need to see it -- just report the story.

      We don't particularly need not to see it. So, why not?

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    3. Re:And now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      for that matter, what forum does *anyone* have in america to have their voices heard

      Their own website?

    4. Re:And now... by njdj · · Score: 1

      but don't expect me to care what you have to say when you can't make your voice heard in a public and legal forum.

      Surely part of the point of the protest is that the mainstream media in the US is very biased? And that the horrors of the attack on Lebanon (it's not a war, because Lebanon hasn't any significant military forces) are being downplayed? Personally, I do care when a reasonable viewpoint is effectively denied a voice in mainstream forums.

    5. Re:And now... by eclectic4 · · Score: 1

      "We don't need to see it -- just report the story."

      The defacement is the story. Were you being serious?

      "You want to protest the war, fine -- but don't exepct me to care what you have to say when you can't make your voice heard in a public and legal forum."

      And what sorts of "creative" things do you think groups of people do when their voice has been made null and void? When you attempt to have your "voice heard in a public and legal forum" only to be ignored because you simply aren't as powerful as the accused, what then?

      So, to recap: don't show the page in question for which this story is directly mentioning, and shut up and get in line with the other voiceless people until you can build bigger bombs or find a pocket of oil in your backyard? Nice...

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    6. Re:And now... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, why are we posting a link to the defacement? We don't need to see it -- just report the story.

      That runs contrary to most other criticisms of slashdot stories, where complaints are made about the fact that only a story or blog is linked and not the material in question. If the defacement had consisted of pasting a star trek logo on the side of the space shuttle, you would never have made that comment.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    7. Re:And now... by Instine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod up^

      This is entirely the issue. If the government punishes and hides dissident remarks, then the people will find a platform for their voice.

      Here in the UK (sorry I started my last post like this, but its where I am), the vast majority opposed the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. When Iraq kicked off, a MILLION people marched. For a small island, that's a lot of people marching. And yet Tony the Marvellous still blundered off, on the coat tails of Bush. What are we supposed to do? How are the people supposed to protect themselves against the actions of their owngovernment, without breaking the law. The government MAKES the law. And is doing so at an alarming rate. It is inevitable that this form of action, and worse, will happen. If the Government fails to listen to the voice of the people. And they're already ignoring us.

      --
      Because you can - or because you should?
    8. Re:And now... by samkass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hezbollah, which is part of the Lebanese government, launched crossborder raids and fairly advanced rockets on civilian targets many miles inside Israel.

      And Israel has done the same to Lebanon. Remember, Hezbollah only EXISTS because of Israel's invasion of Lebanon decades ago. They reap what they sow.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    9. Re:And now... by ScuxxletButt · · Score: 1

      but don't exepct me to care what you have to say when you can't make your voice heard in a public and legal forum.

      Yeah... like not giving up your seat on the bus or demanding to be able to vote without passing test or paying the poll tax in Alabama. How dare they break the law to make a point. Civil disobedience has no place in free society. Sheesh...

    10. Re:And now... by Billosaur · · Score: 1

      Couldn't have said it any better myself... someone mod the parent up.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    11. Re:And now... by Angostura · · Score: 1
      but don't exepct me to care what you have to say when you can't make your voice heard in a public and legal forum.


      As a matter of interest, which public and legal forum would you suggest that the people of Lebanon chose?
    12. Re:And now... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Umm. Slashdot maybe?
      Just I just saw your statment and protest here.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    13. Re:And now... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I think you're confusing your right to free speech and protest with the "right" to make people listen or the "right" to use whatever forum you want.

      So no, mod grandparent down. These people have any number of outlets to speak, they have no right to deface other people's property in order to force people to listen.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    14. Re:And now... by Billosaur · · Score: 1
      So, to recap: don't show the page in question for which this story is directly mentioning, and shut up and get in line with the other voiceless people until you can build bigger bombs or find a pocket of oil in your backyard? Nice...

      So, to recap, if these people breached your security and defaced your web site, you'd be ok with that, right?

      Get a grip. The idea is not to suppress the story but to not give it more credence that necessary. This is a story about how a group of hackers broke the law and defaced a US Government web site. We do not need to give any more publicity to this event than to state those facts. But this is the era of sensationlism, so let's show what the defacement looked like, to somehow garner these malcontents some publicity and sympathy. I say: wrong!!! What I propose is the same thing they do during televised baseball games when some nutjob runs out on the field -- they don't show it. There's no reason to give the moron free publicity or allow him bragging rights.

      And if these poor, pitiful individuals have no voice, then how were they able to get on the Internet and connect to NASA's website and break security? Why couldn't they have addressed their concerns to a news website? Amnesty International? Why couldn't they put up a web site fo their own, like stopthewaronlebanon.com?

      I don't buy it. These hackers certainly have the capability to hack web sites, so that means that they also have the ability to find less destructive means to get their message across. They are not to be lauded, applauded, or admired. Do you mean to tell me that the citizens of a South American country that elected a woman president can't protest and make the world news?

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    15. Re:And now... by Billosaur · · Score: 1
      If the defacement had consisted of pasting a star trek logo on the side of the space shuttle, you would never have made that comment.

      Wrong. Defaceing something is a violation of the law. I don't need to see what some moron did to know it's wrong, and I certainly don't want the guy pasting it in his scrapbook and being emboldened because he got some cheap and free publicity for his illegal act. Same way I wish the news media in Los Angeles would stop following car chases -- it takes something dangerous and gives it creedence. There's no need for it.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    16. Re:And now... by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So the world says to Israel: "Leave Lebanon and you'll have peace."

      So they left Lebanon, but they didn't get peace.

      So the world said "leave the 'occupied' territories and you'll have peace." (although they don't answer the question of why Israel was attacked BEFORE they occupied those territories, but common sense and "peace at any cost" often don't go together).

      So they left the occupied territories and didn't get peace.

      The U.N. security council resolves that Hezbollah must disarm and, as usual, are laughed at and ignored by the perpetrators. U.N. "peacekeepers" have done nothing in Lebanon over five years.

      The world is full of dumbass do-gooders who have no idea what they are talking about and have ridiculously short memories. These people have promised over and over again to completely destroy Israel. They hate jews, period. The leaders in Iran have said no less than that they desire the utter destruction of Israel, that there will be no peace while Israel exists.

      So Iran backed Hezbollah CROSSES THE BORDER INTO ISRAEL and kidnaps it citizens.

      Israel is not attacking Lebanon, they are attacking Hezbollah who, like the cowards they are, hide (sometime forcibly) amongst the civilians, the women, the children, so that when there is collateral damage during an attack on Hezbollah targets the media instantly reports that Israel is bombing women and children. They do it on purpose. Sometimes they physically restrict people from fleeing to act as UNWILLING human shields.

      And the media makes some sort of moral equivalence between targetted bombing with collateral damage, and what Hezbolah does - which is lobbing missiles into Israeli cities TRYING to kill women and children.

      I can't believe the appeasers of the world are going to let scumbag terrorists pull this crap and then sympathize with them. Unbelievable.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    17. Re:And now... by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Informative

      And Israel invaded Lebanon because they Syrians and other nations used to to stage attacks on Israel. And they are staging attacks on Israel because Israel invaded their lands. And Israel invaded their lands because they attack Israel. And they attacked Israel because they didn't think that the UN should have made that a Jewish home land after WII. And UN made it a Jewish homeland at the same time it was creating countries out of what UK had taken from the Austria-Hungarian Empire in WWI! And they took it from....
      Let's all be honest. Blame Italy. It is all their fault.
      If ROME had not invaded Israel and destroyed the temple none of this would have happened.
      Damn Italians.
      Anybody that thinks that they state who is to blame and who is right and who is wrong in just a few sentances doesn't know what they are talking about. I sure can't say who is right and who is wrong. I lean towards Israel in this case just on motivation. Israel wants to stop attacks on people in Israel. Hezbollah wants to kill as many people in Israel as they can. Even that is just a guess. Like I said I don't know who is too blame. I only know who is suffering.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    18. Re:And now... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      In case you didn't pay attention to history, our country was founded by us breaking the law of the "ruling" monarchy overseas. Revolution covering an entire country that makes a broad sweeping change almost always involves law-breaking, right down to outright public violence against your own government. We disagreed with the laws, sought to distance ourselves from them, and in the process, we violated those laws and had many, many violent battles, right up to the very courthouses upon our own land.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    19. Re:And now... by Billosaur · · Score: 1

      As a matter of interest, which public and legal forum would you suggest that the people of Lebanon chose?

      How about this one?
      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    20. Re:And now... by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can't seriously expect to make a moral equivilence between civil disobedience to stand up for your rights, and defacing somebody elses property simply because no wants to listen to you?

      We're still confusing free speech with making people listen to you? Let me tell you something, somebody interrupts the Simpsons or 24 by forcing their pirate broadcast on me because no one was reading their website, and I say "death penalty".

      What about NASA's right to free speech? Somebody took that away, too.

      The was not civil disobedience, this was grafiti - defacement of someone elses property, something they will need to take time and money to fix. This is not refusing to give up your seat on a bus. By making the comparison, you're disrespecting all those people who stood up for their civil rights.

      So, I guess what you're saying is that these people, who could have created their own website, were justified by defacing NASAs because no one would have read theirs. Yes, I think that's what a lot of people here are arguing.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    21. Re:And now... by ScuxxletButt · · Score: 1
      If I were the admin, I'd be unhappy, yes. It'd be more of an annoyance, really. I'd also expect that sort of thing if I worked for a government agency. How could you not? I worked at the Natural Histry Museum in DC and was harassed on a regular basis by fundies who didn't lik the idea of a government institution talking about evolution. But again, I expected that sort of thing. Hell, I half expected one of them to bomb the place, too.

      And how you know it was truely destructive? I don't remember anything in the article about them destrying the content... Besides How long does it really take to restore the site from a backup?

      Do you mean to tell me that the citizens of a South American country that elected a woman president can't protest and make the world news?

      The mainstream media is so in love with Bush, it isn't even covering the protests in the US. Why would they cover a protest in Chile? What a shock the CNN and MSNBC have no mention of the protests in NYC, LA, and Dearborn, MI. Fox has a broken link to a story, which I'm sure has been deleted.

      I'm in Hartford, CT today and have seen at least three protests going on. Where is the coverage of the protests? Please point me in the right direction...

    22. Re:And now... by cunina · · Score: 1

      ... except Israel hasn't left the occupied territories.

    23. Re:And now... by ScuxxletButt · · Score: 1
      So, I guess what you're saying is that these people, who could have created their own website, were justified by defacing NASAs because no one would have read theirs. Yes, I think that's what a lot of people here are arguing.


      Yes... that is what I am saying...

      Just like I agree with people who deface billboards.

      Someone has to fight for those with no voice... NASA can surely clean up their site in very little time, assuming they have a good backup. And from what I've seen, most groups that deface a web site just rename the index file and copy their own. A 30 second clean up fixes the page and a half hour meeting the next business day addresses the security hole.

    24. Re:And now... by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really? None of them at all? They haven't aquiesced at all, then?

      If we trace these conflicts all the way back to the beginning, we see that, where land was taken, Israel was NEVER the agressor.

      That being said, Israel has done the MOST in trying to develop a lasting peace, and every time they give something up, they are ultimately punished for it. And all the world ever says is "just a little more..."

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    25. Re:And now... by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then you are a jerk. I'll fight for your right to free speech, but I'll fight against anybody who defaces somebody elses property (thus taking away their free speech), and I'll fight against anybody who thinks they have a RIGHT to a forum for their speech.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    26. Re:And now... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Actually Lebanon has no control over Hezbollah, it is an independent rogue organisation. Bombing Lebanese citizens because of the actions of Hezbollah is like bombing American citizens because of the actions of the NRA.

    27. Re:And now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And all the world ever says is "just a little more..."

      No, the world says "give up all of the occupied territories", and Israel keeps saying "we'll give up just a little bit more..." without addressing the fact that they have no intention whatsoever of giving up the majority of the West Bank, ever.

    28. Re:And now... by Tekzel · · Score: 1

      Your obvious anger that someone might hold an opinion that differs from yours is hilarious. You also strike me as a bit psychotic. You really should talk to a professional before you actually harm those around you :/

    29. Re:And now... by MickDownUnder · · Score: 1

      Crap

    30. Re:And now... by ScuxxletButt · · Score: 1
      Wow.. name calling. The first sign of a mature argument.

      I agree that free-speech is the most important part of the US. But civil disobedience has played an important role as well. Law is not always justice.

      I think there might also be some miscommunication. I think that if someone breaks the law, they should be heald accountable, not matter what the motive was.

      For example: If I where to deface a billboard and got caught doing it, I would fully expect to go to jail and face the full consequences. I would further exepct to have to pay for the repairs. Would that make me feel any less justified in doing what I felt was needed to be done? No. Would I fight the charges? No.. To do that would be to deny I did what I did, which is the opposite goal of what I was trying to accomplish.

    31. Re:And now... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      As I said anyone that thinks they can describe the problems in just a few words doesn't know what they are talking about.
      Want to spread some more blame around? How about this. Why are nations like Jordan keeping palestinians in camps when they have been refugees in that country for thirty of forty years! They can never become citizens, they can not work, they really can have no life outside of the refugee camps that those nations have set up.
      Palestine was born the same day as Israel. Before that they where under British rule and before that the Turks and before that I don't know. But at one point it was Rome and at one point it was Israel.
      As far as cutting off Israel no comment on how for the longest time Egypt and Syria where client states of the USSR. And a little fact for you to also chew on if the US cut off Israel and things got bad enough they would in all likely hood pop a nuke. And then how many millions of people would die? BTW they got those toys not from the US government but from working with South Africa. Then let us talk about getting along. Has any nations but Egypt and Jordan make the statement that Israel has a right to existence? Not to my knowledge. The other Arab nations are using the Palestinians as puppets to fight and die while they sit back and watch and send just enough weapons to keep things going at a low boil.
      You want peace. You get the other nations in the area to agree that Israel has a right to exist. You then get the Palestinians to stop all attacks on Israelis. If you could get that happen I bet good money that within a year the world would pressure Israel to grant more freedoms even land to the Palestinians.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    32. Re:And now... by MickDownUnder · · Score: 2, Informative

      Reading the comments on Slashdot gives me great insight as to how the USA could possibly support the GENOCIDE that is occuring in Lebannon today. This bullocks gets rated informative.....

      Here's real information...

      This all started because on the 25th of June (right in the middle of the World cup) ISRAEL invaded sovereign palestinian territory and seized two member of hamas, this little fact has not been broadly publicised by an extremely Israeli biased media. Then on 26th of June Hamas retaliated by launching a similiar raid into Israel capturing Corporal Shalit, this was of course very well publicised, most think this was an unprovoked act of agression on behalf of Hamas in actual fact it was not.

      Israel then proceeded to bomb everything the palestinian state had of value as well as arresting most of the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people. This pissed off many people, most noteably Hezbollah, Iran and Syria, they then launched another raid on Israel, in which two more soldiers were captured. Israel took this as an excuse to acheive political goals in lebanon, through sheer brute, murderous force. Israel is currently attempting to create a "buffer zone" for itself in lebannon... in other words they're going to drive out or kill everyone in southern lebannon within some arbitary distance from the Israeli border (we're not talking 2 or 3 km here... try 100-200km). International law classifies this sort of act as an act of genoicide.

      Slashdot prides itself on having the inside scoop, being one step ahead of big brother... but in actuality it's been totally silent, not one single article has been published in Slashdot's political section on Palestine or Lebannon. Slashdot is suppose to report stuff that matters, how can whats going on in terms of such blatant media bias and misrepresentation of what's actually going on in the middle east be of no importance ?

    33. Re:And now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, what have the romans ever done for them?

    34. Re:And now... by MickDownUnder · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Troll !

      Typical....

      Can anyone who actually reads my comment explain to me how my comment possibly gets categorised like this ? Is it just because I'm not toeing the slashdot pro USA, pro republican line?

      I think Slashdot is rapidly becoming a redundant as a source of real objective information. Most of the articles on it are just regurgitations of things previously published on Digg, the moderation and karma system is just a huge wank.

    35. Re:And now... by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      Surely part of the point of the protest is that the mainstream media in the US is very biased?

      How would they know that the U.S. media is biased? They're in CHILE! No internet connection is fast enough to truly get an accurate image of a large nation's media from the outside. Reading NYTimes.com and USAToday.com doesn't cut it.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    36. Re:And now... by edumacator · · Score: 1

      Remember, both the UK and the US are based on representative democracy.

      We elect people to serve in government to protect us from others and from the fickle will of the people themselves.

      I for one don't want the government listening to the masses every time they make a move. Modern governance is very complicated and like another poster commented, we live in a distractable and gullible society, and we should elect officials who won't easily succumb to pressure from one group or another, but will stick to what they believe is best for the country. I'm not saying that our officials do that now, but it's the idea. I hope some day we can find some politicians who will.

    37. Re:And now... by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      Is it just because I'm not toeing the slashdot pro USA, pro republican line?

      That line made me laugh.
      If anything, Slashdot is rabidly anti-USA and anti-Republican. Or maybe you and I just read different threads.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    38. Re:And now... by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      Only if the NRA was deliberately launching rockets into a neighboring country with the stated goal to kill as many civilians and possible and destroy that country. Then, yes, you might be on to something. But otherwise, no, you're wrong.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    39. Re:And now... by edumacator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You might be right, and I don't have the time to check your facts or dig beyond them at the moment. But don't you think this is about more than that?

      It's easy to look at this from one side or the other, but reality is rarely clean and neat with one party being right and the other totally wrong. I would venture a guess that the Hamas leaders that Israel took were probably involved with plotting against Israel. It's also certainly a valid position to say those men had a right to defend their homeland. I have issues with the lobbing of missiles indiscrimately into a country where only civilians are hurt. And yes, Israel certainly has hit quite a lot of civilians too. But my point is that going back and trying to say, "This is ___________ fault," is counterproductive.

      Right or wrong, Israel has done some crappy things to Palestinians, and the Palestinians have done some terrible things to Israel, but they need to move forward with where they are now. The real culprits are the ones, on both sides, who are so entrenched in their hate for the other, that they will never stop fighting, and will work to keep peace from rooting itself in the region.

    40. Re:And now... by MickDownUnder · · Score: 1

      Well you've picked one point out of the whole comment. How far the Israelis will go is hard to say at this point, they're talking about creating a "buffer zone" up to at least the Litani river from the Israeli border. This river runs right through the country, but at the very least this would mean a buffer zone of at least 50km. This of course would initially require pushing well past the point at which you want to go, so perhaps 200km is a bit of an exageration, but 100km is certainly not out of question. Even if it were only up the river, there are numerous population centers where people would have to be removed or killed. The word Genocide, as understood by the international community, includes the forceable removal of people from their land, in this case it is Hezbollah, or by another description the Shia muslims of southern lebanon

      But the main point of my comment is that the Israeli's were the ones who launched the first raid in which persons were kidnapped, but the media hasn't reported it this way and has portrayed the series of abductions as one in which Israel is the victim of unprovoked attacks, which it is not.

    41. Re:And now... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1
      Reading the comments on Slashdot gives me great insight as to how the USA could possibly support the GENOCIDE that is occuring in Lebannon today. This bullocks gets rated informative.....


      Please. If it was really genocide, there would be FAR more civilian deaths. Or do you not think Isreal is not capable of complete destruction of any given city in Lebannon? The argument that there is a callous disregard for civilians in these engangements might have merrit. But claiming the intentional targeting of civilians with the intent to wipe out that given population is simply playing in to the hands of propaganda masters in the region.


      This all started because on the 25th of June (right in the middle of the World cup) ISRAEL invaded sovereign palestinian territory and seized two member of hamas [guardian.co.uk], this little fact has not been broadly publicised by an extremely Israeli biased media. Then on 26th of June Hamas retaliated by launching a similiar raid into Israel capturing Corporal Shalit, this was of course very well publicised, most think this was an unprovoked act of agression on behalf of Hamas in actual fact it was not.


      You're not really doing much to counter the parent's post. You simply supply a more current view of the long-onging struggle between the various parties involved.

      Having said that - very interesting. Thanks. I've been doing some reading on this based on your post. There is little to find - and what I can find seems to be heavily biased (which leads me to wonder what these sources leave out). But it does provide something to consider with all the more widely reported events.
    42. Re:And now... by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Your reasoning is logically perfect but the facts you cite should be the truth and the truth only, else you reach the wrong conclusions. So let me sow someseeds of doubt into your vision.

      First of all the concept of Israel reacting to the offense of the kidnapping. The kidnapped soldiers were in Israel or Lebanon? this is disputed, search around. And then, what can you call a reaction and what an action? Look at the events before the kidnapping. Attacks from IDF, attacks from Hamas, the gaza beach shelli... pardon blast (search wikipedia again). You cannot say Israel reacted nor that Israel started something, it's going on for too long time.
      Then, if you want to fight terrorism, why making 900000 homeless? More than half of them are muslims and the majority lost everything they had after painfully getting out of the previous war. Perfect breeding ground for new terrorism.

      Then, how much was the military action prepared in advance? It was prepared in advance for sure. Not that it proves anything because it's a precise responsibility of IDF to have plans ready. But this attack was greatly helped by syria getting out of lebanon after the killing of the political leader.
      Would israel have attacked syria for a kidnapping? nope? Might it be a casus belli instead of an unbearable offence that must be washed away with the blood of terrorist and innocents alike?

        And there are reports of chemical weapong being used, and depleted uranium shells that imho and in less humble opinions of other qualifies as crimes against humanity.

      And about Israel always reacting and never starting occupating or fighting (seen in another post): it does not make any death less grave, and it misses the possibility that they reacted to something they had provocated themselves. Stuff like that happened quite often, see the reichstag fire and the need to invade poland. Of course i won't mention tonkin gulf or the declassified pearl harbor documents because then i'm an antiamerican right? :D

      And after having tried to paint my picture, seeing both yours and mine the question is: WHO THE FUCK CARES WHO'S RIGHT? Bombing must cease, fullstop. On both sides.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    43. Re:And now... by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      "...don't exepct me to care what you have to say when you can't make your voice heard in a public and legal forum"

      Do you mean a legal public forum like the UN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/25/mideast .main/index.html)?

    44. Re:And now... by herbiesdad · · Score: 1

      if the israelis wanted to kill all of the palestinian arabs or all of the lebanese...they would already be dead. that is obviously not the aim of the israelis. if the palestinian arabs or the lebanese (or the syrians or the iranians) had that capability the israelis would be slaughtered without hesitation.

    45. Re:And now... by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      How are the people supposed to protect themselves against the actions of their owngovernment, without breaking the law.

      In most civilized countries you can replace the government through a process known as an election. You guys should look into that. It might help.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    46. Re:And now... by murdocj · · Score: 1

      I'd love to know how, in a discussion of whether an attack is part of a war or not, my parent post about the role of Hezbollah was considered "off-topic".

      Oh yeah, this is slashdot. Check your rationality at the door.

      and feel free to mod this one "off-topic"

    47. Re:And now... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Um... let's remember that Israel invaded Lebanon the last time because THEY WERE BEING ATTACKED!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    48. Re:And now... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Are you that ignorant? They have pulled out of Gaza, despite the fact that terrorists have now predictably holed up there.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    49. Re:And now... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      To be fair the Israelis started it.

    50. Re:And now... by glaucopis · · Score: 1

      Clearly Hezbollah is fundamentally in the wrong here. I don't think anyone, including the media, is arguing with you on that. The concern, though, is that in bombing civilian neighborhoods and roads that civilians are trying to use to flee their homes, Israel is seen as (inadvertently) stooping to the level of Hezbollah. And Israel is a nation-state, not a terrorist organization, and so the world expects it to behave like a nation-state, not a terrorist organization. No, it's not fair that Israel is being roundly condemned for (accidentally) killing civilians when its enemies (purposefully) do the same thing, but that's part of being a legitimate state: you're held to a higher standard. There's a reason that the world, including Arab states, supported Israel after Hezbollah's incursion, and there's a reason that now, after almost three weeks of Israel bombing civilian areas, that only the US still supports Israel's campaign.

      I don't know what Israel should have done in response, but anyone could tell them that reenacting the US invasion of Iraq was not the way to go. Not only will killing civilians lose them the moral high ground and popular opinion, not only will it prove impossible to ever completely root out Hezbollah, but they're going to get stuck bombing Lebanon for far longer than they had anticipated. So please understand that when people criticize Israel's Lebanon campaign, they're doing just that -- criticizing the campaign. They're not saying that they're on Hezbollah's side and they're not saying that Israel is evil, they're saying that the campaign is a futile exercise that will accomplish nothing except the deaths of hundreds of civilians and maybe, if Israel is very lucky, one quarter of the preexisting Hezbollah militants. It just isn't a campaign that's winnable; all it can ultimately result in is a lot of dead civilians and a lot of newly inspired Hezbollah recruits.

    51. Re:And now... by ronabop · · Score: 1
      "If we trace these conflicts all the way back to the beginning, we see that, where land was taken, Israel was NEVER the agressor"

      The Jesubites, Canaanites, Philistines, and Hitties might disagree.

    52. Re:And now... by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      It's 2,000 years of that sort of attitude that has gotten us to where we are today. Lots of blame going around. Not a lot of forgiveness.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    53. Re:And now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't normally feed the trolls, but this one is just silly.

      UN Resolutions Against Israel, 1955-1992

      1. Resolution 106: "...'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid"
      2. Resolution 111: "...'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"
      3. Resolution 127: "...'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem"
      4. Resolution 162: "...'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions"
      5. Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria"
      6. Resolution 228: "...'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
      7. Resolution 237: "...'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"
      8. Resolution 248: "...'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"
      9. Resolution 250: "...'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"
      10. Resolution 251: "...'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
      11. Resolution 252: "...'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
      12. Resolution 256: "...'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation"
      13. Resolution 259: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"
      14. Resolution 262: "...'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport"
      15. Resolution 265: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"
      16. Resolution 267: "...'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"
      17. Resolution 270: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"
      18. Resolution 271: "...'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
      19. Resolution 279: "...'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"
      20. Resolution 280: "....'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"
      21. Resolution 285: "...'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"
      22. Resolution 298: "...'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem"
      23. Resolution 313: "...'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"
      24. Resolution 316: "...'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"
      25. Resolution 317: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"
      26. Resolution 332: "...'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon"
      27. Resolution 337: "...'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty"
      28. Resolution 347: "...'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
      29. Resolution 425: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
      30. Resolution 427: "...'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon'
      31. Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"
      32. Resolution 446: "...'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
      33. Resolution 450: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
      34. Resolution 452: "...'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"
      35. Resolution 465: "...'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program"
      36. Resolution 467: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon"
      37. Resolution 468: "...'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge

    54. Re:And now... by Alos · · Score: 1

      They're in CHILE! No internet connection is fast enough to truly get an accurate image of a large nation's media from the outside.

      What about TV?

    55. Re:And now... by L0G1X · · Score: 1

      I'm so glad to see someone sticking up for Israel for once ... let's not forget that this all started as an UNPROVOKED attack on Israel by hezboolah. Israel has every right to defend itself. Too bad the nitwits in the media are so blatantly anti-semitic.

    56. Re:And now... by MickDownUnder · · Score: 1

      It's all over the media...

      http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie= UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-22,GGLG:en&q=litani%20buf fer%20zone&sa=N&tab=wn

      CNN talks about it every day...

      I wouldn't have thought it be necessary

    57. Re:And now... by MickDownUnder · · Score: 1

      By it's definition Genocide refers to the destruction of a culture, this can be done by killing, or forceably removing them from their land. Israel has made very clear that it intends to eliminate the shia population in southern lebanon (aka Hezbollah). Basically when you see talk of eliminating Hezbollah, you're either seeing people talk about disarming the shia population of southern lebanon or the actual elimination of these people. Hezbollah is critized as hiding in amongst the civilian population, in actuality they are the civilian population, armed men, living with their families. Basically when you're talking about wiping out Hezbollah using militarily methods, you're really talking about genocide. I think for Israel to kill all these people will be a last resort, right now they're making an example out of few towns, dropping pamplets telling people to leave. The question really is what is going to happen if these people or some percentage of them refuse to leave ?

    58. Re:And now... by MickDownUnder · · Score: 1

      Well just read all the comments... everything pro-israeli/pro-republican rated up, all decent to this line of thinking rated down, how do you explain it ? If you're saying Israel is right for their actions or supply information that might somehow justify the terrible things Israel has been doing then you're +5 Informative or Insightful, anything anti-Israeli is -1/0 Offtopic, Troll etc

      How do you explain this ?

    59. Re:And now... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Israel is not attacking Lebanon, they are attacking Hezbollah who, like the cowards they are, hide (sometime forcibly) amongst the civilians, the women, the children, so that when there is collateral damage during an attack on Hezbollah targets the media instantly reports that Israel is bombing women and children.

      Dude. The good guy doesn't actually shoot the hostage.

      That was just a movie.

      You don't shoot the hostages in order to get to the terrorists.

      Thats just dumb. It makes you a terrorist as well.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    60. Re:And now... by master_p · · Score: 1

      You're almost correct (except for the comment on Israel wanting to stop attacks on its people), especially on the historical perspective, but the real question is: how do we stop the madness?

    61. Re:And now... by MickDownUnder · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have issues with the lobbing of missiles indiscrimately into a country where only civilians are hurt

      Do you have issue with the dropping of 500lb laser guided bombs on to multi-story apartment blocks ?

      Hezbollah only started it's rocket attacks when Israel began bombing civilians in Lebanon.

    62. Re:And now... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      There was a start to Middle East conflict, when certain prime minister of UK called Disraeli opened the door for ethnic cleansing in Palestine by immigrant Jews.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    63. Re:And now... by sauron_of_mordor · · Score: 1

      "In most civilized countries you can replace the government through a process known as an election. You guys should look into that. It might help."

      I'm not commenting on the rights and wrongs of using Nasa's webspace, however this democratic argument isn't viable against the type of issue being discussed. In the UK the majority were against the war, yet the government was reelected after the event. The reason for this is simple. domestic issues always take priority of international ones in the democratic system, moreover elections are won/lost over a wide range of policy issues, so a single issue can very rarely unbalance a governement. The problem here is that the west is too keen to see democracy as a panacea for good governance which it isn't, nor is democracy in the UK or US ideal in any sense - it may be amongst the better implementations but no 2 party system can be perfect, with N issues at stake. Now if foreign policy was elected seperately to domestic, then the argument might have credence.

    64. Re:And now... by edumacator · · Score: 1

      I think if you read my post, it's clear that I do have issues with that. It's a little unfair to pull out one line from my post. Your response demonstrates exactly the issue I was trying to address.

      I write a post that in essence says, there are many sides to any story. Then you pull out one line that makes it look like I think Israel is completely write.

      I'm moved by your passion, and I understand why you are upset about the issue. I think it's fair though to suggest that both sides have done things wrong. I think it's vitally important, if you want innocent lives to stop being victimized on both sides, to move past trying to assign blame. Until we get past that, nothing will change and innocent lives will continue to be lost.

    65. Re:And now... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      How the fuck is that post off-topic?

    66. Re:And now... by orim · · Score: 1

      You know, every time I hear that it's really the terrorists' fault for civilian deaths because they're hiding behind the civilians I just cringe.

      Kinda like a bank robber holding a hostage at gunpoint, then the police goes and grabs a bazooka and blows away the robber, the hostage, 3 tellers, and a dozen customers and then they say:
      "Well, it's clearly the robber's fault."

      What happened to the CIA's cyber-ninja international assasination squad? Too much overtime in the past 6 years? Feeling a little burnt out?

      --
      "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
    67. Re:And now... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Of course, the BS is that you're not showing why Israel did these things. It's also BS because it went through 1992 and not later.

      Peace starts with one side aquiescing. Israel, so far, is the ONLY party involved to give up ANYTHING.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    68. Re:And now... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      You don't shoot the hostages in order to get to the terrorists.

      Umm... yes, you do. The U.S. government is willing to shoot down it's own civillian airliners if they've been hijacked. If you have reason to believe a lot MORE innocent people will die due to inaction, then yes, you DO shoot the hostages.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    69. Re:And now... by MrSenile · · Score: 1

      Of course, the direct opposite of this that people fail to either fully grasp or comprehend is that if said bank robber was not stopped, the next bank they rob he'll have more civilians, more people with guns, more demands, and use civilians as better shields and cover because (lets say this together people) it worked so well the first time.

      Is the bazooka approach better? Probably not. But letting them go isn't an option either.

      Anyone have a better solution to stop this and cost minimal lives instead of just bitching like an impotent grandfather please, by all means, raise your hand.

    70. Re:And now... by pyrotic · · Score: 1

      My guess is that both sides have the capacity to cause more civillian casualties than they already have. And both sides know and accept that they will cause collateral damage. As it stands, 51 Israelis, including 18 civilians are dead. 750 Lebanese have died, mostly civillians, though it's hard to get the exact figure there as it's such a mess. Right now I'd rather be an Israeli civillian than a Lebanese one.

      I like your stance though. Yeah, blame the Italians!

    71. Re:And now... by stuntpope · · Score: 1

      Blogs, their own website (hosted in USA or not), Yahoo forums, other forums, newspaper "Your comments" areas, etc etc ad nauseum. Last time I posted on BBC it didn't perform a citizenship test prior to me getting my message heard.

    72. Re:And now... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      If you have reason to believe a lot MORE innocent people will die due to inaction, then yes, you DO shoot the hostages.

      Ok then so *not* when you would be killing 10 hostages to save 1 non-hostage?

      Or to put it in context, about 500 Lebanese for about 50 Israelis?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    73. Re:And now... by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      Now if foreign policy was elected seperately to domestic, then the argument might have credence.

      An interesting idea. How do you think it might be implemented? Would there be elections for a leader of domestic policy, and another for the leader of foreign? What if the two policies conflict? I'd like to hear more.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    74. Re:And now... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      You're not actually comparing the number dead, are you? Because that's backwards... you have no way of knowing how many lives were saved. Would you find it acceptable if 500 Israelis had already been killed?

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    75. Re:And now... by Castar · · Score: 1

      You want to protest the war, fine -- but don't exepct me to care what you have to say when you can't make your voice heard in a public and legal forum. Defacing a website, any web site, is not the way to make me feel sympathy for your point of view.

      Let's be honest, though. If they had instead posted to the Chilean version of Slashdot, or marched through the streets, would you have sympathy? Would you care what they have to say? Would you even hear about it?

      This way they got their viewpoint out, much more effectively than they could have in any legal way.

      --
      I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
    76. Re:And now... by sauron_of_mordor · · Score: 1

      >An interesting idea. How do you think it might be implemented? Would there be elections for a leader of domestic policy, and another for the leader
      >of foreign? What if the two policies conflict? I'd like to hear more.

      Not sure I have a draft constitution at hand but... certainly in the UK, there are indepenent bodies (e.g. the judiciary) that the goverment frequently comes into conflict with and has a hard time overruling, ditto for conflict between the national government and the EU. compromise is usually made to avoid too much gnashing of teeth. If the domestic goverment was to try to force the hand of the other assembly, then presumably at some level it would be able to - but not without a lot more due process (ie a legislative process, or a state of national emergency - this would force the electorate to notice something major was afoot) than we currently have. In the Iraq war the government pretty much side-stepped parliament without even much discussion. The way I see things a nation should have a a constition that states how/when and why it interacts with other states - that constitution should be as robust and fundamental as the US domestic constution is regarded, and should be used in combination with the electoral madate of the foreign chamber...

    77. Re:And now... by edumacator · · Score: 1

      I submit to you that seeing that there are two sides to an issue isn't fence riding. If you read the entire thread, you'll see I didn't avoid assigning responsibility, but laid it squarely on both sides.

      But even if it is, the passionate hatred demonstrated in many of these posts suggests that ever successfully assigning blame is not only pointless at this stage, but impossible.

      Is it better for us to sit around and all look to blame someone, or should we work towards a solution to the current state of things?

    78. Re:And now... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Its just interesting to note that the Israelis seem to be able to maintain a very precise 10-1 kill ratio. As if they say 'ah 10 Israelis have been killed. Where can we find 100 Arabs to kill... lets bomb over there, that should net us at least 40 to start with'.

      And the population density of, eg, the Gaza strip is so high that any attack of any form can be expected to kill more civilian 'hostages' there than any attack emmanating from the Gaza strip aimed at Israel.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    79. Re:And now... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I guess if the terrorists cared about their "own" people, they shouldn't attack from Gaza.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    80. Re:And now... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      What I am trying to get at is that the Palestinians and the Lebanese are far less of a threat to Israel than Israel is to them.

      The statistics tell the story; more than 10 times as many people are killed by Israel than are killed by all of the Arab terrorist organisations combined (meaning Israelis killed by Arab terrorists ie not including 911 which happened in the USA).

      By these standards it seems implausible that any rational argument could be put forward to the effect that the Palestinians or Lebanese are somehow a dreadful threat to Israel.

      The lines of threat go the other way around.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    81. Re:And now... by MickDownUnder · · Score: 1

      You probably won't be surprised to find out that my comment is still being modded down, 4 days after the post, it was briefly up to +4, yesterday it was at +3, and today it's down to +2. I think it probably has the record for the most modded comment on a slashdot post. There seemed to be a real concerted effort to keep this comment out of the common +4 to +5 filter range most people have for reading slashdot

      Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word genocide, but what else do you call the attempted elimination of 40% of the Lebanese population, from land they have occupied for centuries. In that context I think it's fair, and since then others including the Lebanese Prime Minister (only months ago lauded by the US) have labelled Israel's actions as genocide.

      My comment has a link to one of the very few reports in the media of the actual event that sparked this conflict. It pointed out that Israel basically threw the first punch in this conflict, which the media turned a blind eye to. You would think this would be right up slashdot's alley, proof of the machinery subverting public opinion, but no, slashdot has proven to be a little microcosm of the world's media.

      There's a whole bunch of people, I hate to say it, but who are probably in the jewish community, who no matter what Israel does want to make a pretty picture out of it and basically sweep under the carpet anything that gets in the way portraying Israel's actions as righteous. This thread is actual proof of the mechanics of what is going on in todays media. There are people out there who want to distort the truth on both sides, let me just say I don't think there enough arabs in the western media to keep it balanced.

    82. Re:And now... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      First, Israel is not attacking the Lebanese, they are attacking Hezbollah, who happen to be in Lebanon.

      Second, the difference between Israel and terrorist factions attacking them is the same as the U.S. and terrorist factions attacking us. There's no such thing as parity when you attack someone - you expect to win or be utterly annihilated, the numbers don't matter. If these people really thought Israel was a threat, they'd stop attacking and aquiesce to the demands to release the Israeli hostages.

      And you keep ignoring the fact that the civilian casualties causes by Israel are collateral damage that they try to minimize - the civilian casualties caused by these terrorist factions are on purpose. What's the difference? By destroying a military target you hope you to reduce your enemies ability to attack you. By targetting civilians you simply hope to cause death. These are two different ideologies at play - can honestly support the latter?

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    83. Re:And now... by MickDownUnder · · Score: 1

      I only have passionate hatred for violence. I'm not an antismite, I do have many jewish friends, and some of those share my feelings on the current policies of the Israeli government. I think in the current circumstances the Israeli government thinks it has cart blanch to do what ever they like because they have support of the Israeli and US people. I think the major reason for this support is the representation of the conflict in the media, which I think is grosely out of whack with reality. If the media treated Israel's incursion into the Palenstinian terroritories to detain Palestinian nationals in the same way it treated the Palestinian raid I'm sure the Israeli government wouldn't have taken the actions it has and there might be 500 people (Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese) who might still be living today, and countless others without injuries.

      Israel's current escalation is quite frightening, keeping in mind that before this Israel had already been acting completely disproportionately, before the kidnappings and Israel's full on assault, the Palestinian red cross had reported since Sept 29 last year that over 3000 palestinians had been killed by Israeli actions, and another 30,000 had been wounded. When you compare this with the numbers of Israeli's killed in "terrorist" attacks ( 100) you really have to ask youself how they can justify the actions they were taking before this conflict, neverlone what they're doing now.

      When you compare 4000 arab casualties to 100 Israeli... how can you possibly be indifferent ? Remember whilst you and others like you remain indifferent Israel is unlikely to change their policies regarding Palestine and the US government is going to continue supporting Israel's military to the tune of 7 billion a year.

    84. Re:And now... by edumacator · · Score: 1

      You make a strong argument, and I'm not saying what you say isn't true. I agree with you that Israel is way overstepping themselves. I am not saying Israel is right. I would ask you to look over my posts again. I'm not agreeing with Israel. Nor do I agree with targeting civilians in order to instill fear. Would you agree that both sides have done this? I don't think either side is acting in a civilized way at this point. I am suggesting that we need to continue to have a dialogue. I realize it is hard to do so when people are dying. But when things get bad is when we need to remain calm.

      And be careful assuming my statements that both sides have done bad things represents indifference. I would argue it's the opposite. I think to find a solution is one of the most pressing issues of our time; and to do so, we need to realize there are two sides to the conflict.

      I have personally sent impassioned letters to my Senators, national representatives, and to the President urging them to look for a middle ground solution, and pleading that a position that solely supports Israel would be pointless. There are people dying on the ground, and whether they are Lebanese, Israeli, or Palestinian, I abhore the loss of life, but we must, must, acknowledge the errors made by both sides. I don't think the fact that Israel has killed more people than Hezbollah in any way excuses Hezbollah's attacks on civilians.

      This is complicated, and no one is totally in the right.

    85. Re:And now... by MickDownUnder · · Score: 1

      Yea right... Two sides....

      One with weaponary deficient by world war 2 standards, the other with 21st century weaponary.

      Only one side has the capability to stop raining cluster and 500lbs bombs on civilian populations, and to stop Apache helicopters from targeting red cross vehicles. Oh and if you're gonna say accidents happen... you should read this the ambulance sent to help the wounded from this ambulance was also hit. Israeli's must have a sense of humour, they drop pamphlets telling people to leave then they target any vehicle "capable of carrying weapons". Maybe they should all be escaping by unicycles ?

    86. Re:And now... by edumacator · · Score: 1

      The side thing is I have said repeatedly that Israel has done horrible things, yet you seem incapable of seeing that. Each time I make a post, you only see where I have, in your eyes, been deficient in criticizing Israel. I applaud your conviction, but I promise you, you will accomplish little until you are able to at least engage in conversation without twisting someone's words.

      My hope is that we find a peaceful solution to this, and that in future generations we'll be able to look at this as a long gone era where humanity failed to live up to it's potential. And I think people with your perserverence will make it happen.

      With that said, I think we're done here.

  3. Why is this news? by Aaron+England · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hacktivist hacks happen all the time. Is someone trolling for an Israeli-Lebanon Conflict discussion?

    1. Re:Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Is someone trolling for an Israeli-Lebanon Conflict discussion?


      Let's repeat after Aaron England: Discussion is bad. Discussion is bad. Discussion is bad.

      Obviously we should ignore this major world event and concentrate on those topics that are not super depressing. You know, the happy stuff.

    2. Re:Why is this news? by Eightyford · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Hacktivist hacks happen all the time. Is someone trolling for an Israeli-Lebanon Conflict discussion?
      Hacking a NASA page is a fairly important story. But why not start an Israeli-Lebanon discussion? There is a politics section.
    3. Re:Why is this news? by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · · Score: 1

      Hacking a NASA system hasn't been newsworthy since CCC did it in the mid 80's. It's easier now than it has ever been, you can google for exploitable php site:nasa.gov.
      They have so many systems you are bound to find one anytime you look.

    4. Re:Why is this news? by MickDownUnder · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has a political section why is it that there is no discussion on events in the middle east there. You would hope a site like slashdot might serve to act as a watchdog and a source of independent criticism on such issues. Seems not to be the case.

    5. Re:Why is this news? by scaryjohn · · Score: 1

      This isn't hacktivism, though... it's CYBERWARFARE!.

      Why? I don't know.

      --
      One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
    6. Re:Why is this news? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      What is the problem? Label it as politics and that is it. Hacking has always been related to politics.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  4. Re:Oh, those wacky Arabs! by Eudial · · Score: 2, Informative

    Arabs? Chile is in South America for crying out loud!

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  5. more proof of a foriegn policy failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


    what with the shooting of Jews in chicago yesterday and now the Lebanon debacle that the US refuses to condemm even though 24 lebanese children died in a bombing in Quana this disaster of an administration have sown seeds of hate that will come back to haunt the US for years to come

    staggering that in such a short time the US has gone from loved to hated , the conclusion is Bush and his cronies have put the US populace in a lot more danger than they where 5 years ago, and it is the populace that will suffer the consequences while the administrations operatives relax on their ranches in absolute luxury laughing

    1. Re: more proof of a foriegn policy failure by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      > staggering that in such a short time the US has gone from loved to hated

      Actually, that only took about 18 months, from 09/2001 to 03/2003. Things haven't changed very much in the past 40 months.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by amliebsch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      staggering that in such a short time the US has gone from loved to hated

      This may break your heart to hear, but the US has never been loved by much of the world, ever. Unless, of course, those people dancing in the streets on 9/11 were, you know, doing it out of love.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    3. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by cliffski · · Score: 1

      Things have changed a lot in the last 5 years though. I was asking my brother (who is a foreign-travel junkie) what advice he had for going to south america (he was there recently), and his first advice was "make sure its obvious to everyone your not an american". That just didnt get said 5 years ago. Americans were seen as wealthy tourists. Now people are actively going out of their way to distance themselves from being american. The BBC even had an article recently about how americans living in the UK got fairly regular abuse and grief for being american, and we are probably one of the most pro-US nations out there.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    4. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by lixee · · Score: 1

      Personnaly, I've always been pro-american until 9/11. That's when I started asking questions about why would educated people blow themselves up.
      Sorry to put it this way folks, but there's no smoke without fire.

      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    5. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by Chaffar · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Actually, the current Lebanese government was (yes, was) pushing for an improvement of US-Lebanon relations. After Syria had been kicked out, Condoleezza Rice came to Lebanon a few times, as they saw in Lebanon a potential ally, a burgeoning democracy, one that would champion the Moderate Arab values around the Middle East.

      So, in this context, it is true that the US has gone from loved to hated in the span of 17 days. Everything that has happened since the beginning of the war has strengthened the radical elements of the Lebanese government (like it or not, Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese gov't and represents 45% of the population). Every civilian killed was proof that everything that the radicals have been saying about the "Zionists" and the "Imperialist American Dogs" was true.

    6. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by jmccay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is more the failure of the rest of the World's so-called foriegn polocies against Israel. Israel will only tolerate getting screwed for so long before the straw breaks the camel's back. I think the straw has broken the camel's back.

            I noticed you didn't condemn Hezbollah. They continually use innocent civilians as shields. They were within 3 meters of the United Nations post that got hit. Israel has continually warned the people in Lebanon, including the people of Qana, BEFORE they attacked to get out of the way. They stayed there anyways. Israel didn't have to warn them, and they would have better luck fighting Hezbollah if they didn't warn the people in Lebanon.

            You want the war to end? Everybody gives Israel the soldiers back. Hezbollah is disarmed, and then they stop lobbing missiles at Israel (like they have been doing regularly since long before this war began). The end result will be that the war would be over. The fact is, there is NOTHING anyone can due to stop Israel (even the US) short of what I said because for too long Israel has given into the requests of the terrorist giving them every they wanted short of wiping Israel off the face of the planet (the stated goal of Hezbollah), and they got no peace and safety form it.

            Did the rest of the world think Israel would tolerate being bombed with rockets & homicide bombers forever without fighting back? If they did, they are truly stupid. No country would let their citizens go through these things. In fact, most countries would have done far more than Israel has done long (as in years) before this. Israel has been patient for too long.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    7. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by xjerky · · Score: 1

      "why would educated people blow themselves up"

      Don't try to make sense out of it when the answer involves religion.

      --
      A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
    8. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by steve_bryan · · Score: 1

      staggering that in such a short time the US has gone from loved to hated

      How staggeringly naive can you be? I'm not a fan of the Bush administration but I wouldn't begin to lay blaim on them for the decades of anti-American hatred. Do you refer to the brief period immedately in the aftermath of 9/11 when a few countries whose citizens only had mild antipathy for the US (e.g. many Europeans) suspended that for the slightest moment? Among Muslims in many countries on the other hand Osama became the most common name given to newborn sons and in many cases there was open dancing in the streets in celebration of the slaughter. The unapologetic hatred of Western civilization in general and the US specifically is something only the willfully blind can miss. But for the most part the reasonable way to view it (the rabid hatred) is largely with indifferece. Nothing we do will change it except for some sort of societal form of suicide, much like is expected from the Israelis.

    9. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      staggering that in such a short time the US has gone from loved to hated , the conclusion is Bush and his cronies have put the US populace in a lot more danger than they where 5 years ago

      Ever since the US rose to superpower status there have been those who hate us. They hate us out of envy, they hate us out of jealousy. No matter what foreign policy we enact, there will be those who feel slighted and who will resent us. 9/11 was rooted in that hate. So was the previous attack on the World Trade Center, and the bombing of TWA 800, the marine barracks, the USS Cole, etc etc. From a pragmatic perspective, I know it is not possible to get the whole world to love us. Personally, I think that the best we can hope for is that those who hate us also fear us, so that they don't act upon that hate. So far, on that score, Bush's policies seem to have worked, as the number of terrorist acts against Americans has dramatically decreased in the last five years. Instead they are striking countries like Spain that they know will not strike back.

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    10. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by DA-MAN · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unless, of course, those people dancing in the streets on 9/11 were, you know, doing it out of love.

      Actually there was one Muslim country that had a candle light vigil for the US after the bombings of 9/11.

      http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm

      Funny that our so called allies (Saudi's, Kuwaiti's, etc) didn't give a rats ass what happened to us.

      --
      Can I get an eye poke?
      Dog House Forum
    11. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      90% of the hatred toward the US started when we bankrolled the creation of Israel in the 1950s. It continuted because we kept giving Israel their military technology.

      Because all their tanks come from us (as gifts), it is very reasonable to say that when Israel is at war, the USA is at war. And those who are enemies of Israel are quite resonable in considering us thier enemies as well.

      If it weren't for that Israel thing, we very well might be winning the world popularity poll.

      [Yes, we did a few other mean military things--all in the interest of our economy. But even factoring in banana republics and manipulations of the oil market, we did far more good.]

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    12. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
      So, in this context, it is true that the US has gone from loved to hated in the span of 17 days. Everything that has happened since the beginning of the war has strengthened the radical elements of the Lebanese government (like it or not, Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese gov't and represents 45% of the population). Every civilian killed was proof that everything that the radicals have been saying about the "Zionists" and the "Imperialist American Dogs" was true.

      I must have missed it when America fired rockets into Lebanon? I assume we're hated for not getting involved? Damned if you do, damned if you don't - if we try to get involved where we don't belong, people get pissed. If we don't, people get pissed.

      After Syria had been kicked out...

      As far as that goes, Syria may have been kicked out, but Hezbollah sure as shit wasn't.

    13. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by Ethan+Allison · · Score: 1

      Seattle not Chicago.

    14. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by identity0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know how things are in Japan, and let me assure you that while there were people there who hate the U.S., and many who regard it with suspicion, the reputation of the U.S. has taken a steep decline since the Bush administration came to power, and especially since the war on Iraq. There was a brief surge of sympathy and compassion following 9/11, but the president is just too loathsome to ignore. I think it's safe to say that he is the second most disliked foreign politician, after Kim Il Jong.

      Look, the fact that a bunch of people in the middle east go around burning American flags should not suprise you. What should be worrying is the fact that one of your closest allies now thinks you guys are power-mad and dangerous. I don't think either Japan or the UK will help you in your next war.

      You seem to think that one either loves the U.S. unconditionally, or you hate it absolutely like those guys celebrating 9/11, and that there is no changing of opinions. The fact is, most of the world is not extreme and set in their ways like that, and your actions do have an effect on how they percieve you. Your administration has been pushing people away from liking you, so you might want to reconsider your actions.

    15. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

      The intresting aspect is that rocket attacks are a kind of symbolic warfare, psycho-war. Of course people are dying but those attacks on Israel fulfill no real military purpose. And Israel responds with classical warfare which then solidarises Lebanese citizens with the attackers... and so on.

      Oh well.

      It seems like the problem is asymmetric warfare and we are clueless what to do and how to win it. The fact is that an army is useless when your nation gets attacked by those combattants.
      Is it possible to win against partisans and guerrilla warfare? Don't think so.

    16. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by naz225 · · Score: 1

      Resupplying the rockets during this assault and firing them is pretty much the same thing in my eyes, as it is to many other people. It is clear that America and Britain are not neutral parties in this conflict.

    17. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Americans were seen as wealthy tourists. Now people are actively going out of their way to distance themselves from being american.

      Those two should go hand in hand. When my mother went to Brazil, she took the hotel's advice and didn't wear fancy clothes, any jewelry, or even a visible cell phone. Still, she was mugged, because she kept taking pictures of things with her digital camera.

      (Oddly enough, they didn't manage to take anything, because the fanny-pack she had everything in was firmly attached to her. She would have been happy to hand it all over if they'd gone slow enough to give her the chance. Instead, she wound up with severe bruising all over her arm where they shoved her while pulling on the fanny-pack.)

    18. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by dcam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...but the US has never been loved by much of the world, ever

      That isn't correct.

      After the second world war and before the cold war really got going, America was much loved by the rest of the world. Particularly after things like the Marshall plan. America was seen as a place of freedom and indeed an example. In fact I think you might even be able to stretch that back to post WWI to shortly after WWII.

      And since you mention 9/11, in much of the world (outside many muslim countries), there was a lot of sympathy for America as a result of 9/11. That isn't quite the same as being loved, but it is getting there.

      --
      meh
    19. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      The difference is that your allies used to like you.

    20. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by BZ · · Score: 1

      > Because all their tanks come from us (as gifts)

      While you _might_ be able to make such a case for planes (though those are not gifts, just discounted if you consider aid to Israel in general as discounting military equipment purchases in some way), Israel has its own tank design that it produces in a factory in Israel, with primarily Israeli components. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava or any other reference on the tanks.

    21. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by Tiro · · Score: 1

      That is factually incorrect, the US was quite popular during the period 1940-1965.

    22. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by tomjen · · Score: 1

      Would that not be the period 1942-1965? Given that the US did not enter the war before Pearl Harbor?

      --
      Freedom or George Bush
    23. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Thanks. But despite these details, the facts are that we fund that country, including its military.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    24. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by c0reboarder · · Score: 1

      And you personally think that all people from one country have the same thoughts, opininions, beliefs, whishes, dreams, or however one would word it. You personally refer to the entire population of a country and state what they "think." Just remember that about 50% of the united states did not vote for the current government and most people in the country probably have many different thoughts and views on the topic.

    25. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by suffe · · Score: 1

      To be fair, I think much of that was outrage at pointless killing more then sympathy for the US. And you shoul dprobably keep in mind that there was quite a lot of non-US citizens in those buildings.

      --

      Karma: 2.71828182846 (Mostly due to small, fun pills)
    26. Re:more proof of a foriegn policy failure by Tiro · · Score: 1

      I was not intending to be precise. Regardless the US was delivering significant aid to Britain before 1942.

  6. OS X hacked or the Web Application by mitchell_pgh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What is not clear is... did they hack OS X or simply hack a web application running on OS X. I wouldn't say "Linux was hacked" if I was running an insecure forum or blog. The information is VERY thin, but I'm interested to see if OS really was hacked.

    1. Re:OS X hacked or the Web Application by delire · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to TFA it was an SQL Injection attack.
      Today two NASA websites were attacked as well. The intrusion was carried out by the Chilean group of crackers known as Byond Hackers Crew through a leak in the SQL Injection they entered the system and subtracted user names, passwords and e-mails from the NASA web server.
      As much as OSX on a server is a contradiction of terms at the best of times, this wasn't an OS level exploit.
    2. Re:OS X hacked or the Web Application by snaptography · · Score: 1

      I had this happen with a Joomla CMS installation - same hacker group.

      --
      -- www.kiwicommunications.com --
    3. Re:OS X hacked or the Web Application by Khyber · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you read their site, they used SQL Injection techniques to get the admin passwords and usernames.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:OS X hacked or the Web Application by laffer1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      OS X server may have a lot of problems, but its not insecure. (provided you use the LATEST version) The problem with OS X server is that apple doesn't like to patch old versions. For instance, a 10.2 server can be crashed easily if its running the built in samba. Exploits will kill an xserve very quickly. They are also a pain to administer, very bad things happen if the reverse dns is changed in 10.4 server, and the permissions model is a pain in the ass.

      Yes, I did OS X administration for almost a year.

    5. Re:OS X hacked or the Web Application by oyenstikker · · Score: 1

      If a Linux-OpenSSL-Apache-mod_perl setup gets cracked, it could be Linux, OpenSSL, Apache, or Perl.

      If a Windows-IIS setup gets hacked, its all Microsoft.

      --
      The masses are the crack whores of religion.
    6. Re:OS X hacked or the Web Application by constantnormal · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So how does using SQL injection in an apache (which I believe runs as a non-admin user -- at least apache 1.3.x does, not sure about 2.x) cgi app, gain access to passwords -- which ought to still reside in an encrypted facility within OS X?

      I can see that if the site's designers stored users and passwords in an unencrypted SQL table, that it would be like taking candy from a baby, but surely no one is so stoopid as to design that sort of exposure into a system?

      I suppose that once they inject their code into the works and are executing commands as the apache user, they might be able to do some stuff and eventually escalate their authority to a level at which they had some power.

      Most of OS X's "security" is in keeping intruders out. Once they gain access to a system, even as a non-admin user, there are probably^H^H^H^H^H^H^H numerous ways in which they can proceed. Good security practices can mitigate these exposures, but the first step in securing a system is to keep intruders out. Stronger measures are needed because nobody's perfect, and there is always the possibility that an intruder will get in, probably via social engineering. Good security practices will make things more difficult for a non-admin user to escalate their authority to a point where they can do some real damage.

      But in this case, to merely hack a webserver, all that is required is to be able to create some web pages containing your content -- no further hackery is required (I think).

      Possibly TFA was a bit over the top in describing what had been done to the systems -- while they could have proceeded further, merely altering data within the scope of apache's access was the only requirement to accomplish their visible exploit.

      This goes to show the need to properly validate ANY input coming into your webserver from the outside world before merrily handing it off to your SQL processor.

    7. Re:OS X hacked or the Web Application by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For what it's worth, the same group defaced several hundred websites in the last couple of days, almost all of them running under Linux.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    8. Re:OS X hacked or the Web Application by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      provided you use the LATEST version

      You mean paid the bug fix ransom money...

    9. Re:OS X hacked or the Web Application by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      As much as OSX on a server is a contradiction of terms at the best of times, this wasn't an OS level exploit.


      This would be in the details... If the Injection only changed data in the database then no it isn't an OSX exploit, but falls at the hands of the Web Server and SQL Server.

      However, if they elevated privledges from the injection in some odd way, then it is both the SQL Server and OSX.

      Sadly, even as bad as IIS on Windows Server is, we can't blindly believe Apache or non-MS SQL Server solutions are safe, even if running on OpenBSD itself.

      Of course this could be some really bad site scripting, but the press will usually point the finger at the wrong party responsible anyway.

  7. NASA by Ramble · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah! That'll show those NASA warlords.

    --
    "Oh boy"
    1. Re:NASA by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      Ever work at NASA? I have. And I didn't work on anything even *remotely* military. Nor do most people. Not even things with military applications.

      Are there connections between the NASA and the military? Of course, and this has never been denied. However, the vast majority of the scientists at NASA perform basic research for the sheer joy of science.

    2. Re:NASA by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1
      Thank you! It is amazing how naive, and flat-out stupid some of the people are here with regards to their perception of NASA. Missiles, fighter jets, and cutting edge weaponry all need to be invented to be used...and guess where a lot of that technology is invented?


      Oh - I don't know. Maybe through private contractors?

      The space program that gets all the media attention, and that you Sci-Fi geeks cling to is just a small portion of what NASA really does. It's more of a public relations tool than anything.


      If you look at the history of NASA, it's plain that much of the technology being developed was dual-purpose with very distinct military applications. And in NASA's golden years, it was certainly part of the propaganda arsenal in the Cold war. But to claim that NASA's space program is currently a minor part of what NASA does today seems to be a little far-fetched. Look at NASA's budget and trace where the money is going.
    3. Re:NASA by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
      Wowzers. You worked at NASA! A government agency with over a dozen facilities located across the continental US and abroad. I'm sure, of course, that you worked at all of them, and had the security clearance to get into any of these facilities. I'm also sure that you were privy to all levels of research at all branches that was happening at NASA at all times. "basic research for the sheer joy of science" - your tax dollars at work, kids!

      I'm assuming that's better than you - who have worked at 0 NASA installations and aren't even a scientist?

  8. I don't get it.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When last I looked into this it was a unilateral isreali action.

    since when did NASA of all government agencies have to do with a war in lebanon.

    It seems to me like theyre doing the cyber equivalent to nasa that isrealis are doing to lebanese civillian centers.

    stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid....

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re: I don't get it.. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      > When last I looked into this it was a unilateral isreali action.

      Hizbollah is just a wee bit involved as well.

      > since when did NASA of all government agencies have to do with a war in lebanon. It seems to me like theyre doing the cyber equivalent to nasa that isrealis are doing to lebanese civillian centers.

      When you can't strike at a power, you strike at a perceived symbol of that power.

      Presumably the choice of symbol had a way whole lot to do with whose website they could crack.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re: I don't get it.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      Hezbollah is just a wee bit involved as well.

      You know, the US revolutionary forces were considered terrorists as well, then they became the us government.

      I'm a jew and my family is very pro zionist, but wasnt hezbollah elected into the position of palistinan government recently?

      part of the definition of a terrorist group is they are stateless, now they have a state do they not? they are now a government.

      I just dont see the point in waging a war of what basically amounts to revenge, especially when its against the whole of lebanon for the sake a few extremists who happen to live there.

      When you can't strike at a power, you strike at a perceived symbol of that power.

      I would hardly call nasa a symbol of anything at this point...
      they have an aging fleet of planes, the automobile equivalent of which would be chrysler k-cars, and a ton of little probes which broke up over mars because some idiot forgot to carry the 2.. =/

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    3. Re:I don't get it.. by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      "It seems to me like theyre doing the cyber equivalent to nasa that isrealis are doing to lebanese civillian centers."

      It seems to me to be kind of the same idea... The bombs and military equipment that the Israelis are using are primarily American manufactured.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    4. Re: I don't get it.. by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      I'm a jew and my family is very pro zionist, but wasnt hezbollah elected into the position of palistinan government recently?

      There is a difference between Hezbollah and Hamas.....

    5. Re: I don't get it.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between Hezbollah and Hamas.....

      yeah i thought I got that wrong.. my bad =/

      still its stupid.. it reminds me of the whole DRM thing..

      punish a bunch of legitimate users (civillians), for the actions of pirates (terrorists) which will remain unaffected because they are decentralized.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    6. Re: I don't get it.. by cmorriss · · Score: 1
      but wasnt hezbollah elected into the position of palistinan government recently?

      No, that was Hamas. While they hsve similar goals, that being the destruction of Israel, they are two distinct terrorist groups. Even the U.N. wants Hezbollah disarmed. They're not helping anyone by provoking Israel.

      --
      10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
    7. Re: I don't get it.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      yes, i thought I got that wrong, but still since when did Lebanon immediately = hezbollah... that's like saying US immediately = bushite cowboy..

      so "lebanon = hezbollah! let's go bomb us some urban centers.. WOOOH!".. just seems stupid.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    8. Re:I don't get it.. by lymond01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's simple. The same reason a civilian grocer and his family are disintegrated by an errant missile is the exact same reason someone would deface a NASA website to protest a war between two Middle-Eastern countries. Same reason we invaded Iraq to wreak revenge against the 9/11 terrorists from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

      Makes perfect sense to me. Well-documented too. Just look up "Insanity" in any psychological text, and you can find the branching information.

    9. Re: I don't get it.. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      > You know, the US revolutionary forces were considered terrorists as well, then they became the us government.

      And the French Resistance. And some of the early Zionists. And lots of other "good guys".

      The important distinction is alwasy "us vs. them". The labelling is propaganda.

      > I just dont see the point in waging a war of what basically amounts to revenge, especially when its against the whole of lebanon for the sake a few extremists who happen to live there.

      That's why Israel is getting itself into such a bad odor over this. Their apologists usuall try to seize the moral high ground by claiming that they don't target civilians (and, of course, "collateral damage" doesn't count). But here they're forfieting even that dubious argument, by blatantly making war on the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon.

      Not that my country has much room to criticize...

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    10. Re:I don't get it.. by rmpotter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Targetting NASA is a bit off base BUT the U.S. has armed Israel to the teeth over the years and effectively given them carte blanche to take out Hezbollah at all cost. If the Israeli's could extend the buffer zone to include the Litani river and divert its water, they would probably do so.

      With America's blessing, Israel has essentially created its own little Apartheid state and until that gets fixed the U.S. will remain in the surreal position of sending weapons so Israel can bomb the bejesus out of Hezbollah and Hamas AND sending humanitarian supplies to help the people getting bombed. Ever wonder if they load bombs and humanitarian aid on the same cargo planes?

      I'm not defending Hezbollah -- they are just as evil and are doing themselves more harm with all of this. Sads days, these are.

      --
      Is this sig nificant?
    11. Re:I don't get it.. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Only NASA didn't launch a missle attack, invade their borders, kill four soldiers and abduct two others. Other than that, NASA = Lebanan. Yes, I know it was Hezbollah. That portion (27%?) of the Lebanese gov.

    12. Re:I don't get it.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      I'm sure a greater number of americans than 6 have been abducted or killed by canadian criminals on our northern border, maybe we should attack canada?..

      i don't mean to be a jerk here, but the response is kind of disproportionate.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    13. Re: I don't get it.. by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      The problem here can be summed up in just one word: Religion.

      Religion, historically, has been the cause to almost every war or mass killing of people. Once the human race wakes up and realizes it doesn't need religion, we're going to be a lot better off. Until then, we're going to be fighting each other with the help of our imaginary friends for the sake of making them believe in our imaginary friends.

      I've got better things to do, and personally, every day I feel less and less empathy for these people who fight for those religions.

    14. Re: I don't get it.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      Until we as a species can provide unequivocal proof that the universe is not infinite, then I believe religion will always be necessary..

      I'm a person which requires rational and competent explanation for everything, but I still believe there is some supreme being out there... weather divine, or some alien who keeps the universe in his snowglobe is anyone's guess.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    15. Re: I don't get it.. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      > > but wasnt hezbollah elected into the position of palistinan government recently?

      > No, that was Hamas.

      However, Hezbollah holds about 20% of the seats in the Lebanese legislature, and holds two cabinet positions. See the Wikipedia article.

      Notice that that's a big increase over their pre-"Cedar Revolution" role in the Lebanese government. A cynic might conclude that the naive notion of democratizing the Middle East is, well, naive.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    16. Re: I don't get it.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      Then maybe we should have done the same to the chicago mafia in the 30's...

      just shelled their places of business and damn the consequences...

      It doesnt make sense to use millitary weaponry when surgical strikes on the ground would get things done.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    17. Re: I don't get it.. by Cerberus7 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Here we go again...

      Wars are very rarely fought over just religion. Religion is, however, used as a motivating force to get the common people behind "The Cause." The vast majority of wars are fought over land and resources (i.e. more power for the people in charge). Occasionally, you get a war of separation where the people kick their rulers out, or a war of religion where the "True Believers" kick out the "Heathens," but those are comparatively few and far between as compared to the wars of power, influence, and money.

      Some day I'm going to make a list of all the wars in history and boil down the percentage of contribution to money, power, land, resources, ideal, religion, blah blah blah so we can stop blaming religion for all of the world's woes. You want to know what the real problem is? Greed. That's what's wrong with people and why we can't get along.

      --
      I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
    18. Re:I don't get it.. by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying what Israel is doing is right, but that's a terrible analogy, as are most of the oens I see ont he Internet. Canada hasn't been constantly launching rocket attacks over the border and sending over suicide bombers. Neither is the goernment failing to do anything to prevent attacks and kidnapping. The reason Israel is launching all these attacks in Lebannon is because the Lebannese government has failed ot do anything to stop Hezbollah's activities.

      If Canadians were launching constant attacks on the US, with the Canadian goverment failing to do anything to stop them, you can bet there'd be troops going over the border to put an end to things.

      Incidentally, this is also why compasions to the IRA are also rubbish; the Irish government and the Gardai were trying to stop them. And the Troubles weren't as bad as what the Israelis have had to go through. Or what people in Iraq and LEbannon are going through at the moment, for that matter.

    19. Re:I don't get it.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      I say again why don't they send in covert teams to remove the key coordinators of the terrorist activities quietly.

      Snipe them, kidnap them, whatever, remove them and put them on trial, you don't just bomb the bejesus out of everything.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    20. Re: I don't get it.. by Metasquares · · Score: 1

      On the one hand, you argue that "part of the definition of a terrorist group is they are stateless, now they have a state do they not? they are now a government."

      On the other hand you state that "its against the whole of lebanon for the sake a few extremists who happen to live there."

      If Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government (they do constitute part of its parliament, though I think you were confusing Hamas and Hezbollah), their attacks on Israeli cities (as well as the kidnappings that started all this) are acts of war, and Israel has the prerogative to respond against whatever parts of Lebanon it deems necessary to end the threat.

    21. Re: I don't get it.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      the prerogative maybe, the moral authority no..

      The difference between the way a nation which respects human rights and freedoms waging war is that it is not about revenge, it is about disabling the enemy's ability to attack you with minimal casualties, especially to noncombattants.

      The best way to do that in this situation is with troops on the ground, not bombs, shells, and cruise missiles.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    22. Re: I don't get it.. by deanj · · Score: 1

      They don't target civilians unless Hezbollah is there.

      http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,19955774 -5007220,00.html

    23. Re: I don't get it.. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      > They don't target civilians unless Hezbollah is there.

      Yeah, right. That's why they started by blowing up the whole frikkin' civilian infrastructure of Lebanon.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    24. Re: I don't get it.. by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1
      I'm a person which requires rational and competent explanation for everything, but I still believe there is some supreme being out there... weather divine, or some alien who keeps the universe in his snowglobe is anyone's guess.

      Well, in any case you seem not to be very demanding regarding the rationality and competency of the explanations you are willing to accept from yourself.

    25. Re: I don't get it.. by IanHurst · · Score: 1

      So you'd approve of Israeli surgical strikes into the sovereign Lebanese territory, then?

    26. Re:I don't get it.. by frdmfghtr · · Score: 2, Interesting
      When last I looked into this it was a unilateral isreali action.


      Some may go as far as to say that the action was unilateral by the US using Israel as a puppet state to do the Bush administration's bidding. Some may also say that the US "support" for Israel's actions points toward the US being a puppet state of Israel (they sit in a region of vast oil resources and we don't). The heavy bombing in sountern Beirut amazingly stopped for several hours during Condolezza Rice's diplomatic trip to Beirut. Imagine the odds, the "no bombing" window and her visit coinciding like that...

      But this is all offtopic and I'm not anything remotely close to being politically "in the know."
      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    27. Re: I don't get it.. by Solandri · · Score: 1
      When you can't strike at a power, you strike at a perceived symbol of that power.

      Presumably the choice of symbol had a way whole lot to do with whose website they could crack.

      More likely a bunch of bored teens out of school figured out a way to hack a low-security or no-security web site, realized they could get in trouble for doing something illegal, and latched on to the foremost political event in the news to justify their actions to themselves and to give their dirty deed a thin veneer of legitimacy.

      Or maybe it's actually a well-funded government agency, and they defaced the main page with something making it look like a two-bit hacker did it, in order to deflect attention from a more thorough root job giving access to higher-security NASA computers.

    28. Re: I don't get it.. by gfxguy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You've still got it wrong, though. Israel is attacking Hezbollah, which is mainly in Lebanon (for the sole purpose of having a launch place to attack Israel from). Hezbollah wanted Israel to free terrorists, and though kidnapping a couple of Israelis would achieve the desired effect...

      Let's see, they wanted hundreds of terrorists and other criminals freed in exchange for a couple of Israeli citizens. The top of the list was one guy who murdered a father in front of his four year old daughter, then smashed HER skull in with the butt of his rifle.

      Let's make this clear as can be: Israel is attacking Hezbollah, NOT Lebanon. Hezbollah, being the manipulative cowards they are, hide amongst the civilians of Lebanon, so that when collateral damage kills Lebonese, they can show the media how horrible Israel is. Meanwhile, they are indiscriminately lobbing missles into Israel trying to kill ANYONE.

      Are you really going to make a moral equivalence between collateral damage when attacking a military target, and the purposeful attacking of Israeli citizens?

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    29. Re: I don't get it.. by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      No, the labels are often quite appropriate (sometimes they are wrongly used, I'll admit).

      For example, when revolt happens against an existing government from within (US against England, for example) they are called revolutionaries.

      And it's not always even just a case of who we think were right and wrong... In Cuba, for example, they were revolutionaries.

      The difference between Hezbollah and the US is that we rose up against our OWN represive government.

      When Al Qaeda attacks us, they are not "freedom fighting." When Hezbollah attacks Israel, what do they hope to accomplish? Was Israel repressing them? Israel hasn't been in Lebanon in over five years.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    30. Re: I don't get it.. by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Infrastructure != citizens. It's the same problem - in order to destroy Hezbollahs infrastructure, they had to destroy Lebanese infrastructure. If Hezbollah hadn't been there, hinding amongst the citizens of Lebanon to begin with, it wouldn't have been a problem.

      Israel was told to leave, they left. Hezbollah was told to disarm, they did the opposite, then agressed against Israel, and now your making Israel out to be the "bad guys." Nice.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    31. Re: I don't get it.. by Sal+Zeta · · Score: 1

      Completely off-topic, but the situation needs a clarification:

      The Hezbollah are a group of Political activists not too much different from nationalist movents spawned around some part of Europe. And Like such movements, it's highly fragmented , and parts of it advocate the use of violence , like Hamas. There is no "Hezbollah Headquarter", like there is no " Nationalism Group Co." in Europe or USA. We in Europe have IRA, ETA and some paramilitary nazi groups in Germany. The Lebanon has Hamas, Some various Islamic indipendents groups,some bored sheik with the passion of guns, all of them separated and often in conflict between them.

      Such terminology is misleading ,like the use of the "Communist" term during the Maccartism.

      What is going on in Lebanon coud be compared to the France bombing the entire Ireland or Spain because of an attack carried by IRA or ETA.An entire nation of 3.000.000 people is going to be wiped out for the actions of the 5% of them. If you call that an "act of defense" from Isreael, well, I don't know,maybe I never understood the meaning of "defense" at all.

      I can only hope that only the 5% or less of israelian population agrees with this madness.

      The problem is that even if only the 5% of population is a danger for Israel population, the remaining 95% is surely not a friend of the USA/Israel. The actual "defense actions" are an attempt to balkanize the Middle East: fragmenting the territory creates small regions too weak to oppose the USA/Israelian positions regarding Oil Prices/currency (Iraq was about to change the exportation of Oil from Dollars to Euros when it was "freed".This article was written long before the "democratization" of Iraq ), Cultural education, the birth of "inopportune" political parties and so on. This is what happened with the balcanic states after the conflicts in Kossovo, Jugoslavia, and a good part of ex-communist states near the Germany after the fall of the wall.Read some '90 Uk newspaper about that, if someone still cares about.

      If you think i'm a paranoid terrorist supporter,feel free to not trust me. Talk with an neutral professor or expert in foreign politics and hear what he says.

    32. Re:I don't get it.. by trb · · Score: 1
      i don't mean to be a jerk here, but the response is kind of disproportionate.

      not an unreasonable statement, but consider. hamas (in gaza) and hizbollah (in lebanon) attacked israel during periods of previous calm. they both infiltrated israel and killed and kidnapped israeli soldiers who were not engaged in battle. hizbollah fired rockets at israel, by the hundreds, over a period months and longer. i'm not even going to discuss the dozens of incidents of arab infiltration with the attempts at killing israelis with bombs in public places like schools, dance clubs, cafes, restaurants, beaches, and busses.

      israel is not interested in fighting with the arab world, except for the purpose of protecting itself. the arab and muslim world use israel as a scapegoat and as a target to distract their own people from their problems - lack of infrastructure, poverty, and corruption.

      in retaliating against hamas and hizbollah, israel isn't playing a tit for tat game, they are trying to prevent them from attacking israeli citizens. hamas or hizbollah are entrenched around israel's borders. israel's defenses are sufficiently strong that hamas and hizbollah can only kill 5 or 10 israelis in an attack.

      to ask israel to respond in a proportionate way means that you are asking them to respond by killing only 5 or 10 hamas or hizbollah militants, and leave it at that. this would have absolutely no effect in preventing further terror attacks, and as such, is a pointless suggestion. israel isn't playing a board game, it is trying to solve a grave problem.

      one more note about proportion. there are about 6 million jews in israel and 20 million jews in the world. there are about 350 million arabs in the countries surrounding israel. there are about 1250 million muslims in the world. you can look at a map of the muslim world, and note the size of israel in the middle. note also that israel is a democratic country, with many mosques and christian churches, with many arabs living happily, working, going to schools, elected and participating in the israeli parliament, and so forth. contrast this with the many arab countries that are extremely oppressive to foreigners, and don't allow any non-muslim worship. life is much better for the average muslim in israel than it is for the average muslim in any arab country.

    33. Re: I don't get it.. by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Ignoring that Lebanon was already "democratized" before the Civil War where Israel again played a major role in destroying Lebanon.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    34. Re: I don't get it.. by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      In so far as "surgical strike" is a euphemism for "a little less random bombing". And that includes "surgical strikes" from US forces.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    35. Re: I don't get it.. by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      Then think about this: Just because you can't explain or comprehend it, doesn't mean it's god's work.

    36. Re:I don't get it.. by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      I imagine the reasoning is that they (the Israelis) would lose more troops that way becuse they'd have to get up close in a very hostile environment. This is a war against Hezbollah as far as they're concerned and minimising troop casualties is more important than minimising civilian casualties on the other side. Which means it's a pretty bad time to be Lebanese.

      That does not mean, however, that they're deliberately targetting civilians. If they were, then there would be thousands dead. The idiots saying this is genocide clearly haven't a clue just how efficiently a military like the IDF could kill off a population if they wanted to. And they are warning people to move. Trouble is that mkaing it hard for Hezbollah to move about also makes it hard for civilians to move about and Hezbollah are actually rpeventing people from leaving, so that they can use them as shields and create more outcry against Israel.

      I think that a lot of attitudes against Israel are coming from viewing the last few weeks in isolation. Hezollah is hiding among civilians and Israel is now saying 'If we have to go through civilians to kill you, then we will, because enough of our people have been killed and we don't want you to get anymore. Basically Lebanese civilans are dying because Israel is sick of Hezbollah killing Israelis.

      I'm sure the number of Lebanese that die over the course of this conflcit is going to be far greater than the number of Israelis who would have died as a result of several years of Hezbollah attacks, but as far as Isrel is concerned, if it means that fewer Israelis are killed, then the number of Lebanese casualties isn't massively significant. Which is understandable. Governments and militaries seek to protect their own people, not those of other countries.

      That certainly doesn't make it the morally best thing they could do, but it's not the worst either and most countries, but in the same position, would resort to similar measures to protect their people.

      Incidentally, I do wish Israel used more of the efforts you suggest. Even when they do thoguh, they get criticised and if I was one of the guys who had to go in and do it, I'd be fairly glad that they're going about the current way.

    37. Re:I don't get it.. by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Hezbollah declared war, you idiot. War isn't about proportionate responses, unless you want to lose. War is about destroying the enemy. In this case, Israel needs to annihilate Hezbollah, and Lebanon too if they get in the way. Screw this shit about disproportionate responses. The only people parroting this line are the ones who support the destruction of Israel, like the UN, all of the middle east, and most of Europe. Now that Hezbollah got the war they've been clamoring for over the last few years they're doing what Muslims always do when someone hits back: crying like pussies.

    38. Re:I don't get it.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      The only people parroting this line are the ones who support the destruction of Israel

      actually I think it's supremely stupid that my fellow jews decided to found their state in the middle of a region which is absolutely dominated by their enemies, covered in desert, and bordering a sea so full of salt it's named "DEAD"..

      Personally I think they would be in a less deadly and more profitable environment if they built an orbiting colony instead, or started living around nome alaska, but that's just me.

      They could just buy one of the less inhabited states off of us.. like north dakota for instance.. (I have yet to see or hear of anyone who ever lived in north dakota.. i'll bet it doesnt even exist ; ) )

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    39. Re:I don't get it.. by pyrotic · · Score: 1
      hamas (in gaza) ... attacked israel during periods of previous calm.

      I'm not clear what you're talking about here. After the IDF beach bombings in Gaza on 9 June? Calm is killing a dozen odd civillians? Yeah, this is relative, calm as in there aren't tanks in the street and house to house fighting like the West Bank in 2002. But if there was this kind of "calm" in Sderot in Israel, this kind of civillian death toll, where most of Hamas' crude missiles were landing, there would be uproar in the US. And plentiful supplies of high tech weapons. As it is, few in the US are much bothered by a few dead Arabs.

      Ref Hizbollah, yeah, they had no business getting involved, but Gaza was a different case and your post is selective with the historical events you chose to remember. Do you have an agenda here, or is your memory just not what it used to be?

      hizbollah fired rockets at israel, by the hundreds
      True. After Israel started bombing Lebanon. It takes 2 to escalate, let's not brush one side's actions or responsibilities under the carpet.


      israel is a democratic country, with many mosques and christian churches, with many arabs living happily, working, going to schools, elected and participating in the israeli parliament, and so forth. contrast this with the many arab countries that are extremely oppressive to foreigners, and don't allow any non-muslim worship. life is much better for the average muslim in israel than it is for the average muslim in any arab country.


      Well, where to start? Israel's democracy is founded on the displacement of 700k ex-citizens of Palestine, about half the population at the time, and the destruction of about 500 towns and villages after the 1948 war. I've visited several, and interviewed survivors of that war, both those who fled to Lebanon, and those who fled their villages and eventually recieved Israeli citizenship, even though their home villages were destroyed. These "internally displaced" refugees in Israel are better off than those in Lebanon, no question. The Lebanese bar Palestinians from jobs like medicine or teaching.

      But Israeli Palestinians can't get planning permission to build, either on the sites of their former villages, or in the dedicated "Arab reserves", like Nazareth in the Gallilee, so population density is higher and life is harder than for Israel's Jewish citizens. They get a smaller peice of the pie on the education buget than their numbers, 20% of the population, should recieve. There are other areas of discrimination which are more subltle, like the Law of Return, or certain workplace practices. Yes, some of them are happy to be Israeli citizens, but none are totally ignorant of the fact that Israel is the state of the Jews, not the state of it's citizens. Is that your definition of democracy? This is why when Hezbollah rockets missed a military facility near Nazareth, the local (non-jewish) civillians didn't have bomb shelters.

  9. Re:Doesn't make sense by Hampe · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think you need to look at some other news channels apart from Fox!

  10. Re:Doesn't make sense by bcat24 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Let's see... an Israeli plane blows up a building in Lebanon after warning the people to leave.
    So if the 9/11 hijackers had warned us they were going to destroy the WTC, it would have been OK? That's absurd. Whatever you think about the conflict in the Middle East, don't forget to look at it from both sides. We're all humans, right?
  11. Way to go ... by ubrkl · · Score: 1

    ... totally targeting the wrong people. Why target NASA, apart from it being a U.S. institution? It is non-military and seems an odd choice to attack.

    1. Re:Way to go ... by Timesprout · · Score: 1, Troll

      Probably for the same reason Israel is targeting Lebanese civillians when their beef is with someone else.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    2. Re:Way to go ... by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      People seem to be missing something here.. is it because of US news sources?

      Bush has the power to call a cease fire, but he refuses to step up and do so. It's all over the news in the UK and it's a pretty big story, so I don't know.. maybe this is "get off your ass and do it!" by exploiting a weakness in the security of Americas most famous government department (in effect).

      --
      I like muppets.
    3. Re:Way to go ... by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      Probably for the same reason Israel is targeting Lebanese civillians when their beef is with someone else.

      Oh yes, and I suppose those 130+ rockets Hizbollah just launched at Israel are guided by magic wishes and gumdrops so they dont hit Civilians?

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    4. Re:Way to go ... by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      Bush has the power to call a cease fire, but he refuses to step up and do so.

      The power to "call" a ceasefire is useless if both sides are not going to agree to it. No, it's worse than useless. Hezbollah has already said that they have no intention of giving up their attacks, or their weapons. No, there is only one party that can unilaterally stop the shotting and that's Hezbollah, by returning the abducted soldiers and removing all of their weapons from the border zones.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    5. Re:Way to go ... by deanj · · Score: 1

      Israel is targeting Hezbollah, which is hiding amongst the civilians like the cowards they are. They're using the Lebanese people as human shields.

    6. Re:Way to go ... by PixelScuba · · Score: 1

      In all fairness, Israel is essentially in the same league as Hezbollah, they have stated numerous times that they are going to continue pounding Lebanon. Also, I've thought the use of the word "abducted" has been used poorly since the start of this war, Israeli Soldiers were taken captive... I'd reserve abducted for civilians, even if it is wrong they were still soldiers in an opposing army. I generally see that Hezbollah troops are "captured" but Israeli soldiers are "abducted".

    7. Re:Way to go ... by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      The troops were "abducted" instead of merely "captured" because they were inside of their own political borders and not actively conducting any particular campaign against Lebanon. Hezbollah had no right - moral, political, or tactical - to take them prisoner.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    8. Re:Way to go ... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Because living with terrorism and constant attacks on your people is not "peace", and while I have a lot of complaints about GW, at least he understands that the first step towards a REAL peace is the destruction of the aggressors.

      So there should be no time limit, there should be no cease-fire, the only option for the first step in a REAL lasting peace is the unconditional surrender and total disbanding of Hezbollah. Just because they aren't lobbing missiles at each other doesn't mean there is "peace", and I think that's the problem a lot of people have with this, they think that a cease-fire might actually bring "peace", but it's not peace, it's only an absence of all out war.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    9. Re:Way to go ... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      Oh yes, and I suppose those 130+ rockets Hizbollah just launched at Israel are guided by magic wishes and gumdrops so they dont hit Civilians?

      No those rockets aren't guided at all, and tend to not hit anything. Quite unlike the precision bombs of the IDF - unless they aren't (precision bombs that is).

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    10. Re:Way to go ... by spidkit · · Score: 1

      Targeting is indeed wrong - but please - NASA is non-military ? What do you think some of of the spy satelites payloads launched by the shuttle are?

    11. Re:Way to go ... by overbaud · · Score: 1

      Because of all the sites they tried thats the one they could get into. Once small step above script kiddies.

      --
      Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
    12. Re:Way to go ... by Kuroji · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The last guy who hacked it was looking for UFOs and was on dial-up, after all. The other stuff is likely to have far better security. This probably had about as much security as my high school's webpage.

  12. Re:Oh, those wacky Arabs! by KenjiFinster · · Score: 1

    Yes, but it have the biggest foreign palestine community in the world.

  13. Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is so easy to protest something that is right in your face on TV, isn't it? How about years and years of killing that have been going on in Israel by Hizballah and Hamas terrorist organizations? How about all those rockets that were launched at Israel from Lebanon within the past two decades? Maybe a UN server should be hacked, after all after 2000 UN and Lebanon was responsible for keeping Hizballah from amassing rockets and other weapons. Do these activists care when during the 'peace times' Israeli kids and adults get blown up?

    If anything, these protestors should thank Israel for taking action now and preventing more carnage later. One cannot constantly procrastinate in this kind of a situation, because it is only getting worse.

    Oh yes, and how about protesting where it actually makes sense: at Hizballah, at Lebanese, Iranian and Syrian governments. Protesting against regimes that allow terrorists to do what they do: use civilians AND UN folks as living shields on the battlefield. Not only are civilians used as shields, they are a great propaganda tool. When a terrorist launches a rocket at civilian targets in Israel from a busy market place in Lebanon, and Israeli army answers with fire at that place, is it the responsibility of Israel to make sure that Lebanese civilians do not suffer or is it responsibility of those, who used the civilians for their political gain around the world?

    Here are a couple of caricatures that do tell something about the reality of this war.

    1. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Israel has the capabilities to aim thier artillery, Hezbollah does not. Israel also has ways to target non civilian areas and yet they still do. Israel has no right or reason to attack Lebanon's infrastructure, or main cities the blockade is ludacris, and if Hezbollah is a terrorist organization you won't ever actually destroy it. What terrorist organizations do is extremely smart in terms of winning a war - They die, their family takes their place, their family die, their kids take their place, and it's all for a religion.

      Take what is happeneing in iraq as an example, we killed a few leaders, and every time the attacks have gotten worse.

    2. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Sir+Homer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reminds me of some interview I saw on BBC with a IDF general.

      BBC: You know you are killing innocent people?
      IDF General: We are currently targetting Hizballah areas where they store rockets and fire into Israel. We told all civilians to leave many times.
      BBC: Yeah but why kill innocent people?
      IDF General: Why are innocent people next to Hizballah rocket installations?
      BBC: But.. you can't..
      IDF General: This is the fundamental difference between Israelis and Lebonense. Israelis are currently sleeping in bomb shelters. Lebonese are sleeping with bombs.
      BBC: *Silence*

    3. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      As far as I care I hope you all die for killing each other in the first place.

      Its "HE STARTED IT!" kid talk on a international scale..

    4. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by madcow_bg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is so easy to protest something that is right in your face on TV, isn't it? How about years and years of killing that have been going on in Israel by Hizballah and Hamas terrorist organizations? How about all those rockets that were launched at Israel from Lebanon within the past two decades? Maybe a UN server should be hacked, after all after 2000 UN and Lebanon was responsible for keeping Hizballah from amassing rockets and other weapons. Do these activists care when during the 'peace times' Israeli kids and adults get blown up?
      Well ... maybe they care for their own people - the palestinians, that are getting killed during "peace times". One thing you should know is that violence ALWAYS leads to violence. Truth be told, they are both wrong. But by substituting dead israeli with dead lebanese or dead palestinians is not going to help anyone.

      If anything, these protestors should thank Israel for taking action now and preventing more carnage later. One cannot constantly procrastinate in this kind of a situation, because it is only getting worse.
      Can you seriously say, that killing innocent lebanese is going to help you keep your country peaceful? Do you know why it is getting worse? Because noone wants to make sacrifices. If Israel did not have the americans behind their back the UN would already be there to stop the carnage. Or, at least they would have a chance. Now is is a loose-loose situation, lebanese get killed, the terrorists are going to multiply.

      Oh yes, and how about protesting where it actually makes sense: at Hizballah, at Lebanese, Iranian and Syrian governments.
      Maybe, since the USA is THE greatest supporter of Israel it kind of makes sence to protest in the USA. Maybe the USA should think twice when they actively protect such things.

      Protesting against regimes that allow terrorists to do what they do: use civilians AND UN folks as living shields on the battlefield.
      So what? Now they'll stop doing it?

      Not only are civilians used as shields, they are a great propaganda tool. When a terrorist launches a rocket at civilian targets in Israel from a busy market place in Lebanon, and Israeli army answers with fire at that place, is it the responsibility of Israel to make sure that Lebanese civilians do not suffer or is it responsibility of those, who used the civilians for their political gain around the world?
      When you fire a rocket and kill thousands of innocent people it is YOUR SOLE RESPONSIBILITY!!! Who the hell are you to say - oh, well, maybe there were terrorists. We should kill everyone, just to be sure. There is a certain amount of rules when waging war. Yes, maybe you cannot stand before trial for that, but that does not mean that you are not responsible. War often makes the life equally miserable for the civilians and for the soldiers. Just remember the amount of psychic disorder in the troops that came back from Vietnam, and you'll see my point.

      Once againt, it IS the place to protest. EOF

    5. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is so easy to protest something that is right in your face on TV, isn't it?

      Obviously not, considering all the things you ignore in your post.

      How about years and years of killing that have been going on in Israel by Hizballah and Hamas terrorist organizations?

      About as many years as Israel has been occupying territory outside its borders while disregarding its responsibilities as occupying power. Read carefully, I am not saying that they occupied territory for no good reason, but that once they did, they did not manage it in a way that was anywhere helpfull in solving the situation, and in some cases in direct violation of international law and treaties that Israel is a party to.

      Before that it was a bunch of Arab nations that thought to drive Israel into the sea (with said occupation as the result).

      The issue here is that the people living in those territories got a war on their doorstep without asking for it, and have since suffered mostly from Israelian military actions and irresponsible administration of their territories. It is absolutely no wonder they support anyone who seems to be able to act against this (even if such action works against them in the longer term, living in a war zone makes you think about today and maybe tomorrow, but not much further, which is a tendency people have already anyway)

      You may not remember this, but when Israel entered Southern Lebanon for the first time in the late 70s, they were hailed by the Shia population there as liberators because of them trying to get the PLO out. It only took a few years to reverse that situation however, not the least due to Israel refusing to control its proxy militia in South Lebanon (the South Lebanese Army). Israel did not create Hezbollah as such, but they are the ones responsible for it finding a lot of grassroots support among the South Lebanese people and having developed into what it is now.

      How about all those rockets that were launched at Israel from Lebanon within the past two decades?

      Many aimed at population centers with the aim to kill or wound civilians. Absolutely unacceptable.

      But how about taking an action that you know to have virtually zero chance of success and actually a high likelyhood of worsening the problem (and with history telling a clear lesson about this) that risks the life of many civilians? This is what Israel is doing in Lebanon today, again.

      Maybe a UN server should be hacked, after all after 2000 UN and Lebanon was responsible for keeping Hizballah from amassing rockets and other weapons. Do these activists care when during the 'peace times' Israeli kids and adults get blown up?

      Actually, they do. Thank political games from various parties involved (including, but definitely not limited to Israel) for the situation on the ground.

      If anything, these protestors should thank Israel for taking action now and preventing more carnage later. One cannot constantly procrastinate in this kind of a situation, because it is only getting worse.

      Acting in a way that has repeatedly shown to worsen the situation however is stupid, and when it causes damage on the scale the current actions in Lebanon are doing, it also does not deserve support, no matter how justified you believe Israel is in defending itself.

      Of course hacking NASA websites is not exactly a good way to make an opinion known, regardless of what the opinion is.

    6. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You certainly should hope that Israel takes care of the Hizballah problem, before Hizballah takes care of you.

      If you are an Islamist, then you must be on the Hizballah side, if you are not a muslim at all, then you should figure out where the priorities lie. Because if Israel is destroyed, guess who will come for your non-muslim ass...

    7. Re: Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      > How about years and years of killing that have been going on in Israel by Hizballah and Hamas terrorist organizations?

      Anyone got the stats on which side has killed the most innocent civilians over the past 5, 10, 20, 50 years?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    8. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by sonicattack · · Score: 1

      When a terrorist launches a rocket at civilian targets in Israel from a busy market place in Lebanon, and Israeli army answers with fire at that place, is it the responsibility of Israel to make sure that Lebanese civilians do not suffer [...]

      Yes, it is. What people would indiscriminately retaliate against a busy marketplace in the first place, even if a rocket was launched against them from there?

      Probably the same kind of people who would accept blowing up 30 handicapped children as "collateral damage".

    9. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Truth be told, they are both wrong. - this is not about right or wrong. This is about survival. If Israel does not take care of this cockroach problem today, there maybe no Israel tomorrow. 5-6 million surrounded by 500-900 million enemies, that is not a simple life. Israel is strategically is in a pickle, there are too many enemies. So it is always a better tactic to kill as many enemies today as possible and continue killing the enemies and not negotiating with them.

      Are you an American? I am Canadian and I have family in Israel. If you are an American don't forget this: the USA started a war in Iraq pretending that there was some imminent danger from Saddam when it was clearly not so. THERE IS imminent danger from Hizballah to Israel.

      Can you seriously say, that killing innocent lebanese is going to help you keep your country peaceful? - my cousin is in the Israeli army, one thing is certain: Israelies are not aiming at innocent lebanese people. They are fighting active terrorist formations. Terrorists don't care if civilians around them die, in fact they welcome it, because it is such a great publicity stunt.

      Because noone wants to make sacrifices. - definition of Bull SHIT. Israel has been making sacrifices. They gave up territories, they prepared peace offerings. Bill Clinton was at one of the meetings between (then alive Araffat and the Israeli PM at the time.) Clinton's own words: We were giving them 99% of what they wanted, they still did not accept the offering.

      There will be no peaceful solution to this problem ever. The only solution to this problem is a controlled state of perpetual war. And strategically Israel must control it. When Iran builds nuclear reactors, Israel must destroy them every single time. Israel now must destroy Hizballah and not stop no matter what the world's opinion is, otherwise Israel is done.

    10. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 3, Insightful
      if anything, these protestors should thank Israel for taking action now and preventing more carnage later.
      If anything, Israel is throwing a match into a powder keg. Can you imagine the public support now for Hezbollah, given that 800'000-1M lebanese are fleeing from their homes?

      We can argue, whether Israel is right for reacting somehow to the Hezbollah provocation. We CANNOT argue, that what Israel is doing now is not solving anything, given an average person's intelligence and given basic facts.

      There is no military solution to the middle east crisis, except a nuclear war. There is only a sociological/political solution.
      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    11. Re: Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Sir+Homer · · Score: 1

      Have any statistics on how many innocent civilians where directly targetted by each side? Hizballah's objective is to destroy Israel. Israel's objective is to survive. It doesn't fit into the objective of Israel to target civilians. Hizballah on the other hand...

    12. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      civilians are warned not to stay around Hizballah terrorists.

      Do you know WHAT Hizballah is doing to prevent civilians from leaving? You should look into that.

    13. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Targeting Hezbollah installations only? Right.

      There is no way they had to cause $60 billion dollar damage to the lebanese infrastructure, because they wanted to destroy some Hezbollah installations.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    14. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Obviously not, considering all the things you ignore in your post. - whatever that means.

      About as many years as Israel has been occupying territory outside its borders while disregarding its responsibilities as occupying power. - managing Lebanon is Lebanese priority, not Israeli. Israeli priority is to make sure that the occupied territory does not harbor terrorists with rockets and rocket launchers. Managing an occupied territory, that is very interesting idea. Let's ask the US how that is going in Iraq.

      But how about taking an action that you know to have virtually zero chance of success and actually a high likelyhood of worsening the problem (and with history telling a clear lesson about this) that risks the life of many civilians? This is what Israel is doing in Lebanon today, again. - tactically you are wrong. Making a strong move from Israeli point of view is absolutely necessary and actually a bit late, it should have been done 2 years ago, while the US was really active in Iraq. There is an absolute obligation of the Israeli army to remove the threat of Hisballah firing rockets at civilians in Israel. That is the only obligation of that army and not the welfare of the Lebanese people. Lebanese government is responsible for that, and it FAILED. The Lebanese government together with the UN forces FAILED to take care of Lebanon and to prevent the absolutely justified and expected Israeli retaliation against the terrorists who kill Israelies.

      Actually, they do. Thank political games from various parties involved (including, but definitely not limited to Israel) for the situation on the ground. - noone sees NASA servers hacked with pictures of the dead citizens of Israel after each bomb/rocket attack in the so called 'peace times'.

      Acting in a way that has repeatedly shown to worsen the situation however is stupid, and when it causes damage on the scale the current actions in Lebanon are doing, it also does not deserve support, no matter how justified you believe Israel is in defending itself. - oh, this is not a comparable situation. The only answer to the terrorist actions must be force. The force aimed at the terrorists in question. Civilians die in the process, that is basically inevitable. Ask people of Beslan, ask the visitors to Nord-Ost in Moscow.

      Civilians are the casualties of the political games played by people, who are attacking governments and regimes.

    15. Re: Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      It doesn't fit into the objective of Israel to target civilians.

      Got any proof but the claims by Isreal for that? The state of Isreal is based on the terrorist attacks by Irgun, the Stern Gang and others, none of which have stopped from attacking civilians. And later they even attacked Jews in other countries trying to blame it on anti-semetism to recruit more citizens.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    16. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by deanj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      " We CANNOT argue,"

      Sure we can. You because YOU say we can't, doesn't mean anything. Especially what you judge has "basic facts". You need to read beyond whatever you've been reading.

      Hezbollah is dragging the civilian population of Lebanon into this by hiding amongst them, and rocketing Isreal as they do it. They set up next to those UN peacekeepers, they've kept some Lebanonese people from getting out of their homes in the south when those people try and leave. They've built tunnels back INTO Israel carry on this war.

      This is part of their whole gameplan. That IS a fact. The only way to disarm them is militarily. They're not going to go willingly, and they're certainly not just going to give up all those missiles that Syria has been supplying.

    17. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Israel gives away lands (a strategical error in my opinion) trying to negotiate with the enemy. This will not work at all ever. Enemy in this case does not desire negotiations, they only desire one thing, destruction of Israel and murder of every Israeli.

      After they are done with Israel, they will go ahead and continue with other states, because their real goal is world domination and the setup of one muslim world government.

    18. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      No one wants to sleep in a war zone IF THEY HAVE A CHOICE. The Israelis can afford bomb shelters so they can sleep at night, safe from the rockets. But the Lebanese have no such choice. They have to live somewhere, and the terrorists are going to shoot rockets from wherever that is. Furthermore, the terrorists are going to run away and leave the launchers while the civilian is sleeping or making lunch or feeding their baby when retaliation comes. Killing civilians for what a terrorist did makes no sense. Well, it makes sense if you assume that all Arabs are terrorists, and that is the assumption many pro-Israel folks are making. Look at the numbers of civilians dead on both sides: the Lebanese are getting creamed.

      There is a huge fuss about how the Israelis are giving the Lebanese a chance to leave. Therefore, anyone remaining in the targeted areas are terrorists. That is ignorance of reality. The roads are all bombed out, there's no electricity, cars, or gas (ironic, huh) and some families may want to bunker down if they have elderly or young. It's kind of like a suicide bombing organization telling Israelis to get out of discos because they are going to have an operation against soldiers hanging out there. Clearly, Israelis are not consenting to get blown into pieces by staying out, and the terrorist act wouldn't be any less atrocious because of the warning. Therefore, telling the Lebanese to get out of their own homes does not mitigate the objectionability of what Israel is doing.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    19. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      So the IDF general admits that Israelis are safe and Lebanese are dying from Israeli hands. Why should the BBC have to say anything?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    20. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      When you figure out a way to sort the civilians from active terrorists in a busy market place, while the active terrorists are launching rockets at your civilian population, then you may start having a point. Until then, a carefully guided missile should hit that market place and remove the threat. What are civilians doing in a busy market place, that is used to launch rocket on the first place, that is the real question. I personally don't believe there are innocent civilians.

    21. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      In this conflict Israelies must retaliate each and every time their citizens are targetted with bombs and rockets. So if the terrorists launch 40 rockets and run, the Israelies must destroy the place, from where the rockets were launched. It is not clear whether the terrorists will be destroed in the raid, but the launchers and the ammunition must be destroyed.

      I believe the USA invaded Iraq without a single rocket launched by Saddam at the US. Israelies waited for 6 years with rockets flying from Lebanon into Israel, they waited for Lebanese government and the UN to stop this, but it was not happenning and meanwhile Hizballah was getting stronger and getting more ammo from Iran and Syriah. The current conflict is absolutely necessary. hundreds of civilians will die this time, so that hundreds of thousands will not die a few years from now.

    22. Re: Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Sir+Homer · · Score: 1

      http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&i d=32 "Purity of Arms - The IDF servicemen and women will use their weapons and force only for the purpose of their mission, only to the necessary extent and will maintain their humanity even during combat. IDF soldiers will not use their weapons and force to harm human beings who are not combatants or prisoners of war, and will do all in their power to avoid causing harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property."

    23. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Sir+Homer · · Score: 1

      So living next to Hizbollah and even aiding them by storing missles in their homes have nothing to do with it?

    24. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      It depends on who's figures you are reading and which media you are listening to. - well, I have family in Israel, some of whome are also in the army, that is where my information is coming from.

      You are going to bring in the distant past into this, I'd say it is pretty much irrelevant at this point. UN was involved into the Hizballah situation for a long time now. 6 years ago Israel left Lebanon to the UN and since then Israel has been attacked more than enough times to justify the return.

      Hizballah is a terrorist organization that uses the tactic of helping the people of Lebanon at Iranian expense, I may add, to build schools and homes and hospitals and to build rocket launchers into them.

      What other organization in the world does that? I don't see them as being helpful to the civilian population, I see their tactic as being useful to them, just as concrete blocks that are useful to stop explosions, civilians in those buildings are useful to turn the world opinion.

    25. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Israel is not trying to gain support of an 'average person'. They are destroying infrastructure of an enemy, that has built his infrastructure into the infrastructure of a state.

      None of the world opinion will matter if Israel cannot stop the rockets flying into its own cities.

    26. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      right, and the 9/11 didn't happen and Beslan and Nord-Ost didn't happen and attacks in British subway system or in Spain or the revolt in France didn't happen....

      This is not a conflict between two nations, this is a conflict between basic principles of government, and as a bonus it is a conflict about the Israeli territory.

      You think this conflict will stop once Israel is gone and it is Palestine and all will be good in the world? Shortsighted and stupid notion that is. This is not about one or two nations, it is about all nations to be overrun by muslim extremists, whose only purpose in life is to propagate islamist ideas and to create one islam state that can be controled by islam law.

    27. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Especially what you judge has "basic facts". You need to read beyond whatever you've been reading.
      Thanks for telling me this, but I think the most important point about the futility of the situation is the Hundreds of thousands of lebanese escaping from their homes! No matter what you say can you make a person believe that this somehow doesn't make the situation worse!

      The only way to disarm them is militarily.
      Who the FUCK cares about disarming them? Ok. You go into the country, bomb the shit out of them, make them lose everything and then occupy them. GUESS WHAT?! WHEN THEY LOST EVERYTHING, WHO ARE THEY GOING TO SUPPORT? THE ENEMY YOU WANT TO DISARM! I repeat: there is no point in trying to solve this problem in a military way, because if they want to fight, they'll find a way. Israel is making them want to fight, Israel is making them want to support Hezbollah. Israel just made Hezbollah more popular than ever before. So, as I said there is only two solutions: you either nuke Lebanon, killing millions of people, or you give up the foolish idea of using pure military force on the civilian population to destroy Hezbollah infrastructure.

      On the other hand, if you leave lebanese alone, treat them as citizens of a sovereign state, not as second class humans, make them improve their economy and live better: Hezbollah support will disappear. Noone wants to fight when they have something to lose!

      The trouble is that you can't see further from your nose.
      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    28. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      50% Insightful
          40% Overrated
          10% Underrated

      Interesting parent valuation by moderators.

      I really want to know, are those just liberals, that are pushing that comment down or are they islamists supporters?

      (maybe they are the Chilean activists/protestors? ;)

      I wouldn't be surprised if that comment went from +5 Insightful to -1 Troll and then back to +5 Insightuful and then to -1 Troll and then to +5 Insightful about 5 times today.

    29. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1
      Israel is not trying to gain support of an 'average person'.
      They bloody well should try that. Otherwise how are they going to cut public support to Hezbollah? Waging a war on the civilian population just makes Hezbollah support stronger. Sure, they might not live as well as before, but they'll spend their income on buying rockets from Syria and shooting Israel with it in a bitter struggle.

      You haven't learnt yet, that the power is in the minds. Humans are so inventive, when they want to reach a goal, short of mass murdering every one of them, you can't stop them from attacking you back if you piss them off. In this case, you can try to destroy Hezbollah infrastructure. So what if you manage? They'll rebuild them with a much bigger support for Hezbollah. For every rocket that fell into Israel, they'll launch ten in the future.
      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    30. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      An average person's mind cannot be won by anything that brings destruction, and at the same time, an average person's mind is not built to care about things that are not personal. The only way to win an average arab person's mind in this world is to kill all jews, well all Israelies and to 'free' Palestine. That is not an option if you are an Israeli, so the next best thing is to keep the terrorists in check, destroy their rocket launchers, their ammunition and their fighters.

    31. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Enrique1218 · · Score: 1

      Your comment is well thought out and informative. But in the end, you have to choose a side and you to do something. Hezbollah is by every definition a terrorist group. It is not acting under government sanction, is deliberately targeting civilians, and has foresworn to wipe a nation off the map. Israel face with attacks on its sovereign territory is suppose to do what? Nothing? Go to the UN? The really have little option except military ones. Hezbollah won't negotiate and Lebonan has its hands tied so that leaves diplomacy out.

      --
      You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
    32. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 2, Interesting

      managing Lebanon is Lebanese priority, not Israeli.

      Not according to international law. You occupy, so you are in control and you are responsible.

      What you suggest contradicts the entire concept of an occupation.

      Israeli priority is to make sure that the occupied territory does not harbor terrorists with rockets and rocket launchers.

      That was the responsibility of Lebanon upto the point of occupation (during the first occupation it was the PLO and not Hezbollah who sat there with their rockets and launchers and mortars and what not, not to mention Lebanon was rather involved in a civil war).

      Now? It was definitely the responsibility of the Lebanese government to see to it that Hezbollah got disarmed. They failed for obvious reasons. Lets not forget that Israel found itself unable to do much about Hezbollah while they were occupying Southern Lebanon, and that in fact Hezbollah's effectiveness has been a factor in Israel ending that occupation. Expecting the Lebanese army to do the job instead is disregarding reality, even more so when realizing that this would certainly result in a continuation of the civil war.

      Managing an occupied territory, that is very interesting idea. Let's ask the US how that is going in Iraq.

      They have done pretty well in Germany and Japan. After that however there is also a long string of failures.

      It might be very interesting to see why the first 2 worked, but that will be a bit too much to write in a simple post here.

      Instead I'll point at the main reasons why the Iraq occupation does not seem to work very well..

      Three issues come out on top:

      1. Occupation force for Iraq is at least a factor 5 too small, and more likely a factor 10. You are not going to controll a country that used to have a large military busy with internal control, with a force approx 1/8th of the size of the local army.

      2. As a consequence it failed to provide quick security and basic needs like food and shelter to the population

      3. Disregard of the local situation in many aspects (ethnic, political, religious)

      That said, the attempt in Iraq does have a chance tho it is unlikely to work out in the way the USA envisioned.
      And so did the initial occupation of South Lebanon by Israel.

      One could even argue that the initial occupation of South Lebanon was very succesfull. In the end it managed to drive the PLO out of Lebanon, and in a military sense its goals were achieved completely.

      The problem is that the consequences were worse then the problem it tried to address. The party in control there was Israel, and so the ones responsible for allowing those consequences are to be found in Israel, not Lebanon.

      If Israel had treated the local population well (remember that that local population did at that moment support the Israeli invasion and occupation) and aligned themselves with the local people instead of bringing in the SLA, it is very likely that Hezbollah would never have gotten beyond a few isolated extremists.

      This time around, the majority of people in South Lebanon don't want a militia there, but they have learned over the last quarter of a century that having a 'friendly' militia there is a lot better then having Israel there. At least Hezbollah provides for schooling, medical care and food where needed.

      All this said, Hezbollah has made a habbit out of attacking civilians and for that simple reason have no legitimacy whatsoever. Israel is not responsible for Hezbollah's choices obviously.

    33. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1, Interesting
      THERE IS imminent danger from Hizballah to Israel.
      THIS IS AN UTTER LIE. Let me get this straight for you:

      - There were no rocket attacks before Israel attacked Lebanon.
      - The causa belli: two israeli soldiers were captured when they were violating the sovereign territory of another nation.
      - Israel violates Lebanese airspace on a daily basis to take surveillance photos.

      So tell me, how is Hezbollah an imminent danger to Israel? I'll tell you how: it used to be NOT. Now, with popular support for Hezbollah skyrocketing, you can count on it. Israel managed to dig itself a huge hole to fall into.
      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    34. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1
      Do these activists care when during the 'peace times' Israeli kids and adults get blown up?
      Yes. Did you see the actual defaced site? It simply says, "No war / This is a cyber-protest...." I would think that includes attacks by Israel on Lebanon, attacks by Lebanon on Israel, attacks by Israel on Palestine, attacks by Palestine on Israel, attacks by the US on everyone, attacks by vague terrorist groups on the US, attacks by Chechen separatists on Russia, attacks by Spain on Basque separatists, attacks by India and Pakistan on Kashmir, attacks in Darfur, in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland....

      "No war" and a bleeding child refers to all conflict, IMHO.
    35. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Stalyn · · Score: 1

      The only way to disarm them is militarily

      Which is impossible when Hezbollah has popular support. For every one of them you kill you create another martyr who will only inspire another young disillusioned Arab to pursue violence against Israel. If you do not have popular support the only winning military solution is genocide. And I'm sure you did not imply that.

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    36. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1
      The only way to win an average arab person's mind in this world is to kill all jews, well all Israelies and to 'free' Palestine.
      Unless you believe that arabs are somehow not humans, I don't see how could you utter such an idiotic statement. There isn't so much difference between people. Of course, you can use this dogma as a convenient justification for what Israel does currently. Otherwise you'd might be forced to reconcile your black and white personal beliefs with the reality of shades of gray.
      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    37. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by cudiaco · · Score: 1

      "Because noone wants to make sacrifices. - definition of Bull SHIT. Israel has been making sacrifices. They gave up territories, they prepared peace offerings. Bill Clinton was at one of the meetings between (then alive Araffat and the Israeli PM at the time.) Clinton's own words: We were giving them 99% of what they wanted, they still did not accept the offering." If you were to read the finer details of that agreement, Israel was to control the airspace, borders, and natural resources. That would make the 'state' of Palestine an enclave within a greater Israel. No leader could have accepted such an agreement.

    38. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      Israel, as the party involved in the fighting (You can't really say Lebanese are fighting back), is naturally biased.

      Your family sources are biased too. Israeli media is biased aswell. No wonder your radical point of view.

      Of course everything has bias, but you should very well ask questions about some beliefs you hold dear. I think this would a good place to start.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    39. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by nacs · · Score: 1, Informative
      Israelies are not aiming at innocent lebanese people

      Bullshit. They're aiming at anything that isn't Israeli. This includes Lebanese men, women and children. This even includes, from a recent event, unarmed UN observers.
      --
      "I filter at +6, and have yet to miss out on an important comment." (#822545)
    40. Re: Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      > > Anyone got the stats on which side has killed the most innocent civilians over the past 5, 10, 20, 50 years?

      > Have any statistics on how many innocent civilians where directly targetted by each side? Hizballah's objective is to destroy Israel. Israel's objective is to survive. It doesn't fit into the objective of Israel to target civilians. Hizballah on the other hand...

      The civilians are still dead.

      Also, you didn't answer my question.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    41. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

      this is not about right or wrong. This is about survival. If Israel does not take care of this cockroach problem today, there maybe no Israel tomorrow. 5-6 million surrounded by 500-900 million enemies, that is not a simple life. Israel is strategically is in a pickle, there are too many enemies. So it is always a better tactic to kill as many enemies today as possible and continue killing the enemies and not negotiating with them.

      And there lies the stupidity of the situation. Only an idiot would take somebody's holy land, and place an opposing group (who also thinks it's their holy land) in that same space.

      As long as both groups are living in the same geographic area, there will be limitless bloodshed. Both sides of the issue have enough zealots who would rather die than be peaceful.

      If one of the groups was actually serious about peace, they would move. Sure, it would be a horribly difficult, expensive proposition. But it's far better than a never ending war.

    42. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      But in the end, you have to choose a side

      When 2 sides are wrong, 2 sides are wrong. I am not going to choose a side there, rather, I blame both for being reckless and acting in a criminal way.

      and you to do something.

      Tell both of them to stfu?

      Hezbollah is by every definition a terrorist group. It is not acting under government sanction, is deliberately targeting civilians, and has foresworn to wipe a nation off the map. Israel face with attacks on its sovereign territory is suppose to do what? Nothing?

      It has to accept that the Hezbollah problem cannot be solved overnight. The solution consists of many parts including:
      - Ensuring they do not hinder in any way the economic development and prosperity of the Lebanese population. This is simple, when people have a lot to loose they are not likely to support people trying to fight a war on their doorstep.
      - Ensuring they do not turn yet another generation of people into their enemies
      - Not be provoked by Hezbollah trying desperately to re-establish its reason for having a military wing

      While the later indeed looks like doing nothing, its importance is huge. Due to the relative stability and moderate climate in Lebanon for the last decade, the support for Hezbollah having a military wing was getting smaller and smaller. By provoking Israel into making lots of civilian casualties among the Lebanese population, this has now been reversed.

      Going after the people who actually launch the missiles if they can is one thing, a large scale attack however is out of the question here.

      It already went wrong anyway, little they can do now other then end up in another 'understanding' with Hezbollah that will be broken again in the future whenever Hezbollah needs to re-establish its 'need to exist' once more, and the whole thing will repeat itself.... Unless a wise man (or woman) stands up in Israel and manages a better way to deal with this. Hezbollah won't go away unless its grassroots support is gone.

    43. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1
    44. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      So are you telling me that you have a better understanding of the conflict because you are not involved in it? Yeah, ok, go back to trying to understand your conflict in Iraq.

    45. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      What would GWB do? Don't be a hypocrite.

      Make the same bloody mistake most likely?

      Somehow I think that the UK not attacking Ireland despite the fact that IRA terrorists did hide and find support there has something to do with that problem never having escalated into a full scale war, rather, it looks like it is slowly resolving itself.

      There are other ways to deal with such a situation then by using as much violence as you can manage, and virtually always those other solutions work a lot better.

    46. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by hachete · · Score: 1

      "A senior IDF official revealed Saturday that Hizbullah has been hiding a large quantity of long-range rockets in specially-designed rooms built in houses in Southern Lebanon villages, operating under the assumption that the Israeli army will have difficulty in locating them and that it would prefer not to harm villages."

      Hezbollah have been fighting the Israelis on and off since 1982. They know by now that the Israelis aren't shy of wasting Lebanese blood. The whole of 1982-2000 conflict gives the lie to the words of the "senior IDF official".

      The worrying thing is that everyone is accepting the Israeli line on this. 750 Lebanese have died at the hands of the Israelis. Were they all next to missle-launchers? I think not. Why are they at all? Firstly, it's their land. Secondly, they don't have the means to get out.

      Olmert - the head chickenhawk here and desperate it seems to prove the size of his cajones - should remember that the IDF got it's collective arse kicked in 2000. They'll suffer the same fate now. This is the IDF's Vietnam.

      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
    47. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      You make some interesting points, but without ignoring the past, I think we need to look more closely at the present... and at how these terrorist organizations work.

      First the terrorists say that Israel can have peace by leaving southern Lebanon, which they did.

      Thent he terrorists, while still attacking Israel, say they can have peace by withdrawing from occupied territories. Which they did.

      So here we have a state genuinely trying to show good will - even though, in all cases, they were the ones initially agressed against, and the terrorist attacks continue. I'm wondering what the excuse has been for the past year.

      It is one of these things that has ping-ponged back and forth... but when you go all the way back to the beginning, it was not Israel who started any conflicts.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    48. Re: Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Yes... and while that's not "proof" of action, at least the other parties involved make it part of their formal charters to admit the complete and total destruction of Israel is their mail goal. Or, like in the case of Iran (who is supplying Hezbollah, let's not forget), the leaders of that country just come out and say it.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    49. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      I personally don't believe there are innocent civilians.

      What you believe is fine, as long as you apply it equally to both sides.

    50. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, you are spewing bullshit. None of the attacks were against 'innocent civilians'. Israel does not target innocent civilians, they target Hezbollah terrorists, they fire at rocket launcher sites. Civilians and the UN happen to be there, sure.

      Read this. This is from a Canadian UN soldier who got killed by the way.

      And this: U.N. Chief Accuses Hezbollah of 'Cowardly Blending' Among Refugees

    51. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      So killing people that have nothing to do with your enemy is business as usual for Israelis.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    52. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      This is insightful? Why don't you check out what has been happening in the northern Israeli cities for the past 6 years. Israeli cities were often bombarded by Hezbollah rockets, or do you not consider Qiryat Shemona to be an Israeli city?

    53. Re: Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Oooh. Actions speak louder than words. IDF soldiers have used their weapons and force to harm human beings who are not combatants or prisoners of war.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    54. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "On the other hand, if you leave lebanese alone, treat them as citizens of a sovereign state, not as second class humans, make them improve their economy and live better: Hezbollah support will disappear."

      Huh? I don't get it. Lebanon *is* a sovereign state. Israel *was* "leaving them alone", and what it got for that was six years of Hezbollah building itself up into the major power in Lebanon, stockpiling huge weapons caches with backing from the Iranians, and occasionally lobbing rockets and mortar shells into civilian communities in Israel.

      Conversely, if Israel was to "make them" improve their economy -- or "make" them do anything, for that matter, well, it wouldn't be treating them as a sovereign state now, would it?

      Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and Lebanon. Hamas and Hezbollah could have used that historic opportunity to build actual states and join the community of nations. Instead, they *immediately* turned around and began using the newly vacated ground as staging areas for attacks against Israel. If you were an Israeli, what conclusion would you draw from that?

          - Alaska Jack

      Noone wants to fight when they have something to lose!

      The trouble is that you can't see further from your nose."

    55. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by SilentGhost · · Score: 1

      what a stupidity!
      -war is not started when someone drops first bomb.
      -have you been there and actually saw where they were 'captured'? or it's just a hezbollah propaganda?

      You didn't ask me, but I tell you. wait a little while (a very, very little)! and you'll see how Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and Northern Korea are imminent danger not only to Israel, but to the rest of civilised world.

    56. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by lixee · · Score: 1

      Though being an Arab Muslim, I must - in fairness - say that your caricatures had a point. Hizbollah are barbarians, there's no denying that. Yet, they seem to be the only ones who give a damn about the fate of the Palestinian people. The way Israel acted, is almost certaintly just going to enforce Hizbollah's grip on Lebanon and bolster any Islamic fundamentalism out there. Now, if Syria or/and Iran decide getting into the conflict (which is in my opinion exactly what the US is waiting for), then the whole thing is assured to blow out in a conflict of epic proportions. Israeli's and the US' elite will greatly benefit from such a situation
      I leave you with a small clip from Dr. Chomsky that may enlighten you about how the whole conflict started http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKq38COoTG8&mode=re lated&search=

      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    57. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 1

      I have a question (disregarding the part about "no rocket attacks," which anyone who has ever been to northern Israel knows is completely wrong).

      I haven't seen it reported anywhere that the captured Israeli soldiers were taken while "violating the sovereign territory of another nation." May I ask your source for this claim?

            - Alaska Jack

    58. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      You make some interesting points, but without ignoring the past, I think we need to look more closely at the present... and at how these terrorist organizations work.

      That is a very good idea. When at it, take a close look at how they manage popular support and their ability to hide among the population.

      First the terrorists say that Israel can have peace by leaving southern Lebanon, which they did.

      Not exactly. Hezbollah declared victory when Israel left South Lebanon in 2000, and there has been an 'understanding' between the two. Hezbollah never made such a promise, and has always suggested they want Israel gone. Israel never tried to deal with them directly other then by military force, and the few indirect dealings were prisoner exchanges.

      Then the terrorists, while still attacking Israel, say they can have peace by withdrawing from occupied territories. Which they did.

      Which they did only partially and unilateraly. While the steps taken by Sharon were surprising and extremely brave, and imho a step forward to solving the issues, they only address a part of the territories. The one reason why it contributes to a final solution is not because of ending occupation, but the ending of colonisation and thereby bringing a unified nation that can be governed a step closer.

      This however happened after severely hindering the Pallestinian authority and making it impossible for them to try to govern Gaza.

      So here we have a state genuinely trying to show good will

      At times? definitely. I can however also point at cases where Hamas for example showed good will, with Israel blowing it.

      - even though, in all cases, they were the ones initially agressed against,

      Initially? where does your history start? Mine definitely starts before 1948... It is not such a clear cut case, Israel, while a recognized nation throughout the world, was not exactly created in a very friendly way with regards to the local population of Pallestina.

      and the terrorist attacks continue.

      Indeed, and falling back on the same policy that failed repeatedly to address this in the last 58 years is somehow a good idea?

      I'm wondering what the excuse has been for the past year.

      How about launching missiles at an old disabled man comming out of a mosk, with disregard for bystanders? Yes, he was a leader of Hamas, incidentely also the last leader of that organisation who had been capable of controlling it well enough to stop violence against Israel, and one who actually managed to debate the possibility of recognizing Israel. How about attacking a beach with people on it?

      You ignore that the violence never stopped, from either side. It did begin at some point however, and unlike some want you to believe, that is not hundreds of years ago, not over a thousand years ago, but actually somewhere in the middle of the 20th century.

      It is one of these things that has ping-ponged back and forth... but when you go all the way back to the beginning, it was not Israel who started any conflicts.

      Ah, so for you history does in fact start in 1948...

    59. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I do apply it equally to both sides. The difference is simple: Israeli soldiers are not dispersed among Israeli civilians to sway the world's opinion to its side, when Iranian rockets, launched by Hezbollah from Lebanon hit Haifa. Israeli army is about 100% more moral.

    60. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I don't think that Hesbollah cares about Palestinian people. I think the controlling top cares about propagation of their ideology and they really don't care about their people. If Arafat cared about his people, he would have went with Israel's offers, when Clinton was the middle-man and would have had peace.

      I don't believe Iran wants peace, especially not after what their president said about Israel and all jews.

    61. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1, Informative
      http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/ 12/ap2873051.html
      The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them.


      Emphasis mine.
      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    62. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      Israeli army is about 100% more moral.

      The Israeli army itself isn't the big problem here, and I seriously dount they are specifically targetting civilians.

      The government of Israel however decided on a policy that is known to not work and cause severe loss of life. Because history tells a very clear story about this policy not working, and them ignoring that, they lost any morality there by going for it anyway.

      Then, Haifa is an important city for Israel because of industry there. Targetting it serves as much a military purpose for Hezbollah as targetting Lebanese infrastructure does for Israel. Both are as obviously wrong and stupid.

    63. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Again, good points, but: How about attacking a beach with people on it?

      If you're referring to those video clips of the girl on the beach after her family was killed, it wasn't Israel that did it.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    64. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      For the record I'm not from America. I'm also not from the Middle East, Asia, Australia, Antarctica or Africa.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    65. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by magetoo · · Score: 1
      What about it? Ahmadinejad, like many other religious fanatics, wants Israel gone. Iran is governed by religious fanatics, so nobody should be surprised that he says what we already know he's thinking.

      In fact, the article's title is: "Ahmadinejad's Israel Remarks Split Iran", and continues: "Pro-democracy reformers denounced Iran's hard-line president Sunday for calling for Israel's annihilation ...".

      I don't see that it exactly strengthens your argument that all Arabs supposedly think alike. Rather the opposite, actually.

      Oh, and Iran isn't even Arabic. But who cares, they're all alike as long as they're not white, right?

    66. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      If you're referring to those video clips of the girl on the beach after her family was killed, it wasn't Israel that did it.

      Whom fired the explosive that killed them, that is disputed. What is not disputed is Israel shelling that beach at that time.

    67. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Jeez. Hezbollah targets Haifa because their rockets can reach it and it is a big and important enough target. They would happily target Tel Aviv if they could reach it (maybe they can, who knows what other weapons these terrorists have their hands on now, thank you Iran, thank you North Korea, thank you Syria, thanks a lot Russia and the US even.)

      I am on the side of Israeli government here. It is imperative that the threat of the Hezbollah rocker launchers aimed at civilians is removed. It is imperative that northern Israeli cities stop suffering rocket attacks. For the past 6 years, those cities, including Qiryat Shemona, have suffered tens of rockets launched at them from Lebanon.

      What modern government would allow this to happen for any prolonged period of time, I don't understand your point at all! If some terrorist organization based in Canada was shooting rockets at the US, and Canadian government didn't do squat to stop the launches, would the US react and bomb the hell out of the launch sites? I am certain they would. How is it moral to deny the Israeli government the same right to protect its people?

    68. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by lixee · · Score: 1
      I don't believe Iran wants peace, especially not after what their president said about Israel and all jews.
      That's been the Iranian standpoint ever since 1979. Only nobody cared at the time, since Iran was a buffer against Soviet penetration into the region
      From Wikipedia: It was Ayatollah Khomeini who first declared Israel as an "enemy of Islam" during the second Pahlavi period in his campaign against Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who supported Israel.
      After the second phase of the 1979 Iranian Revolution which witnessed the establishment of the Islamic Republic, Iran withdrew its recognition of the state of Israel and cut off all official relations.
      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    69. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      Jeez. Hezbollah targets Haifa because their rockets can reach it and it is a big and important enough target. They would happily target Tel Aviv if they could reach it (maybe they can, who knows what other weapons these terrorists have their hands on now, thank you Iran, thank you North Korea, thank you Syria, thanks a lot Russia and the US even.)

      The first and second part of your statement are contradicting eachother.

      Of course if they couldn't they wouldn't be targetting Haifa, but that does not make it their first motivation to attack it.
      The potential to do damage there, beyond possibly killing a few people, is what makes it such an interesting target. This of course does not change in any way the fact that Hezbollah does target civilians specifically also.

      They have warned that they would attack Haifa, and have now warned they can and if things don't change, will attack targets deeper into Israel. I'd count on it that they will do this, Hezbollah does not utter empty threats very often. I'd also regard it as a form of restraint on their side that they haven't done so yet.

      I am on the side of Israeli government here.

      I am completely on the side of those taking actions to end the circle of violence. That means that I am for the moment on noones side.

      The issue here is that I cannot support a policy that has such a high price and such a low possibility of achieving anything positive whatsoever.

      Beyond that, Israel has my symphathy and support. They have many neighbors feeling less then friendly about them, and have built a country despite that. They have dealt with terrorists within their borders for decades, and I will definitely cut them some slack in how they respond because of that.

      I do believe however that supporting a policy that is very likely to make things worse for them is in fact not supporting Israel at all.

      It is imperative that the threat of the Hezbollah rocker launchers aimed at civilians is removed. It is imperative that northern Israeli cities stop suffering rocket attacks. For the past 6 years, those cities, including Qiryat Shemona, have suffered tens of rockets launched at them from Lebanon.

      For which there is no justification. The question is not if this threat must be dealt with, but how. Again, using a method that is known to not work for logical and historical reasons, and that is in fact likely to worsen the cause of the problem, is not going to remove that threat at all.

      What modern government would allow this to happen for any prolonged period of time, I don't understand your point at all! If some terrorist organization based in Canada was shooting rockets at the US, and Canadian government didn't do squat to stop the launches, would the US react and bomb the hell out of the launch sites? I am certain they would. How is it moral to deny the Israeli government the same right to protect its people?

      If the UK would have bombed Ireland over the fact that IRA members found shelter and support there after attacking civilians as well as soldiers in UK controlled North Ireland, I am absolutely sure we'd have seen a full scale war there instead of the current slow progress towards a final solution. I am also sure that many times more people would have died as a result.

      Again, the question is not if but how. Using counter productive measures is exactly that: counter productive.

    70. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      Oh, I forgot one important thing. Thanks for your honest reply. We may disagree, but you try to have a discussion and not a flame war, and I respect that a lot, esp. when talking about this difficult subject.

    71. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no way they had to cause $60 billion dollar damage to the lebanese infrastructure, because they wanted to destroy some Hezbollah installations.

      Actually, yes, they do. This isn't Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols building a bomb in their basement. Hizballah is huge. It is far more powerful than the recognized government of Lebanon (and, for that matter, the largest party within that government).

      This conflict isn't about finding and detaining a few rogue criminals. It is a war between nations.

      The reports of "civilian" casualties are greatly inflated due to the lack of a precise definition of what a "civilian" is. Many of the so-called civilian casualties -- including many of the children -- are actually combatants. McVeigh and Nichols were civilians, too.

    72. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by capologist · · Score: 1

      This is the IDF's Vietnam.

      If Viet Nam had been launching missiles into Los Angeles, the U.S. would certainly have won that war, even if they'd had to go nuclear to do it.

    73. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 1

      I believe the AP dispatch you point to is wrong.

      Every other story I've been able to find on it says the soldiers were captured in northern Israel. For example, this, from the generally pro-palestinian UK Guardian:

      "The crisis began on June 25 when Hamas-linked militants in the Gaza Strip carried out a cross-border attack on a military outpost in Israel, killing two soldiers and capturing one. Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas joined the fray in July, attacking a military patrol on the border in northern Israel, killing three soldiers and capturing two. Both Hamas and Hezbollah have said the two attacks were not related."

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-59 58249,00.html

      Or this, from CBS News:

      "The fighting began when Hezbollah kidnapped the soldiers in a cross-border raid."

      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/17/ap/world /mainD8ITT2L02.shtml

      The New York Times:

      "The president was referring to the Hezbollah militants who on Wednesday took two Israeli soldiers hostage and killed eight others in a cross-border attack from Lebanon."

      I note that the AP dispatch was the first reporting the capture, when things were still obviously a little confused. The Israelis hadn't even confirmed the abduction at the time it was written. Also, note that the dispatch's first and second paragraphs are somewhat contradictory.

          - AJ

    74. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by peraspera · · Score: 1

      Well, I think an Hizbollah leader would answer the same questions like this:

      BBC: You know you are killing innocent people?
      HDF: We are currently targetting Israeli areas where they store rockets and fire into Lebanon.We told all Israeli civilians to leave many times.
      BBC: Yeah but why kill innocent people?
      HDF: Why are they there in the first place?
      BBC: But.. you can't..
      HDF: This is the fundamental difference between Israelis and Lebanese. Israelis are currently sleeping in bomb shelters. Lebanese are sleeping with bombs.
      BBC: *Silence*

      If you listen to the militaries too much, they'll convince you that with a few bombs, or rockets or whatever they will have things sorted out very soon.. bleah...

    75. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by naz225 · · Score: 1

      How have you come to the conclusion Hizbollah won't negotiate? The Lebanese government tried to secure the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails along time before this conflict started, and they were ignored by Israel. Hizbollah then warned Israel five months ago that they would try to capture an Israeli solder to swap prisoners, which they did. In the past Hizbollah has negotiated with Israel, and they wanted to this time, but Israel it seems, has other plans, and was looking for this excuse to go to war. Hizbollah started firing rockets after Israel starting bombing, and yes, Hizbollah captured an Israeli solder, but it's not as if Israel hasn't mounted raids into Lebanon. I think you'll find that Hizbollah will disappear as a military force if it's stated goals are met at some point. From what I've read these are: a) The return of the occupied Sheba Farms, taken by Israel in 1967. b) A map of the land mines laid in southern Lebanon during their 18 year occupation. c) Release of all Lebanese prisoners from Israeli jails. Hizbollah has already agreed to the seven point planned proposed by the Lebanese prime minister, not that Israel or America are at all interested. And interestingly enough, this afternoon I saw the Lebanese prime minister thanking Hizbollah for their sacrifices, so I think you need to educate yourself more fully on the situation. Israel isn't as innocent as the American/British media try to make out. Other media outlets from around the World paint a very different picture of the situation.

    76. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by chris_eineke · · Score: 1
      If Israel does not take care of this cockroach problem today [emphasis mine]
      Holy shit... it looks like you have some deep-rooted hatred. May I suggest the final solution?

      I am Canadian and I have family in Israel.
      I am Canadian, too. Your attitude is wholly un-Canadian.
      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    77. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by hachete · · Score: 1

      kind of makes my point for me. The IDF is having to destroy whole villages to supposedly get at these missles. That's the whole problem with the "they shouldn't be" assertion - how far away do they have to be? And some people can't make it that far.

      The IDF failed in 18 years of trying to rid the Lebanon of Hezbollah. What makes them think they can do it now? Even with the full backing of the US.

      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
    78. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by dcam · · Score: 1

      This is about survival. If Israel does not take care of this cockroach problem today, there maybe no Israel tomorrow. 5-6 million surrounded by 500-900 million enemies, that is not a simple life. Israel is strategically is in a pickle, there are too many enemies. So it is always a better tactic to kill as many enemies today as possible and continue killing the enemies and not negotiating with them.

      I would support Israel if their response was in proportion. But they are bombing Lebanese civilian infrastructure. I object to this on two grounds:

      1. It is stupid because it will increase the support for someone willing to hi back at Israel (ie Hezbolla)
      2. It is not attacking Hezbolla, it is attacking the wider Lebanese people.

      Can I say I think you need to re-adjust your ethics if you are referring to people as cockroaches. One of the problems (IMO) that Israel has in the region is that they seem to view most of the people in surrounding countries as sub-human.

      --
      meh
    79. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Tezkah · · Score: 1

      Are you an American? I am Canadian and I have family in Israel. If you are an American don't forget this: the USA started a war in Iraq pretending that there was some imminent danger from Saddam when it was clearly not so. THERE IS imminent danger from Hizballah to Israel.

      I am Canadian, how can you condemn the invasion of Iraq and support the invasion of Lebanon? They were both invasions of sovereign territories based on alleged crimes. We know the Iraq crimes were fabricated, what about the Lebanese? Were those soldiers really kidnapped in Israeli territory, or was it in Lebanon? The truth will come out some day, sooner of later.

      my cousin is in the Israeli army, one thing is certain: Israelies are not aiming at innocent lebanese people. They are fighting active terrorist formations. Terrorists don't care if civilians around them die, in fact they welcome it, because it is such a great publicity stunt.

      The killing of civilians for any reason is wrong. Get that through your head. I don't care if you kill them when they are held hostage as part of a terrorist plot, or if they were simply sleeping in a neighborhood where criminals were active. You are not allowed to kill them, and if you try and justify it you will incur the wrath of the world. Killing innocents in war is a war crime. End of story.

      There will be no peaceful solution to this problem ever. The only solution to this problem is a controlled state of perpetual war. And strategically Israel must control it. When Iran builds nuclear reactors, Israel must destroy them every single time. Israel now must destroy Hizballah and not stop no matter what the world's opinion is, otherwise Israel is done.

      If Israel wants to destroy the nuclear reactors, go ahead. I'd just watch out for the radiation that would be released, 'cause that's going to affect Israel along with every other state around there. They're not going to be happy. Listen kid, the world is not black and white, Israel does not have to kill or be killed. There can be peace, we just need to stop killing each other first. At the dawn of the 21st century, why are we still killing?

    80. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1
      PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, vote for Democracts in November 2006 and elect a Democratic President in 2008 - we need to balance things the other way for a little while. I don't care if Democrats help unemployed people a little bit; it can't be worse than spending $300 billion dollars on War/Death/Oil.


      Yes - by all means. Blindly vote Democrat. Because the Democrat party is pure as the driven snow. And what's more, having a Democrat President (as of yet unnamed) would immediately solve decades (if not centuries) of stuggles in the Middle East! Those Democrats - is there nothing that magical party can not do? Other than beat the Republicans, that is.

      Sorry... but this kind of knee-jerk Red/Blue political idiocy annoys me to no end. You want change? Get a candidate with a solid platform.
    81. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by capologist · · Score: 1

      The IDF failed in 18 years of trying to rid the Lebanon of Hezbollah. What makes them think they can do it now?

      Because, with rockets raining down on Haifa, the gloves are... well, if not off, they're at least starting to work on the laces. Of course, the other guy in the ring has been bare-knuckled all along.

    82. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      Hezbollah did shell villages in Israel prior to capturing an Israeli soldier. The capture of a soldier, while reckless in this case imho, is a valid tactic but attacking civilians to draw in the military is not. Hezbollah should observe that if they want to get rid of their terrorist label and be accepted.

      Israel seems to have little trouble abducting people outside their borders, and eliminating people (a guided missile against a blind and disabled man? wtf?) seems to not be out of their book either, so they have very little standing to complain about someone returning the favor there. No, it is not a smart idea, and in case of Hezbollah it was quite reckless and executed in a way that is unacceptable, but neither are such actions from Israel, so both should imho stop blaming eachother and fix their own attitude problem.

    83. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      That anyone could refer to other human beings as cockroaches to be eradicated and be modded 5 - Insightful is as disgusting an indictment on Slashdot as anything I could imagine.

      You disgust me and the retarded fucks who modded you up for this hate speech need their heads read.

    84. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I'm just waiting for Iran to provide Hezbollah a nuclear bomb (unless Iran launches it themselves) to be smuggled into Israel. It's not a matter of IF, but WHEN!

      Face it, it's going to happen. And when it does, Israel better vaporize all who is responsible. The western world needs to be victorious against Islamic fascism. And no, I no longer pity the "innocent". They know shit hit the fan long ago, and they should have left their city in order to disassociate themselves from the enemy.

      There's a saying I go by. Dance with the devil, be prepared to get burned. Fuck em!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    85. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      May I suggest the final solution?

      I can only guess what you mean by "final solution", but the only solution to this problem is all out war. The solution should be obvious to you. You can never...ever...have peace without victory when nations/people are confronted with irreconcilable differences.

      Why people totally ignore human nature baffles me! You can take humans out of nature, but you can't take nature out of humans. It's best we all remember and RESPECT this fact!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    86. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by dodobh · · Score: 1

      Israel has the fucking US military behind them. They are also supposed to have nukes. At this point, I claim that Israel is a terrorist nation. I would gladly give the Lebanese nukes, if only to make it a level playing field.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    87. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by martinX · · Score: 1

      Ya reckon no-one in the Lebanese 'burbs noticed a few hundred Kattooooshhka rockets around the neighbourhood?

      While they mightn't have anything to do with Hezbollah, you think they'd know something of what's going on and make plans to clear out.

      Also, Hezbollah seems to be quite capable (and willing) of lobbing explosives and rockets onto civilian targets, so I don't think there's any high moral ground to be had here.

      Bottom line: if your crazy neighbour starts installing rocket launchers, move.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    88. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by bergeron76 · · Score: 1

      Hey, I never said Democrats were perfect, they're just the most sane.

      If you have to choose between piss and shit, I'd recommend choosing piss; but do whatever makes you sleep well at night.

      --
      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    89. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by ben+there... · · Score: 1

      Its pretty simple really. When things are bad, you don't vote for the incumbent party. That would be stupid.

    90. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Can I say I think you need to re-adjust your ethics if you are referring to people as cockroaches. One of the problems (IMO) that Israel has in the region is that they seem to view most of the people in surrounding countries as sub-human. - this is patently false. I referred to Hezballah terrorists, who use civilians and UN as shields as cockroaches, I am not talking about Lebanese people in general.

      And you better understand that Israeli see arabs as exactly the same people as they are, but I am not Israeli.

    91. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I am Canadian, how can you condemn the invasion of Iraq and support the invasion of Lebanon? They were both invasions of sovereign territories based on alleged crimes. We know the Iraq crimes were fabricated, what about the Lebanese? Were those soldiers really kidnapped in Israeli territory, or was it in Lebanon? The truth will come out some day, sooner of later. - totally irrelevant. I would have preferred if Israel attacked Hezballah 2 years ago, when USA attacked Iraq. It made more sense to attack them then, but it doesn't make sense to leave them to their devices now and just do nothing, until there are too many weapons amassed on the border.

      You may not realize it, but Israel was bombarded by Hezballah rockets for the past 6 years, after they left Lebanon. Most Israelies were against leaving Lebanon by the way, it was a weak move.

      I personally was against the US attacking Iraq, there was no reason to do that. However there was a good reason to attack Iran. I would have totally supported Bush administration if they did that.

      The killing of civilians for any reason is wrong. - bull shit. If Canada starts bombing USA from civilian buildings, the US would be completely justified bombing those 'civilian' buildings.
      At the very instance, the buildings were turned into rocket launchers they ceased to be civilian.

      It is responsibility of the Hezbollah to protect the civilians, but they are not concerned with civilian casualties, they welcome civilian deaths. Once rockets are launched at Israel from a building, that building MUST BE DESTROYED. It doesn't matter who is in it at the time.

      If Israel wants to destroy the nuclear reactors, go ahead. I'd just watch out for the radiation that would be released, 'cause that's going to affect Israel along with every other state around there. - well, that wouldn't be the first time that Israeli bomb Iranian nuclear reactors, would it?

      Israel cannot afford Iran to have nukes. That's about it.

      Listen kid, the world is not black and white, Israel does not have to kill or be killed. There can be peace, we just need to stop killing each other first. At the dawn of the 21st century, why are we still killing? - are you trying to be condescending, or does it just happen? You are talking to a 30 year old who has served in the army, kid.

    92. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You are right, I am sorry that I called the human waste who use civilians and the UN as shields to fight their war as cockroaches. Cockroaches never really did anything as disgusting as that. I think those useless wastes of skin don't deserve the honor.

      I shall call them excrement from now on. (however even excrement can be useful for fertilizing the soil.) They are beneath the excrement.

    93. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      sure you would. Just you wait until the greatful arab nations turn against you with those nukes. Learned nothing from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, have we? Once Israel is gone from the map, guess who will be next for Islamazation? Think big, think Europe (which will happen naturally anyway,) and the US and Canada, (which may or may not require the use of nuclear terror.)

      You are so screwed up in your priorities, it is not funny.

    94. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      cockroaches, or maybe excrement or something of that sort are the Hezbollah terrorists who use civilians and the UN as living human shields.

      My attitude is unCanadian? Guess what, I am also against over-taxation. I welcome Harper's government. I am for a 2-tiered health-care system, like what they have in Germany. And I am generally for anything that makes the highways run faster.

      Canadians are not a uniform group of pot-smoking liberals. I am a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist in terms of my political views. And I am for Israel destroying Hezballah and Hamas.

    95. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1
      IDF General: Why are innocent people next to Hizballah rocket installations?
      Because that's where the food is?

      Hell, look at America. How many military bases are located next to population centers? The Pentagon isn't out in the middle of nowhere--lots of people live around there. How many civilians work inside the Pentagon? Lots of people make pretty good money working around military installations.
    96. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      They have warned that they would attack Haifa, and have now warned they can and if things don't change, will attack targets deeper into Israel. I'd count on it that they will do this, Hezbollah does not utter empty threats very often. I'd also regard it as a form of restraint on their side that they haven't done so yet. - of-course it's a restraint. They don't feel strong enough yet. With your attitude, and 10 more years they will have enough power to target every single city in Israel. I wonder how you suggest Israel negotiates with a terrorist organization? What other governments do?

      I am completely on the side of those taking actions to end the circle of violence. That means that I am for the moment on noones side. - I understand your position. Realize that Israel wants that just as well. Israelies do not need a war, they do just fine without it. They did have peace offerings with Hamas that Arafat wouldn't accept, even when Bill Clinton (then the US president) admitted that Israel's offer would have given Arafat 99% of what palestinians asked for.

      I am afraid you do not fully understand that there will be no peace there ever. It is not possible because one side, backed by Iran and Syria does not want peace at all. They will only accept total capitulation and destruction of Israel. This is their short term goal. The long term goal is to remove all democratic governments and setup Islamist states all over the globe. Your free type of thinking will not be allowed. Unfortunately freedom cannot be bought and negotiated in this case. It can be only fought for.

      You use IRA in your example, and it is a good example, but it is unfortunatelly not perfect for the Middle East situation. Ireland and Britain can agree on basic democratic governing principles. Iran will not accept those principles.

    97. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by dcam · · Score: 1

      Please note I said people, not Lebanese people in general. Yes I still see an issue with calling Hezbollah terrorists cockroaches. That said, it was unclear from your comment whether you were referring to the Lebanese people as cockroaches or not. After all Israel is bombing Lebanese infrastructure after all, I could assume that bombing is part of the process of dealing with the cockroach problem.

      And you better understand that Israeli see arabs as exactly the same people as they are, but I am not Israeli.

      I would like to believe that, I really would. However I do not believe that is the case. I have had friends visit Israel and some have spoken of the inequality before the law when comparing Jewish Iraelis to non-Jewish Iraelis. I've read enough from other sources to suggest that there is an inequality.

      But that aside, if one Israeli life was worth just as much as one Arab life, why are the body counts of current conflict in Lebanon skewed? Surely if one life was equal, Israel would feel equal pain at the death of a lebanese civilian and an Israeli civilian? Or Hezbollah militia member and an IDF soldier?

      Equally in the conflicts in Gaza have shown a similar picture. How about the time Israel dropped a one ton bomb on an apartment block to kill one man, killing 14 others in the process, 7 of them children (please note, I had to google up the details on this and grabbed the first result, I have no idea what views are expressed in the site)? That was an attack that was considered a success. Are the Palestinians allowed to kill 14 Israeli civilians along with an IDF General?

      I'm sorry, but I just cannot believe that the government or the majority of the people of Israel consider that 1 Israeli life is worth 1 arab life.

      I want to make my position clear. I allow that civilian deaths, while regrettable, are a fact of life in military conflicts. I accept that Hezbollah chooses fight near and amoung civilian populations. I accept that Israel has a right to defend itself and that it is largely surrounded by hostile or indifferent neighbors. However Israel should respond in proportion to that offence. Bombing power plants and roads in Lebanon is not in proportion.

      --
      meh
    98. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Tezkah · · Score: 1
      are you trying to be condescending, or does it just happen? You are talking to a 30 year old who has served in the army, kid.


      Are you therefore desensitized to the murder of civilians? Please stop thinking about Israel's "strategy" when I am condemning the fact that civilians are being slaughtered. I don't care if it is in Israel's best interests to nuke the rest of the world - it does not justify it. Your view on human suffering IS childish, this is not "us vs them", this is "homo sapiens killing other homo sapiens" who are not terrorists and have committed no crime, but they are being slaughtered nonetheless. "Oh, but they live near where missiles were fired from." Well, say I live next door to someone who has committed a crime, should I be held responsible? Of course not. Random acts of violence do nothing to advance peace and justice.
    99. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Since the building in question collapsed 8 hours after the bombardment and the bombs actually fell 500 meters away from the building, it is entirely possible that this whole thing was setup.

      I wouldn't put it past Hezballah to kill all those people by themselves and then blame Israeli bombs for it.

    100. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Proportionally speaking, Israel must kill about 100 arabs for each Israeli, otherwise Israel would be completely empty before even one percent of arabs would be destroyed.

      And yes, Israelies consider Arabs to be people, just like themselves, even if I do not.

    101. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Civilians that are being 'slaughtered' is the blood on the Hezballah hands, not Israeli. There are laws in war, one of those laws says: no millitary should use civilians as living shield.

      Your view of this conflict is very simplistic. This is not about 'us vs them', this is about survival of Israel as a country. You don't understand that, but Israelies understand it very well. Not taking care of the Hezballah problem is suicidal for Israel strategically speaking. It is also time for the west to get off its high-horse and realize that Israel is not just fighting for its own survival. This is a war between Islam and democracy.

    102. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by dcam · · Score: 1

      And yes, Israelies consider Arabs to be people, just like themselves, even if I do not.

      As a matter of interest, what are your criteria for deciding a group of homo sapiens are not people?

      --
      meh
    103. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      they cannot be negotiated with rationally and use religion as the starting base point for any ideas.

    104. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

      This is a war between Islam and democracy.

      No it's not, it's a war between Islam and Judaism. Israeli citizenship is open only to people of Jewish ancestry and not to descendants of the Muslims, Christians, and anyone else who lived there before the modern state of Israel was founded 1948, which makes them about as "democratic" as South Africa was in the 1970s.

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    105. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by dcam · · Score: 1

      You have excluded some strict orthodox jews and southern baptists with that description.

      --
      meh
    106. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by ameoba · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why Israel is taking all the heat here. Where is the scathing criticism of the Lebanese government for allowing a force like Hezbolah to operate from their soil? The fact that Israel is forced to deal with a problem that the Lebanese should be cleaning up themselves seems to be the real issue - I doubt Israel would be as interested in retaliation if the government of Lebanon sent their own army in to take care of things.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    107. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by dodobh · · Score: 1
      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    108. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      I hope your hatred keeps you warm at night.

    109. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Troglodyt · · Score: 1

      Extremely mature pictures.
      You don't need to tell people about all the killing and all those rockets. I guess it can be hard to find reliable numbers, but I would guess that a lot more arab civilians have died than Israeli civilians.
      Israel is still oppressing the palestinian people because THEY THINK THEIR FUCKING GOD GAVE THE LAND TO THEM! We need to eradicate religion as soon as possible, this is sickening. It's sickening that you got modded insightful, it's sickening that the israelis just mow through palestinian settlements with tanks, it's sickening the way the world is not handling this. It cannot be exressed in words how much i loathe religion as I write this.
      Yes, maybe the UN should be defaced, but because of the vote to partition Palestine in 1947.
      Why should Hizbollah not be allowed to gear up for war when Israel has an army and intend to destroy them?

    110. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1
      Israel *was* "leaving them alone", and what it got for that was six years of Hezbollah building itself up into the major power in Lebanon.
      If you know history, Hezbollah was founded in 1982 for the reason to fight Israeli occupation of Lebanon! If you look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hezbollah , you'll see that the period after 2000 was relatively peaceful, and the activity in the period after Israel left the area was due to the Cheeba farms, which is considered Lebanese territory (UN claims it is Syrian, but Syrians claim it is Lebanese, a country can arbitarily give land to another, thus Cheeba Farms is lebanese territory).
      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    111. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      Realize that Israel wants that just as well. Israelies do not need a war, they do just fine without it.

      I believe that is generally true. I do however also believe that those in charge at the very least do not always realize what is needed for this.

      They did have peace offerings with Hamas that Arafat wouldn't accept

      I think that was with Fatah, not Hamas...

      , even when Bill Clinton (then the US president) admitted that Israel's offer would have given Arafat 99% of what palestinians asked for.

      He can say what he wants, but it failed to resolve the Jarusalem issue, and it did not address part of the grievances caused byu the creation of Israel. Those 2 are the most basic problems of the current conflict, and even if you judge them to be only 1% of the demands of the Palestinians, they are an essential 1%

      I am afraid you do not fully understand that there will be no peace there ever. It is not possible because one side, backed by Iran and Syria does not want peace at all.

      There is a bit more to it then Syria and Iran. As long as Israel and its supporters refuse to be responsible for their side of the problem, there cannot be a solution either.

      They will only accept total capitulation and destruction of Israel. This is their short term goal. The long term goal is to remove all democratic governments and setup Islamist states all over the globe.

      Iran and Syria have very little in common other then enemies. One is ruled by a somewhat democratic 'Islamic revolution', the other by a Baathist dictatorship that had a lot in common with Iraq. One strives for exporting its revolution to the rest of the world, the other to a greater Syria as the the new incarnation of 'Arabia'.

      That they happen to be aligned today is a case of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', but bottomline their regimes are about as conflicting as the Iran and former Iraq regimes.

      The most efficient way to fight this coalition is by exploiting thier differences (aka divide and conquer)

      If you want to argue about this all, at least get a clue what the government of those countries really want, whom the people support and why.

      Your free type of thinking will not be allowed. Unfortunately freedom cannot be bought and negotiated in this case. It can be only fought for.

      You may be surprised about the amount of free thinking allowed in Iran. You will hear little about it if only because it contradicts the carefully crafted picture of Iran in western media.

      Iran also has some clown in charge who loves playing the common enemy game and generally loves publicity.

      You use IRA in your example, and it is a good example, but it is unfortunatelly not perfect for the Middle East situation. Ireland and Britain can agree on basic democratic governing principles. Iran will not accept those principles.

      Iran agrees a lot more on basic democratic governing principles then their temporary ally Syria, but also then 'pro western' Egypt, Jordan and 'moderate' Saudi Arabia.

      Then, bombing people back into the stone age has never solved terrorism, rather, it has a long track record of worsening it. Education and prosperity however have a much better track record.

    112. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      So your argument is that Hezbollah has build fixed rocket launching sites in Lebanese cities?

      Nope, the IDF bombs sites where Kattooooshhka's were launched (or not), hoping to hit Hezbollah.

      And Lebanese (quite unlike the Israelis) have not been lobbing explosives and rockets onto civilian targets, so it's obvious where the moral high ground is.

      Bottom line: if your crazy neighbour starts installing rocket launchers, move.
      It seems that's what crazy neighbor Israel wants all non-Jews to do.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    113. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      so?

    114. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I believe that is generally true. I do however also believe that those in charge at the very least do not always realize what is needed for this. - so you know better what is needed for this than people who live there and tried pretty much everything in the past 60 years?

      He can say what he wants, but it failed to resolve the Jarusalem issue, and it did not address part of the grievances caused byu the creation of Israel. - is your position that Israel must be removed and Palestine restored?

      Yes, I understand the difference between Iran and Syria, however both of them support Hezballah and Hamas. Syria provides refuge to Hezballah and Hamas leaders. Iran provides gold and weapons. Certainly Syria has a more democratic government than Iran, which is rulled by the Muslim law. When the US attacked Iraq I was against it, I would have completely supported attack on Iran though. The Syrian democratic government is held together by chewing gum and matchsticks. They are just as close at being thrown the other way around, right back into sharia law. In this war they are the real enemy.

      You may be surprised about the amount of free thinking allowed in Iran. You will hear little about it if only because it contradicts the carefully crafted picture of Iran in western media.

      Iran also has some clown in charge who loves playing the common enemy game and generally loves publicity.
      - I will be surprised to hear that no more people are put to their death because they did something against the sharia law. Free thinking? Sure, as long as it does not contradict the main party line.

      Iran agrees a lot more on basic democratic governing principles then their temporary ally Syria, but also then 'pro western' Egypt, Jordan and 'moderate' Saudi Arabia.

      Then, bombing people back into the stone age has never solved terrorism, rather, it has a long track record of worsening it. Education and prosperity however have a much better track record.
      - but you do understand that they are not pro western, they are 'pro western', which is exactly what it means - they will seem to be pro those, who pay for their oil.

      Have you ever been in Israel? I lived in Israel for one year, and travelled in Egypt and Lebanon actually, beautiful countries even though I wouldn't want to live there. Noone wants war, this conflict did not happen in a vacuum, what is happening must be done. Forest fires are needed to clean the forest from the dead wood, but often people quickly put out small fires that start in the woods and it only worsens the problem in the long run. In the long run so much dead wood is accumulated on the soil that at some point a fire errupts that cannot be stoped and it destroyes the forest.

      What is happening right now is a cleaning fire that is needed to prevent the forest from disappearing a few years down the road.

    115. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      is your position that Israel must be removed and Palestine restored?

      No, my position is that those who lost out due to the creation of Israel should be compensated properly.

      Yes, I understand the difference between Iran and Syria, however both of them support Hezballah and Hamas. Syria provides refuge to Hezballah and Hamas leaders. Iran provides gold and weapons.

      Roughly correct.

      Certainly Syria has a more democratic government than Iran, which is rulled by the Muslim law.

      Come again? Syria is ruled by a one party system modelled after Stalinism. Iran has an elected president who actually had to compete with other serious candidates. Freedom of press is virtually non existant in Syria, while there is at least some of it in Iran.

      The Syrian government may be less 'fundamentalist' then the government of Iran maybe, but more democratic?

      When the US attacked Iraq I was against it, I would have completely supported attack on Iran though. The Syrian democratic government is held together by chewing gum and matchsticks. They are just as close at being thrown the other way around, right back into sharia law. In this war they are the real enemy.

      No, Sharia law is not the real enemy, it is a tool. Wahhabism and Iran's attempts to export its Islamic revolution are. While you are right that both Syria and Iran support anti Israeli and anti western terrorism, their motivations are entirely different, and incidentely, neither are big fans of Wahhabism. The biggest mistake the 'west' is making in fighting this is allowing those 3 to align themselves by ignoring the differences instead of exploiting them.

      but you do understand that they are not pro western, they are 'pro western', which is exactly what it means - they will seem to be pro those, who pay for their oil.

      Like Saudi Arabia? They have effectively been funding the people who blew up the world trade center from oil money. Egypt is a slightly different story, their government seems to put the interest of the country over that of a silly holy war. They receive a lot of money from esp. the USA to remind them to play nice with Israel. If it was upto certain elements among the population there, things would be rather different. Its hard to say how big or relevant that part of the population is tho, freedom of press or such things don't exist there.

    116. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      Hmm, was re-reading this conversation and thought the following deserves some comments, sorry for replying twice.

      Have you ever been in Israel?

      Yes, but while I was there, there was a sense of optimism and a hope of peace.

      I lived in Israel for one year, and travelled in Egypt and Lebanon actually

      Been in the first. not the later. Have quite a few friends from there however.

      , beautiful countries even though I wouldn't want to live there.

      Hey, we can actually agree fully on something.. :)

      Noone wants war,

      Sadly enough that is not true. There are some people who want war, and for now they are pulling the right strings for gettting their way. And no, I am not talking about anyone in the US administration there.

      See my other reply for some details on whom might actually want war there.

      this conflict did not happen in a vacuum,

      Definitely not, hence my earlier comment that it is silly to expect people to agree to a peace that does not provide them with justice.

      There are 2 different problems here. On one level there are disputes about land and about the consequences of creating the state of Israel, and remotely connected to that, the failure to create a state of Kurdistan and provide a solution for the people of Palestina who'd lose out due to the creation of Israel. On another level there are the movements to go back to a 'more pure' form of Islam, embodied by a variety of violent and non violent movements, both in the sunni and shia 'world'. Such movements have for long been at odds with eachother, thereby posing a local but not a global problem. By allowing them to team up, and by providing a vertile ground for their ideology, this has been turned into a global problem.

      what is happening must be done.

      A real solution would see Iraq dissapear, Kurdistan being created, a homeland for the palestines and a jewish state, which hopefully would be able to become a federation of Palestine over time, compensation for loss of territory by Turkey and Syria, and uniting shia parts of current Iraq with Iran. This however requires redrawing the map of the Middle East.. But a final solution for that area is likely to contain most if not all of those.

      Forest fires are needed to clean the forest from the dead wood,

      True, and I doubt that what I suggest above is going to be accomplished by means of nice talks.

      There is however no reason to throw more wood onto an already burning fire, it just might get you burned and won't help much.

    117. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by dcam · · Score: 1

      I think you need to go back and re-read your comments. You have just said that a significant minority of Israeli citizens are not people. You also said that about all arab people. I'm confused as to why you see others as seeing others as not "people", on the grounds of irrationality.

      --
      meh
    118. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You understood me correctly, that's what I said. What is the question?

    119. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by madcow_bg · · Score: 1

      So it is always a better tactic to kill as many enemies today as possible and continue killing the enemies and not negotiating with them.
      I hope you don't mean that, but ... the innocent arabs are the largest threat to Israel ... if they go forth and multiply in 10 years they will be the majority. So, you propose to start killing them.

      Are you an American?
      No, I am not. I am from a country that joined fascist Germany in the second world war, and is the only one that did NOT let the germans take our jews to their concentration camps. My grandparents did that and I am very prowd Bulgarian. Our country has fought too many wars just to be reunited, we won all the battles and yet, because we didn't fit in the superpower's way of thinking, we never succeeded. That is why I dislike war - even if you win, you loose.
      If you ask me, the US is solely for the oil. Maybe eventually Germany will use it, or France, but the country that invaded peaceful Iraq was the USA and the islam world will not like them for a veeery long time.

      Terrorists don't care if civilians around them die, in fact they welcome it, because it is such a great publicity stunt.
      I often see pictures of lowly terrorists behind an arab woman with baby, and the Glorious US or Israel Soldier Protecting His Own People Proud Standing Before The Other Man's Gun!!!
      I just want to propose a little refit - let's add tanks, artillery and airforce in front of the lucky chap from Uncle Sam, and yes, that will be the picture. The terrorists you claim does not have another protection, so he uses what he can. I don't like it either, but unfortunately ... The true sum of this is that: War is a crime. It is bad. Israel and USA want to picture it like it is a good, moral endeavour. The terrorists show it is NOT.

      Because noone wants to make sacrifices. - definition of Bull SHIT. Israel has been making sacrifices. They gave up territories, they prepared peace offerings. Bill Clinton was at one of the meetings between (then alive Araffat and the Israeli PM at the time.) Clinton's own words: We were giving them 99% of what they wanted, they still did not accept the offering.
      Yes, listen to the US president. I am sure he'll not say that his decisions are wrong and he is always the right person. If you want even the smallest fraction of an unbiased opinion just try someone else, OK?

      Yesterday I saw a movie on google's video serives:
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493 278181614&hl=en
      I propose you see it. I was just amaized how right their facts are and how blatantly they miss the whole point... For crying out loud, they say: After the 9/11 attacks the western people tried to find out what they did wrong? And then they say: Well, we did nothing wrong. After that they show a clip with Michael Moore saying: "There are no terrorists, there are no terrorists...". The thing is, Moore's speech was all about how the government tries to grab a hold of the privacy from the american people, pretending to be protecting from terrorists. So he said that is not what the US government is all about. And the movie turns it to be that he says something that in fact he does not.

      I say the USA did lots of things wrong - from sponsoring Al Queda, helping assasinate the Shah of Iraq and effectively establishing Saddam in power, to all those little things - overthrowing the ELECTED president of Panama. If you think, there are many things dey did wrong. I propose you see some movies of the aforementioned Michael Moore. Might think differently, but they have good educational value anyway.

    120. Re:Stupid activists (not a flame here.) by lixee · · Score: 1

      Thought I should share this piece by a British journalist living in Israel. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Sectio nID=107&ItemID=10711

      --
      Res publica non dominetur
  14. Am I missing something? by amightywind · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    The reason was to protest against the war on Lebanon

    Hezbullah kidnaps and kills Israelis on their own territory. Israelis try to get them back. Hezbullah fires 100's of rockets into Israel to terrorise the civilian population. Israel wages war to exterminate Hezbullah. Chilean hacker defaces NASA website. Am I missing something?

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Am I missing something? by keeboo · · Score: 1

      Hezbullah kidnaps and kills Israelis on their own territory. Israelis try to get them back. Hezbullah fires 100's of rockets into Israel to terrorise the civilian population.
      Israel wages war to exterminate Hezbullah. Chilean hacker defaces NASA website. Am I missing something?


      Well, yeah... You're missing the disproportionate israeli reaction, killing lebanese civilians who have nothing to do with that...
      That while enjoying so much support from the USA that, at some point, it couldn't resist and say internationally that it "has full international support".

    2. Re:Am I missing something? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      killing lebanese civilians who have nothing to do with that... - can you support your claim that any civilian casualties on the Lebanese side were caused by malicious intent rather than fighting the Hizballah formations? I don't think so. So go yell at Hizballah for setting up civilian casualties.

    3. Re:Am I missing something? by burnetd · · Score: 1

      400 odd Lebanese civilians killed compared to 50 odd Israelis. 400 odd Lebanese civilians killed to rescue two Israeli soldiers.

    4. Re:Am I missing something? by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      Hezbullah kidnaps and kills Israelis on their own territory. Israelis try to get them back. Hezbullah fires 100's of rockets into Israel to terrorise the civilian population. Israel wages war to exterminate Hezbullah. Chilean hacker defaces NASA website. Am I missing something?

      YES you are, "and somewhere in the world, a helicopter exists" - mike nelson.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    5. Re:Am I missing something? by backwardMechanic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It sounds like you are missing something, yes. Maybe you should follow the news? These guys in Chile clearly do. From this mornings headlines:

      More than 54 civilians, at least 34 of them children, have been killed in a town in south Lebanon in the deadliest Israeli strike of the conflict so far. BBC News

      This is a sadly ordinary story. I'm no fan of Hezbollah, but I cannot understand the Israeli action, or the lack of action by my (I'm British) or the US government. Just remember who are selling those bombs.

    6. Re:Am I missing something? by amliebsch · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Some party has got to grow up and say "That's enough. We stop, unconditionally, and we hope you do the same".

      Isn't that what Israel did? They withdrew completely from Lebanon. They gave back all of the Gaza and the West Bank, and withdrew all their settlements. They gave the terrorists everything they asked for and complied with every request the UN made. So now how should the respond to continued aggression? Just throw up their hands and wait for death to come?

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    7. Re:Am I missing something? by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

      Here is what you are missing...

      Israel responds by bombing Lebanon back to the stone age. Did you see what they have destroyed? The whole infrastructure is gone, an Oil depot was destroyed too which is polluting the seas around Lebabnon. The ratio of deaths is well over 10:1. Add to that Israel has taken land and plan to keep the land.

      Meanwhile the US speed ships more weapons to Isreal (even sneaking them through the UK) and says There should be no ceasefire, not even a temporary one let civilians get out of the way.

      You also neglected to mention how Lebanonise nationals have been kidnapped and detained without rights by Israel. They have been doing this for some time before the two soliders where kidnapped.

      Hizbollah are terrorists, but so are the IDF. The only difference is the IDF have better weapons.

    8. Re:Am I missing something? by perrin · · Score: 1

      Isn't that what Israel did? They withdrew completely from Lebanon. They gave back all of the Gaza and the West Bank, and withdrew all their settlements. They gave the terrorists everything they asked for and complied with every request the UN made. So now how should the respond to continued aggression? Just throw up their hands and wait for death to come?

      In which alternative reality did all this happen? Israel did not withdraw from all of Libanon, they kept a small slice of it, "for security", and did not release prisoners of war, keeping thousands of enemy combatants in jail without being charged of anything. That is sure to keep tensions up, if anything. They have never withdrawn from the West Bank. To the contrary, every year more of the West Bank is being taken over by Israeli settlers, slicing up the area, taking the best land and most of the water. They did withdraw from Gaza, but that was just self interest - it cost too much to protect the religious wackos who insisted on settling on occupied territory in the middle of the densest populated area on the planet - and now they are back. Israel is the number one violator of UN resolutions on the planet. So everything you said suggests you are reading a very selective choice of "news" media.

    9. Re:Am I missing something? by SilicaiMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They gave back all of the Gaza and the West Bank, and withdrew all their settlements.

      What are you talking about? They withdrew from Gaza, yes, but since then have blocked anything and anyone from entering or leaving. There is no economy, no money flow, no medicine flow, nothing going into Gaza. Yes, Israelis left, but they completely choked it up.

      As for the West Bank, when did Israel withdraw from there? Most of the West Bank is currently occupied by huge Israeli settlements built on Palestinian land (as per the Oslo accords). There are also the ultra-orthdox Jewish settlers who create new "settlements" on Palestinian farmland by terrorizing its owners then erecting makeshift homes and shoot anybody who comes close. The Israeli government is trying to dismantle those, but at the same time expanding their other "legal" settlements by annexing more Palestinian land. Not to mention the completely illegal wall that is eating up even more Palestinian farm land.

      They gave the terrorists everything they asked for and complied with every request the UN made.

      Really? They definitely did not give back Jerusalem. They definitely did not allow UN peace inspectors into Gaza and the West Bank, and thanks to the US, they do not have any binding UN sanctions against them because of the American veto.

      Stop pretending that Israel is the perfect peace loving nation. Israel does not want peace, because peace is not in its favour.

    10. Re:Am I missing something? by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Would you be happier if Israel's government closed the bomb shelters, and told everyone to stand outside, so more Israeli civilians would be killed and maimed by Hezbollah and Hamas rocket attacks?

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    11. Re:Am I missing something? by AnarchoAl · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Israel has not withdrawn from the West Bank. Gaza is under seige- remember the bombardment of the beach in Gaza that was part of the buil-up to the present conflict? It's not exactly ancient history! Israel also continues to occupy the Sheba Farms, which is arguably legally Lebanese territory (some say Syrian).

      Hezbollah are indeed a nasty terrorist organisation. But so are the IDF. Both kill civilians in the pursuit of power. Both deliberately try to terrorise their target populations- unless you think Hezbollah has rockets hidden in Christian suburbs of Beirut? The IDF happens to have bigger guns, so they're more effective at killing at terrorising. Doesn't make their aims worse but they're certainly not better than Hezbollah either.

      Essentially we have a situation where two nasty groups are duking it out and lots of innocent people are caught in the crossfire. This is A Bad Thing and peace is the best option.

      As far as Palestine goes, what's happening there is nothing less than ethnic cleansing. A section of the Israeli ruling class wants "Eretz Israel" and will kill, maim and terrorise to get it. I'm sure if Hezbollah had a similar aim they would behave just as nastily. This isn't a James Bond movie, this is real life! Thinking it's Israel, the Good Guys vs Hezbollah, the Baddies, is just as dumb as thinking it's the other way around.

    12. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What are you talking about? They withdrew from Gaza, yes, but since then have blocked anything and anyone from entering or leaving. There is no economy, no money flow, no medicine flow, nothing going into Gaza. Yes, Israelis left, but they completely choked it up.

      Man these Jews certainly have some superpowers. Couldn't get anything into there? Maybe that had something to do with the corrupt PLO leader Arafat not giving two shits about Arabs living in that area.

      Also this smacks of being a whiner. Oh the Jews are keeping us down! Hrm, there's about 10 non-Jews for every Jew in that area, why can't they figure out how to run their own economies and supply food and shelter?

    13. Re:Am I missing something? by lixee · · Score: 1
      Isn't that what Israel did?
      Nope! You got it wrong.
      Israel didn't just "grow up" and withdrew. It's just a matter of balancing the costs and benefits. You may wanna read this interview (from 2000) to get a feel of what was really happening. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Sectio nID=22&ItemID=10656
      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    14. Re:Am I missing something? by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Binding UN sanctions? What are those?

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    15. Re:Am I missing something? by burnetd · · Score: 1

      I'd be happier if the Israelis would stop targeting Lebanese civilians, and actually hit at Hezbollah.
      I'd be happy if the Israelis actually tried to retrieve their soldiers rather kill innocent people.
      What would really like me happy is a ceasefire, and for the idiotic USA government to release that Israel
      have crossed the line into terrorism and stop backing them no matter that they do.

    16. Re:Am I missing something? by SilicaiMan · · Score: 1

      there's about 10 non-Jews for every Jew in that area, why can't they figure out how to run their own economies and supply food and shelter?

      you've never been there, have you? The Gaza strip isn't that large, and Israel controls its every entry/exit point. Nothing goes in, not even ambulance cars. Furthermore, Israel and the US have stopped all form of foreign aid to the Palestinian government, so no wages have been paid for the past 6 months. There is no Palestinian economy because they don't have control over their own borders.

      If you believe I'm a whiner, then please go and visit the area and see for yourself.

    17. Re:Am I missing something? by SilicaiMan · · Score: 1

      Binding UN sanctions? What are those?

      Read about it on wikipedia.
      Also, here is an outdated list of UN resolutions against Israel, that were struck down by American veto.

    18. Re:Am I missing something? by jackbird · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Since it seems that the vast majority of that foreign aid was lining the pockets of Arafat's cronies (which is what led to Hamas being elected in the first place) rather than serving the useful purpose for which it was intended, cutting off aid seems pretty reasonable. And resuming aid to a Hamas government that openly advocates genocide doesn't seem like a winner either.

      The trouble is that the arabs and palestinians have played for keeps and lost so many times that they've run out of palatable options.

    19. Re:Am I missing something? by MickDownUnder · · Score: 1

      You don't know how to spell Hezbollah, and you're missing the truth.

    20. Re:Am I missing something? by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. Nothing the UN generates, resolution recomendation or otherwise is binding. It's a suggestion at best, only capable of being enforced when seperate countries band together to impose their will on another sovergen nation. The UN does not carry the wieght of law because it does not have the force to enforce those resolutions and laws.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  15. They did NOT hack OS X by mitchell_pgh · · Score: 4, Informative

    They did NOT hack OS X. They simply hacked the application database running on those platforms. Why would the author indicate OS X was hacked when really, it looks like a large number of the servers hacked were in fact running Linux.

    I'm not saying OS X is unhackable, but leaving ANY insecure server software running is asking to be hacked.

  16. Re:Doesn't make sense by Hangin10 · · Score: 1

    What's with telling people to leave. It's like "We asked all the civilians to leave the city."
    Isn't that like a giant hint to the terrorists to get out?

    Anywho, my support is firmly behind Israel.

  17. Re:Oh, those wacky Arabs! by ChePibe · · Score: 1, Redundant

    While the parent is most likely wrong as to the ethnicity of the activists, particularly if he is speaking of Chile, it should be noted that there is a significant Syrian and Lebanese Arab population can be found in Argentina, many of which are practicing Muslims. Other pockets exist throughout South America.

    Not everyone in South America is a Mestizo, you know.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Argentina

  18. Spiral of Escalating Violence by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When Martin Luther King led the nonviolent marches that pulled off a second American Revolution without a second Civil War, the marchers didn't trespass or tear down signs. That's why they changed the attitude and culture of America, which is the victory everyone needs in these conflicts. The victory that others who accepted or embraced violence lost, like Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, the Black Panthers, and all the hundreds of forgotten "freedom fighters". Even when their agenda and goals included important results that would be good for practically everyone, they polarized, alienated and pushed people into defensive positions on even indefensible parts of the status quo.

    Chileans vandalizing America when Israel attacks Lebanon doesn't change anyone's minds for the better. It just escalates by a little bit the spiral of violence:

    Ignorance -> Fear -> Anger -> Violence -> Alienation -> Ignorance

    The central front in the Terror War is in our own minds, where that well-worn cycle can send us all to our doom.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Spiral of Escalating Violence by Eideewt · · Score: 1

      I read that as, "When Martin Luther King led the nonviolent machines...." You have no idea how disconcerting it was. Now that I'm sure I haven't slipped into a parallel world, I agree.

    2. Re:Spiral of Escalating Violence by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      What I see, in continuing the mideast mess, is that the militants, and even some of the governments deny Israel's right to exist. Iran's president is spewing an odd juxtaposition of denying the Jewish holocaust but wants to perform the same deed himself, I wonder if he's really jealous of the Germans for doing what his extremists couldn't do.

      I don't wholly agree with everything Israel has done, but what we've seen is the Hezbollah deliberately targetting civilians with over 2000 launched rockets, which isn't an act of terrorism but a deliberate act of war. If it was just run-of-the-mill terrorism, the number of rockets would be orders of magnitude smaller. The Hezbollah are using Lebanese civilians as a shield to protect their activities, requiring Israel to it civilian areas to stop the launchings. At least Israel is using far more precise bombs to target the appropriate buildings in question.

    3. Re:Spiral of Escalating Violence by bhmit1 · · Score: 1

      I agree that non-violence is the best solution, but only when it's a feasible solution. Non-violence works well when your opposition tries to fight you with laws, scare tactics, and non-lethal violence. When the opposition desires to kill every one of your kind and eliminate you from the earth, there really isn't a good non-violent solution.

      As for a good solution, well, there isn't one. The US is way too involved in a religious/holy war with the Jewish and Muslim groups. There are extremists on each side that believe the other is invading "their land" and will continue the conflict to the death. No peace talks, cease fires, or other "can't we all just get along" attempts will end that problem. The best solution is to stop supporting Israel, claim that we need to exercise our separation of church and state, and let everyone fend for themselves. We are still going to have a strained relationship with any Arab population for a long time to come, but the less we fuel the fire, the better.

    4. Re:Spiral of Escalating Violence by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      What does my post have to do with the story of NASA websites defaced by Chilean vandals?

      "Chileans vandalizing America when Israel attacks Lebanon".

      A better question is "what does defending America, educating about terrorism, promoting enlightenment have to do with DKos?", or "what kid of jerk thinks that peace and nonescalation of wars is a "lefty circle jerk?". The answer is probably "Anonymous terrorist Cowards who love the fascists promoting war at every turn". Thanks for making that clear.

      Anonymous terrorist Coward doesn't know anything except they want to deface some websites, like by posting stupid comments to them.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Spiral of Escalating Violence by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The KKKlan burns crosses on people's lawns (and then often beats them and/or burns their homes and even churches). Antiabortionists shoot doctors in Jesus' name; their fellow churchgoers beat gay people to death for the same god. The more religious the Israeli Jew, the more likely they are to want to kill their neighboring enemies in self defense. Hindus butcher Muslims in disputes over shared shrines. Buddhists look pretty peaceful, but in Vietnam they did a pretty good job defeating French, American and Chinese imperialism in a century of violent terrorism and war.

      Of all of these, Christianity has the most fundamentally peaceful faith, but Christians have killed and wounded more people, including the tens of millions killed by Christians in WWII.

      MLK was more than just Christian. He brought the Christian faith in peace and nonviolence to everyone, regardless of color or creed, without asking us to accept Jesus too. So we accepted Jesus' message without the religion, just as billions of people for millennia have accepted messages of Abraham, Moses, Mohammed, Krishna, and the Buddha. Because it's religion that kills, and faith that preserves. As long as we have faith in humans' humanity, we've got a chance. When we lose that faith in exchange for faith in some god, we're lost. When that god is just a cover for violent humans, we can lose it all.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:Spiral of Escalating Violence by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Mod the parent up.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    7. Re:Spiral of Escalating Violence by thelost · · Score: 1

      thanks dude, but it's doubtful this will happen. this is an ideological war and a lot of peoples minds are already extremely set in a certain point of view. I'm not surprised I was modded troll, even though what I said was heartfelt and my honest opinion. It infuriates me, but I'll just stick to my guns, metaphorically speaking.

      --
      Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
    8. Re:Spiral of Escalating Violence by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Forget about mod points. I, for example, follow the rule:

      If the most I do not like modded up, then I am definitely going to read modded down replies to it. So the message will go on.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  19. right? by SilentGhost · · Score: 1

    and we all ready to die for some kind of a weird religious ideals? you're not? so what makes us all humans? judging others according to tv propaganda? or may be hooligan action against fairly peacfull website? they found exploit, they hacked site. period. rest is a sheer bs.

  20. Re:Doesn't make sense by voss · · Score: 1

    The main crime of 9/11 was not the destruction of the world trade center, it was the killing of 3000 people.

  21. Re:Doesn't make sense by cduffy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Anywho, my support is firmly behind Israel.
    I can understand trying to stop the rockets firing into their territory -- but destroying civil infrastructure (power plants, roads, etc) and persistently executing poorly-targeted attacks with substantial civilian casualties is no way to do that.

    The Lebanese government is in enough trouble as it is, having a radical group (Hezbollah) executing attacks on their neighbors against the government's whim. Getting civilian support for that radical group (by demonizing the aforementioned neighbor, which Israel's civilian-infrastructure-targeted attacks and utter carelessness with regard to collateral damage have been doing pretty effectively) weakens the legitimate government, giving the radicals even more of a chance to take over Lebanon completely.

    Israel is off their collective rockers, and the world is standing by and letting them get away with it. It's insane.
  22. Wow what logic by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

    Hacking NASA's site to protest a conflict between Israel and Lebanon? Wow, why did't I think of that? Maybe if we bombed Chile we could defeat all hackers too!

    --
    Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    1. Re:Wow what logic by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Maybe if we bombed Chile we could defeat all hackers too!

      The way to defeat Chilean hackers is to bomb Burkina Faso.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    2. Re:Wow what logic by iogan · · Score: 1

      Coming from an american, that's actually quite scary. Please don't bomb Chile.

  23. Re:Doesn't make sense by Simonetta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Israelis sent messages to the cities they intended to bomb so that the people there could leave and not get killed. Why did they bomb the buildings in those cities? Because the people who run those cities had installed thousands of rockets pointed at their neighboring country and had engaged in randomly firing those missles into civilian centers of the neighboring country without any warning!.

        This is an unprovoked serious act of war, by a people who have repeatedly and openly sworn to destroy the neighboring country. Against a people who lost 90% of their population in a slaughter the last time they didn't take these warnings seriously.

        If the criminal Hizba'allah organization had not repeatedly engaged in serious unprovoked acts of war against a neighboring sovereign state, the Israelis would not be currently bombing the shit out of them.

        This is the way that the world works. You would be doing the exact same thing if it were you. The difference between the Israelis killing Arabs and Arabs killing Israelis is that the Arabs wrap their children in high explosives and send them off to blow themselves up in crowded public areas without warning and without mercy. Then they dance in the streets in celabration of their ' great victory'. The Israelis warn the Arabs that they are coming and if they want to live, then leave. Then they agonize over the wisdom and morality of their actions. They offer peace plans that are always rejected. The cycle of madness begins anew.

        All this anti-Israeli and 'anti-Zionism' talk around the world is just anti-semitism resurfacing and trying to pretend not to be. The Israelis are great people that are surrounded by millions of people who have surrendered their minds to a death cult. The Israelis do what they must. They don't get any pleasure from it. But they don't shrink from it, either.

  24. Re:Tough call... by Oligonicella · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Every single one that U.S. citizens do, and they are numerous. Don't try to excuse the hacking as a "lack" of political access. That don't fly.

  25. Script Kiddies Make Slashdot, DOS NASA by plaidhacker · · Score: 1

    The real news here is that Slashdot articles continue to decline in quality. Hacktivism sounds exciting, but these guys are just script kiddies with a No War sig. Yesterday alone they defaced 296 sites, none of which had any political significance. They happened to find an old PHP application on a backwater NASA website (the Aura Validation Data Center), and they took the opportunity to step up their normal text sig to include a graphic picture.

    The only reason that this is newsworthy is because Slashdot made it newsworthy. The greatest impact came not from the script kiddies or their vaguely political scribbles, but the deluge of the Slashdot effect on some poor iMac in Alaska.

  26. Re:Oh, those wacky Arabs! by metaltoad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Hezbollah army builds their bases on the ground floor of civilian apartments. They are literally hiding behind women and children. Both sides (Hezbolah and Israel) are equally to blame for the civilian deaths. And since the Syrian and Iranian government are funding the rocket attacks, shouldn't these hackers be hacking Syrian and Iranian sites as well? Could it be that hacking US sites just provides bigger bragging rights?

  27. Disproportionality by amightywind · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Well, yeah... You're missing the disproportionate israeli reaction, killing lebanese civilians who have nothing to do with that...

    Disproportionality is the only way to deal with terrorists. The border was peaceful until the Hezbullah incursion. If I were an Israeli I would not relish the prospect of being terrorised forever at an ever more lethal intensity. I would want to irradicate the problem. As for civilians, they were given fair warning to leave the area and go to central Lebanon were they would not be harmed. Hezbullah uses civilians as shields, launching attacks from aprtment buildings, residential areas.. If Hezbullah stopped doing this there would be no civilian casualties. Israel's only recourse is to ignore them in pursuit of the enemy.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Disproportionality by irn_bru · · Score: 1

      Regardless of the fact that most Lebanese civilians don't have a station wagon in which to pack up their belongings and ship-out, Israel has been bombing the shit out of pretty much anything that moves in the area for the past two weeks, whilst simitaniously destoying as much of the road infrastructure as it can making it pretty hard to just "leave the area" as you so helpfully suggest.

    2. Re:Disproportionality by ultracosm · · Score: 1

      What definition of terrorism are we using here?

      We all seem to agree that indiscriminate bombing or rocket attacks on civilian populations are not good things. Some move them out of the category of "military action" and into the realm of "terrorism".

      So is terrorism just acts designed to terrorize a civilian population, or are we extending it to acts like attacking a military base and capturing soldiers? Or perhaps any action by a non-state group is terrorism, while a state's acts are merely "military"?

      Israel's actions are too easily interpreted as "responding to a small attack on a military unit with massive destruction of civilian infrastructure". This seems designed to whip the Arab streets -- as well as the rest of the non-US world -- into a frenzy of anti-Israeli sentiment and actions, and makes it easy for them to justify the use of rockets on Haifa and other northern Israel populations as a reasonable response to Israeli bombing of Beirut. To the extent it was predictable (doh!) you'd think Israel and its supporters are actively trying to recruit support for Hizbollah and other radical groups. How does that fit with a rational international policy for Israel or the needs of the USA?

      Clearly the only people who are benefiting from the current situation are Hizbollah and other radical Islamic groups.

    3. Re:Disproportionality by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

      > Disproportionality is the only way to deal with terrorists.

      Can you actually prove that? Please feel free to find at least one instance where killing large numbers of civilians helped stop terrorism.

  28. Re:NASA set us up the bomb by cloricus · · Score: 1

    Seriously...How else do you think they paid Spielberg those many millions to fake those moon landings! By selling rockets of course!

    --
    I ate your fish.
  29. Hmmm... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    These hackers need to be taught how much involved NASA is in killing Libanese people. :-p

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:Hmmm... by in2mind · · Score: 1
      These hackers need to be taught how much involved NASA is in killing Libanese people. :-p

      You talk like they have a choice.If it was possible to deface Whitehouse.gov , they would have gladly done it - otherwise they have the satisfaction of defacing a AMERICAN site even if it is NASA.See?

  30. Re:Think of the Children! by mdboyd · · Score: 1

    Please tell me you are being sarcastic. There have been plenty of vulnerabilities and patches for OS X. http://secunia.com/product/96/ . I'm so sick and tired of the myth that OS X is the "most secure" and "unhackable". It's an Operating System just like Windows and Linux and it's not perfect either. You can love OS X for various reasons but NOT because it's "unhackable".

  31. Re:Doesn't make sense by dammy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Actually it makes complete sense if you understand the culture of that area. Hez claims victory as they touted Isreali pull out as a loss for Isreal. To that part of the world, Isreali lost face and was defeated by Hez. Hez is elected into power since they are the ONLY Arab organization ever to DEFEAT Isreal. Land for peace is now a dismal failure and Isreal has to show the Arab (sp) culture that Isreal has not been defeated and will kick them in the nuts repeatedly till they get the message.

    Yes it's horrific, but it HAS to be done.

    And no, I'm not a Jew.

    Dammy

  32. Misunderstanding by amightywind · · Score: 1
    Some party has got to grow up and say "That's enough. We stop, unconditionally, and we hope you do the same". Anyone tolerating retaliatory reasoning just _wants_ _people_ _dead_.

    I think you misunderstand the whole situation. Hezbullah doesn't have any claim to Israeli land. They just want Jews dead. They are a Iranian Shia backed gang who wants to supplant democracy with Islamic Fascism in Christian/Sunni/Druse dominated Lebannon. I for one rejoice in Israel's initiative in irradicating them at all costs.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  33. Re:Oh, those wacky Arabs! by FhnuZoag · · Score: 2, Funny

    Actually, it's Chileans, so, it's more friend of my friend's enemy's friend is my enemy.

  34. Re:Doesn't make sense by TheRagingTowel · · Score: 1

    People at the WTC offices didn't launch rockets at Afganistan, didn't they?

    --
    4Z5TX
  35. Here goes... by AlXtreme · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Mod me troll if you want to, but having read all the pro-israeli comments just makes my stomach turn. Only this morning over 50 Lebanon civilians, many of them children, were killed by Israeli bombs.

    Yes yes, Hesbulla has been lobbing rockets at Haifa, but this was only after Israel flattened half of Beirut.

    Oh sure, they kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers, how could I forget! But is that reason enough to slaughter 450+ civilians? If a para-military group in Canada kidnaps 2 people, do you start bombing Toronto?

    And now back to why the rest of the world really hates the US right now: because they could have easily supported UN resolutions or stopped Israel but they didn't. They are just letting the bloodshed continue, angering millions of muslims even more. Israel is firing US-arms in a unilateral war against a sovereign nation. Doing so, they are only strengthening the ranks of Hesbulla and isolating themselves even more. I am no Hesbulla-fan, but think about what you all are cheering for: supporting Israel at this point is no better than supporting Bin Laden when he struck New York: an unilateral, unprovoked attack on a civilian population.

    And if hacking US websites is a way to get that into American heads, so be it.

    --
    This sig is intentionally left blank
    1. Re:Here goes... by madcow_bg · · Score: 1

      I would mod you +5, So So True, but I don't have mod points.

    2. Re:Here goes... by thelost · · Score: 1

      I'm completely with you on this one. If anyone has mod points please mod parent up if you agree. He is both insightful and honest in his statement.

      --
      Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
    3. Re:Here goes... by Spazntwich · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Keep in mind not a single civillian would have had to die if their heroic freedom fighters in Hezbolla didn't insist on setting up operations in the center of residential neighborhoods, launching rockets from their cities, and overall using the civillians as human shields.

      You're an idiot who has been thoroughly taken by the terrorist propaganda. As someone previously mentioned, an IDF general put it best: "Israelis are sleeping in bomb shelters. Lebanese are sleeping with bombs."

    4. Re:Here goes... by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't have a position supporting either side, but I feel I should correct a point of yours...

      Hezbollah had been making rocket attacks on Israeli cities before the Israelis began their bombing campaign (and later invasion) of south Lebanaon. I refer you to a timeline of the current crisis. They did escalate their attacks after the Israeli response.

      Beyond the scope of the current conflict, Hezbollah has been firing rockets at Israeli on and off for some time now; for example, see this story from Dec. 2005 regarding a rocket strike from Lebanon on the town of Kiryat Shmona.

      But really, if you want to try to say "who started it", you'll be going back decades and centuries. You can't view this incident in isolation, it's all part of the long history of conflict between many parties in the Middle East.

    5. Re:Here goes... by sponga · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You make a strong point. Except Israel just released video of that strike that they did on that building that killed the 50+ people and sure enough it looks like from the video that the missles are being fired right from behind the main large 4 story building on top of the hill. Yes that is truly sad so many woman and children were killed/crushed to death and I have compassion; but as some news agency have been reporting is 'where are all the young and older men casualties at in the building?'. Could they have been firing from the building from behind or somewhere else at dead night? Argument that they could not get out because of roads/bridges blown were false because the news crews have been reporting they got there with their big news vans easily.

    6. Re:Here goes... by miketheanimal · · Score: 1
      Back in the 80s, parts of the Irish-American community in the USA were funding IRA operations in the United Kingdom. I presume you would have agreed that is would be reasonable (morally, if not practically) had the UK lanuched military strikes against the USA?

      If we Europeans had realised that a consequence of persecuting religious minorities was that they'd go and form the USA, we'd have persecuted them rather more thoroughly

    7. Re:Here goes... by Stalyn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Bush administration does not understand the Arab community. The Middle East has a long tradition of successful military campaigns. The culture in the Arab world demands military success and takes pride in that. When the Arab world was unable to defeat Israel on multiple occasions the collective Arab world was humiliated. They are unwilling to forgive Israel but also their own leaders for their military failures.

      When a foreign nation like the USA takes down an Arab government like Iraq there is the same sense of humiliation. That the Arab world was itself unable to take down a brutal dictator but also in the post-war occupation they are unable to govern its people. However when a group like Hezbollah is able to stand up to Israel, even though Hezbollah is a Shiite group, the Arab street is overwhelming in favor of those who they perceive as standing up to foreign aggression. At the same time they criticize their leaders for not taking a similar stand.

      The Arab world is desperate for some sort of success, be it military or political and are willing to cheer on even the most insidious of organizations. The longer this conflict goes on, the more civilians who die and the more Hezbollah holds out the more radicalized the Arab world will become.

      I think the Bush administration is right in that we should invest in democracy, freedom and economic prosperity in the Middle East. This is the long term strategy that will provide peace in the region. However it can only come through political action. A military strategy will only be ferociously resisted by the Arab world.

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    8. Re:Here goes... by Vidar+Leathershod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course in your reasonable-sounding comment, you leave out the fact that Hezbollah has never ceased hostilities towards a nation whose existence it denies. They have continually engaged in terrorist attacks, kidnappings, and have refused to disband according to the Taif agreement. They are also not a native Lebanese force. They are originally based in Iran, comprised of Iranian military forces. It's nice to see your balanced view completely ignore this, and jump on Israel as if they have been anything but attacked and harassed over the past 50 years by their neighbors.

      I feel sorry for the Lebanese, as they are not really responsible for Hezbollah attacks (besides not taking action against them, anyway). However, the Israelis have leafletted the areas in question, and any civilians who remain in the area after that are either supporting the terrorists themselves, or willing to risk the lives of their own families to stay. In fact, the children who have been injured or killed are victims of their parents and Hezbollah, not Israel.

      A nation should not have to endure endless kidnappings of their soldiers/citizens without taking action. Your attempt to compare Israel to the U.S. above shows your ignorance of the situation. A true comparison would be if Ontario was hosting a terrorist group which *regularly* fired rockets, employed suicide bombers, and kidnapped people from the border area and demanded the release of known murderers in exchange for the lives of the kidnapped people. Then, after the exchange (Israel at one point did exchange prisoners, for as little as the remains of the dead) continued to fire rockets, bomb, and kidnap more U.S. citizens. Meanwhile, Canada showed no interest in taking care of the problem themselves, and in fact were terrorized by the same group, but unable to oust them.

      That would be apples to apples, except that there would be no Jews to blame. Don't worry though, I'm sure you could come up with some way to justify the terrorist actions, and oh the poor children, what are we doing to the children!

      Vidar

      --
      The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
    9. Re:Here goes... by AlXtreme · · Score: 1
      "Israelis are sleeping in bomb shelters. Lebanese are sleeping with bombs."
      Tell that to the 54 Lebanese civilians killed this morning. Not a single Israeli died due to Hezbulla attacks before this war started, the attacks by Hezbulla only escalated after Israel began their rampage against the people of Lebanon. You say terrorist? I say they are rightfully retaliating by any means necessary.

      You're the idiot here who has been listening too long to American propaganda. Why don't you open your mind and take a look at what the BBC has to say on this. 750 Lebaneese died according to their story. What Israel is doing is a war crime, and it is nearly as bad to justify it with lies. Israel is the aggressor and has needlessly escalated this conflict into an all-out war. Again, I'm no fan of Hezbulla, but please try to keep objective and look at the facts.

      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank
    10. Re:Here goes... by ErikZ · · Score: 1


      I feel sorry for the Lebanese, as they are not really responsible for Hezbollah attacks...

      Actually they are. A country is responsible for the going-ons within its borders. If I were to start an organization in the US to attack Canada, the US government would be responsible for it. If the US government is unable or unwilling to do something about it, it is within Canada's rights to invade the US and hunt down my organization and I.

      The buck stops here. And if you're living within a Democratic country, it actually stops with its citizens.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    11. Re:Here goes... by AxemRed · · Score: 1

      I disagree with you. First of all, this isn't just about the kidnapping. Hezbollah has been firing rockets into Israel, and Lebanon has done nothing to stop it. Let me make a comparison that may be closer to home.

      Say that a Maxican drug cartel took up residence in a border town. For whatever reason, they got pissed at us, kidnapped two border partol officers, and started firing rockets at San Diego. And to top if off, the Mexican government turns a blind eye to it. What do you think the government would do? I sure as hell hope that we would send troops in there to stop it. Unless you want San Diego residents to live in a constant state of fear.

      And about the civilian casualties... I do think that Israel needs to be more careful with their bombing. I don't think that they care about the lives of people in the countries around them, and I have a problem with that. However, it would help if Hezbollah didn't put their bases and meeting areas in residential areas. When an enemy base is located in the basement of an apartment building in a large residential area, there aren't many options that completely prevent civilian casualties.

    12. Re:Here goes... by AlXtreme · · Score: 1
      Oh yes, after throwing some leaflets it's perfectly justified to bomb the place. The civilians bombed already fled their homes, and most of the people there don't have any means of getting far enough from the bombing. Suicide bombers? I'm sorry, that's just Hamas that were trying to get back at Israel by any means possible. If you're driven into concentration camps you don't have many means for fighting a war other than 'terrorist acts'. You know, back during the second world war the Nazi's called resistance raids 'terrorist activities'. But that's a whole different story and I'd hate to invoke Godwin's Law.

      But don't worry, I'm sure you feel mighty rightful after the actions of Israel. I'm not pro- or contra anything. Unless it's senseless violence and slaughtering of innocent people. Sure, you have the right to retaliate, but moderately and fairly against the ones who hit you.

      But then again, it's all just a bunch of statistics. Who cares about the children, unless they are American brats, right?

      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank
    13. Re:Here goes... by ems2 · · Score: 1

      What is Israel suppose to do? Is withdrew completely from Gaza and the West Bank, and took out all their citizens against their will. Some of Israel's citizens put their home on fire and killed themselves inside their home but still Israel did what it was requested for peace. They gave their enemy everything they wanted as set by the peace deal and followed every request by the UN but still after a promise to stop the violence against Israel it was still continuing and no one was doing anything! Before Operation Summer Rains started over 1800 rockets were fired into Israel not even a handful of them made worldwide news. Are you saying Israel should just throw up its hands and wait till it is thrown into the sea?

    14. Re:Here goes... by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

      At this point I've completely had it with the whole situation. When I was young I've learned about WW I and WW II and I thought we had learned from our mistakes. Adults were reasonable people who whouldn't make that mistake again.

      Not so.

      Right now I couldn't care less about who did what to who and frankly it doesn't matter at all. "Yes but they did ______ (fill in the blanks) so we're in our rights to use more violence." BS!

      Hezbollah is has blood on their hands, and so does Israel. Period. All that matters is how this is put to an end. Innocent people are killed every day. People who'd rather run their shops or go to school without being affraid of bomb, rockets or whatever are the victims and nobody wins here.

      As a parent-poster mentions, the US has the influence (as does the rest of the world, but let's be realistic, the US has quite some veto-power in the UN) to condemn this war and help it end.

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
    15. Re:Here goes... by evil+agent · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Again, I'm no fan of Hezbulla, but please try to keep objective and look at the facts.
      I'm sorry, but you make it sound like this war just started a week ago. Did you just start reading the news? Do a little research and see how many people Hezbollah has killed. They've been attacking Isreal for over 20 years now. Open your mind for a second and try to put yourself in Isreal's position. What would you do? There's really no good answer here, but would you just sit back and let your people be killed and kidnapped?
      --
      End transmission.
    16. Re:Here goes... by bytesex · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Both Israel, until very recently that is, and Lebanon had groups within their borders who had a 'foreign policy' of their own, if you can call it that. Both groups were given a tacit head-nod but were otherwise isolated from their own mainstream society; Lebanon has Hezbollah, and Israel had (well, still has, but their power is gone for a bit) the settler (greater Israel) movement. Both had their opponents in government, but were otherwise powerless to do anything about it; Lebanon because they're no match for Iran's money, Israel because of feelings of electoral suicide. It's a tad early to argue that because Israel reigned in their settlers, that Lebanon should just stand up to Hezbollah - after all, Lebanon had only just been 'released' by Syria. For Lebanon, it's just a shitter of a situation to be in, but then again - this situation could have been seen coming for miles. Nobody in either camp really wants peace; Iran doesn't want it (isn't that totally obvious ?) and Israel doesn't want it - it may want a cease-fire with a tyrant, but not peace with a neighbouring democracy. As I said; the writing was all over the wall. When Abbas said that he wanted a referendum over the acknowledgement of Israel out of Hamas, you knew that the bomb was going to blow sometime soon. Just too close for comfort, that was. And when you're a tiny country caught in the middle of it - tough luck.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    17. Re:Here goes... by Detritus · · Score: 2, Informative
      Not a single Israeli died due to Hezbulla attacks before this war started...

      Then who were Eyal Benin, Shani Turgeman, and Wassim Nazal? Martians?

      They were killed by Hezbollah forces operating inside Israel, on a mission to ambush and kidnap Israeli soldiers.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    18. Re:Here goes... by russint · · Score: 1
      Hezbolla doesnt set up operations in the center of residential neighborhoods. It would be really stupid of them to do so. They know that if they mingle with civilians, they will eventually be sold out by collaborators.

      You can be a member of Hezbollah your entire life and never see a military wing fighter with a weapon, a Lebanese military intelligence official, now retired, once told me. They do not come out with their masks off and never operate around people if they can avoid it. Theyre completely afraid of collaborators. They know this is what breaks the Palestinians no discipline and too much showing off.
      ^^ http://www.williambowles.info//syria_lebanon/hezbo llah_hiding.html
      --
      ^^
    19. Re:Here goes... by Stevecrox · · Score: 1

      Your full of Crap aren't you? I just bet your American

      Lets see President Roosevelt being a idiot about European geography takes the time to appease the Jewish voters and just creates a country out of air, which would annoy the people who live there. Then in a continued effort to appease the voters America arms and supplies Israel. The years go on...

      The countries around Israel try to take back what they feel was there, and I would argue justly so. America funds Israel and effectively helps them beat the crap out of their neighbors. The illegally occupies the surrounding states, facing overwhelming force and seeing that pacifistic measures don't work against the Israelis they turn to violence. So you get suicide bombers, and guerilla fighters attacking targets whenever they can.

      I mean have you even looked at Israel's responses, oh a rocket blows up a field ok we're going to flatten your capital, if you don't leave your house and only place to stay we are going to kill you. That's not a responsible attitude, Israel is like a big bully, hrmm one of our soldiers have died ok that's not on lets perform a 'surgical strike' oh and by surgical I mean takes out 10 times more civilians than the guerillas. If Israel were to take a sensible and legal method to help resolve this conflict, but lets be honest Israel doesn't like sensible and really goes in for the 'eye for and eye' or in their case 'and eye for a head oh and maybe an arm, and that leg looks threatening'

      I'm not saying the launching of rockets is right or good I don't support that but Israelk needs to back off and stop violating internal law and quite frankly treat the locals with some respect else that's all they are going to get.

    20. Re:Here goes... by AlXtreme · · Score: 1
      What would you do? There's really no good answer here, but would you just sit back and let your people be killed and kidnapped?
      There is a time when payback ends and it starts to become a bloodbath. When you have seen images like these on the news I think most people will agree with me that Israel has had their pound of flesh, and then some.

      I don't know what I would do. Thankfully I'm not a member of this war. But this, this isn't what any religeous person would want to do to their fellow man.

      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank
    21. Re:Here goes... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Dammit man, you bomb Toronto the second you have something that even looks like an excuse!

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    22. Re:Here goes... by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      But then again, it's all just a bunch of statistics. Who cares about the children, unless they are American brats, right?

      A government's first responsibility is to its own people. If my citizens are getting slaughtered by a terrorist group in your country, you damn well better do something about it or I will do it for you. It's really that simple.

    23. Re:Here goes... by Tiro · · Score: 1

      That is a very poor argument. Where exactly are they supposed to go? They are poor farmers, and they do not have cars nor the funds to live in a hotel for a few weeks [much like some Katrina victims].

    24. Re:Here goes... by ronabop · · Score: 1

      Not a single Isreali citizen would have had to die if the IDF didn't insist on setting up operations in the center of residential neighborhoods, launching missile and bomb strikes from their cities, and overall using civillians as human shields?

      Are you seriuously suggesting that the IDF shouldn't be patrolling cities in Israel? That they should all just camp out in the desert, so they wouldn't be using the general public as "human shields"?

      It appears there are idiots on both sides thouroughly taken in by propaganda.

      Both Hezbollah and the IDF sleep with bombs, and civillians on both sides sleep in bomb sheleters.

    25. Re:Here goes... by Vidar+Leathershod · · Score: 1

      Actually it is. If you read your history, you will see that considered to be a compassionate practice. It allows civilians to leave the area, but troops who have munitions either have to abandon some of them, or stay to protect them. Besides letting the enemy continue their bombardment from a "safe" civilian locale, there is no other way I can think of to defeat them. Any ideas?

      Hamas is not the only terrorist group to utilize suicide bombers, either (and in fact you are now talking about Palestine?). Getting back by any means possible is exactly what the Israelis don't do. They don't purposefully target women and children, or civilians at all. And perhaps the reason why certain parties are in "camps" at all is because they refuse to peacefully coexist. Even Human Rights Watch, which is considered very anti-Israel by many, has condemned Hamas for it's crimes against humanity. A preface to it's charter (source:Wikipedia) - "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

      Great people, Hamas. I for one am glad that you are here to dictate the rules of engagement. I'm sure you take a similar stand on gun rights, and self-defense rights. I guess I can shoot the guy who shot me, but only as many times as he shot me. After all, if 3 people enter my home intending violence, and one shoots me, I can't hold it against the other two.

      "But then again, it's all just a bunch of statistics. Who cares about the children, unless they are American brats, right?"

      True colors, shining through. Did Hezbollah leaflet the Israeli target areas? The only ones who truly care about the civilians are the Israelis. The BBC snippet posted by someone above is particularly telling of the goal of most news orgs.

      Vidar

      --
      The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
    26. Re:Here goes... by Vidar+Leathershod · · Score: 1

      Lebanon as a nation is not capable of much control. Most of the Lebanese people are peace-loving, and want nothing to do with the terrorists. Parts of the country have at times been occupied by the PLO, and after the recent Hariri assassination, we saw that Hezbollah was very capable of creating unrest for the Lebanese people, who have been trying to shake off Syrian influence. Sometimes people don't realize that Lebanon has a large Christian population (and that their president, by law, must be Maronite Christian), and that they do not wish the destruction of Israel. There are also large Islamic communities, however, and many favor the practices of the terrorist groups in the area.

      You are correct that if Lebanon is unable to do anything about it that Israel has some right to fix it themselves. I hope they do. In short, I agree with every part of your post excepting the first sentence, as I do not feel the Lebanese govt. could stop Hezbollah. They just don't have the resources. Notice the lack of official retaliation of Lebanon towards Israel. They are trying to let Israel take care of it.

      Vidar

      --
      The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
    27. Re:Here goes... by iogan · · Score: 1

      Well you could start by targeting Hizbollah, and not Lebanese civilians. This whole collateral damage talk is bullshit, they are actively trying to hit civilian centers, look at the targets for fucks sake! The only thing that will come out of this will be that the Hizbollah will be strengthened by the support of the Lebanese public, and by the support of people from other countries (not just Arab ones mind, talking to people here in Sweden, which is normally quite US-friendly (yeah yeah, US/Israel whatever you know what I mean) they are beginning to show more and more understanding for the actions and reasoning of the Hizbollah.)

      As far as I'm concerned, the Hizbollah is now a freedom fighter guerilla like any other.

    28. Re:Here goes... by iogan · · Score: 1
      A nation should not have to endure endless kidnappings of their soldiers/citizens without taking action.

      Ah, but what then of the hundreds upon hundreds of Palestinian civilians stuck for tens of years in Israeli prisons without trial and without chance of release? Many of which are children, or women, or old? In fact just a few weeks ago Israel obducted a number of Palestinian elected officials, and never returned them.

      Do they count too? 'Cause in that case, I say let us bomb Tel Aviv, Haifa etc into fucking oblivion. I'm serious. Let's do it.
    29. Re:Here goes... by iogan · · Score: 1
      Say that a Maxican drug cartel took up residence in a border town. For whatever reason, they got pissed at us, kidnapped two border partol officers, and started firing rockets at San Diego. And to top if off, the Mexican government turns a blind eye to it. What do you think the government would do? I sure as hell hope that we would send troops in there to stop it. Unless you want San Diego residents to live in a constant state of fear.
      Well I do hope they wouldn't bomb Maxico City, just the border. Only Israel would bomb Beirut to get rid of Hezbollah.
    30. Re:Here goes... by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      Oh sure, they kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers, how could I forget! But is that reason enough to slaughter 450+ civilians? If a para-military group in Canada kidnaps 2 people, do you start bombing Toronto?

      No, you ask Toronto to find and arrest and hand over those who did it, freeing the hostages in the process. Then the kidnappers get prosecuted and that's that.

      Israel did ask the Lebanese government to help freeing the kidnapped soldiers but they couldn't or wouldn't help. Then Israel had to go do it themselves, but the restance from the kidnappers forced an escalation into a full military conflict.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  36. Re:Doesn't make sense by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    no, not okay, but yes, that would have been much more humane to avoid most or all of the deaths from the WTC destruction. can you actually be suggesting otherwise? are you saying there is no difference between blowing up a building full of civilians, and giving warning to those civilians so they can get to safety first?

  37. Re:Think of the Children! by Eideewt · · Score: 1

    Did you just feel a breeze over your head? From a low-flying joke perhaps?

  38. Disproportionality creates terrorists. by khasim · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Disproportionality is the only way to deal with terrorists.

    No, that just creates more terrorists.
    If I were an Israeli I would not relish the prospect of being terrorised forever at an ever more lethal intensity. I would want to irradicate the problem.

    Emotional response leads to emotional response and the situation never changes.
    Hezbullah uses civilians as shields, launching attacks from aprtment buildings, residential areas.. If Hezbullah stopped doing this there would be no civilian casualties. Israel's only recourse is to ignore them in pursuit of the enemy.

    I see that argument a lot.

    If they're using civilians as "shields", but those "shields" don't stop the attacks, then why are they still using them as "shields"?

    An easier explanation is that they target them where they believe they live. And if civilians also live there, too bad.

    They target them where they believe they gather. And if civilians are also there, too bad.

    Then, when the civilians are killed, claim that the "bad guys" were using them as "shields" again. Even when they've never worked as "shields".

    And when you kill an innocent civilian, you've just given his/her family and friends a reason to join the "bad guys".
    1. Re:Disproportionality creates terrorists. by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      If they're using civilians as "shields", but those "shields" don't stop the attacks, then why are they still using them as "shields"?

      Because it makes things politically difficult for the Israelis, obviously. Even if they'll die anyways, they'll increase the "civilian" body count so that douchebags like you will have something to blame Israel for.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    2. Re:Disproportionality creates terrorists. by NtroP · · Score: 1
      If they're using civilians as "shields", but those "shields" don't stop the attacks, then why are they still using them as "shields"?

      Because people like you, the media and the NASA hackers know that people have such a visceral reaction to civilian, collateral damage. They know that the "if we all just think happy thoughts and eat enough bran, peace will ensue"-types will fight their war for them on the battlefield of popular opinion. Don't you see? Plastering the face of a wounded child on the web or TV is the easy way out. They know we won't bother to think beyond the images.

      The terrorists are cowards. They target civilians themselves and then hide behind other civilians when attacked. They have no more political legitimacy than what they are given by "world opinion" and "the press". From what I hear, the Israeli military is attempting to minimize civilian casualties. They've announced the areas that they were going to attack and told the government to evacuate their citizens. Maybe, Israel's actions will save more civilian lives in the future. Once Hezbollah realizes that they aren't getting anywhere by hiding among civilians, but are instead pissing those civilians off and that even the granola-eating, birkenstock-wearing, public are seeing them for the cowards they are they'll stop using those methods. Shyah, and monkies will fly out of my butt!

      I wish none of this had happened and that the conflict would end, but I'm not so naive to think that thinking happy thoughts are going to make any difference. Even if it were in my power to force Israel to stop their offensive today - do you think Hezbollah will stop killing civilians? Not going to happen. However, if Hezbollah were to be routed and would stop targeting civilians do I think Israel would stop their offensive? Yes. Absolutely.

      It's a complicated, messed up world. The press knows that the naive public will react to pictures of civilians getting injured because it means they don't have to think any further than that. It makes the press' job easy - theey don't have to take the time explaining the whole story while trying to keep people's attention. Shocking pictures and shallow stories sell and get a much bigger bang for the buck. The hackers know that putting a picture of a wounded child on a hacked, NASA web page will be effective because people will stop thinking any further than that picture. They will never stop and say: "WTF? This doesn't make any sense. Why target NASA? Hey wait, why did the submitter feel compelled to link to a mirror of the hacked site? Shouldn't this be a discussion about the security of Apache or the competency of the Sysadmins who secured it, or the vulnerabilities of the portal software that was used on the site?" But no, just putting a picture of an injured child stops most people from thinking critically about the situation.

      This is why America's leaders are elected based on 30-second sound-bites, name recognition and great hair. People never bother to look any deeper than that. It's too much effort and the media is happy to keep it that way.
      --
      "terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
  39. Re:Doesn't make sense by Hampe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In all honesty, haven't the US and Israelis attempts at "kicking the nuts" of Hezbollah and similar organizations repeatedly failed miserably? It's a real world example of the myth of the hydra, the more heads you chop off the more there will come! Israel is selling out all their international goodwill (axcept maybe in parts of the US) for a futile attempt to kill off all of Hezbollah. It just can't be done!

  40. South Americans? Arabs? Whats the difference by damburger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It makes perfect sense that the hackers came from south america and not an arab country. My own government (the UK) is way ahead in removing that particular distinction

    Seriously though, the reason they hit NASA was because they could. They almost certainly scanned through all US government sites for a vunerability they could exploit, and NASA just happened to have one.

    Also, you should be thanking them for this. This form of protest hurts exactly nobody. A sysadmin gets some extra overtime, thats all. If you guys didn't have contempt for peaceful forms of protest like this, perhaps people wouldn't feel the need to murder thousands of you just to get your attention.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:South Americans? Arabs? Whats the difference by burner · · Score: 1

      Hmm... cyberterrorism as a form of nonviolet protest and civil disobedience... interesting...

      --
      MRSH-Recording device, corned beef sandwich with kraut, seafaring bird, and the foamy top of a beverage.
    2. Re:South Americans? Arabs? Whats the difference by damburger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find the term 'cyberterrorism' offensive. Get some fucking perspective.

      Someone sets off nail bombs in pubs just because the occupants happen to be gay, thats terrorism.

      A guy gets on a bus with a dynamite waistcoat and wipes out a load of commuters, thats terrorism.

      Some prick hijacks a jet and flies in into a skyscraper full of people, thats terrorism.

      Fucking up somebodies webserver? Not even close.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    3. Re:South Americans? Arabs? Whats the difference by Dhalka226 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you guys didn't have contempt for peaceful forms of protest like this

      We have contempt for forms of protest that break the law.

      You want to protest in the streets of Chile? Go ahead. You want to march on Washington? Be my guest. You want to call the president nasty names? I'll join you.

      You want to do something productive, like start up your own site with the side of this that we're likely not seeing, at least not much, in the US? Please do.

      You want to break into a server because you can and deface it? No, you deserve to go to jail. And you deserve to have the shit kicked out of you while you're there, since regardless of whether or not you may have had some point to make, you made your entire cause look stupid in the process--not to mention the fact that NASA has absolutely nothing to do with anything going on in Lebanon.

      Do you think this stunt made me any more sympathetic to their cause? It didn't. And most reasonable people feel the same.

    4. Re:South Americans? Arabs? Whats the difference by burner · · Score: 1

      I find your use of profanity offensive. Get some ****ing manners.

      --
      MRSH-Recording device, corned beef sandwich with kraut, seafaring bird, and the foamy top of a beverage.
  41. Re:Doesn't make sense by Hangin10 · · Score: 1

    I've heard from several sources (including CNN and Wikipedia, not that these are the most credible sources on the planet, I've neglected to search Al-Jazeera) that Hezbollah holds seats in their parliament and runs much of the civil infrastructure. The government of Lebanon accepted Hezbollah as a militia to fight Israel's earlier occupation. I don't know the details of that occupation, so I'm not going to support either side on that. However, in the event of an occupation... I don't blame the Lebanese accepting in Hezbollah in order to combat occupation, governments resist outside forces (that's not going to change). What other course of action is there instead of attacking?

    What I condemn is the lack of old style deterrent. The rest of the world is sitting around twiddling their collective thumbs going "We don't like terrorists. Stop bombing Lebanon. Let's get a ceasefire going." Just 30ish years ago, the major deterrent to something like this would be a larger war. I bet there's a senile old guy somewhere going "Is the Egyptian Air Force out getting drunk?"

  42. Mislead title - it was juge a mass defacement by QX-Mat · · Score: 1

    A good protest for a mass defacement, but the title is missleading.

    While MacOS X (appparently), they didnt "target" NASA computers.

    Matt

  43. I've Got Some Good News by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

    The deluxe edition of Roadhouse is out. Or is that bad news as well?

    --
    Can I bum a sig?
  44. Re:Think of the Children! by rivetgeek · · Score: 1

    Ray Charles called. He said he couldn't find the funny either.

  45. more proof of a troll's idiocy by richdun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    what with the shooting of Jews in chicago yesterday

    Do you actually read the news, or just go with what you're told? The shooting was in Seattle - a very different place from Chicago. And Jews have been at the bottom of some people's "favorite peoples" list for centuries - I doubt our foreign policy could really ever change that in just a few years.

    The world is not nearly as petty a place as some would like to think it is. Bush hasn't helped, sure, but anti-US sentiment has been building for years. We rule the world, but spend outlandish amounts on shopping trips and vacations to countries whose people can barely afford basic food and shelter. Then, when something happens to our own, we can't take care of them either.

    We'd be a whole lot better off is more Americans would stop using Bush as a scapegoat (again, he might be a good one, but that's not the point) and started changing the way they actually lived - cut back on energy consumption, buy a hybrid or use public transit, demand true equality in civil services and protection in poor neighborhoods/regions, and quit mouthing off on the Internet complaining about your government when the House has something ridiculous like a 98% re-election rate.

    We don't take responsibility for our own actions - and when something goes right, take responsibility whether it was our doing or not. That's why people hate us.

    1. Re:more proof of a troll's idiocy by 87C751 · · Score: 1
      quit mouthing off on the Internet complaining about your government when the House has something ridiculous like a 98% re-election rate.
      You're confusing the operation of a well-oiled political machine with a true reflection of public sentiment. Perhaps you've missed the regular redistricting that results in a strong incumbency advantage?

      Face it, the game is rigged. Regardless of whom you vote for, a politician still gets elected.

      --
      Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
    2. Re:more proof of a troll's idiocy by Teun · · Score: 1
      demand true equality in civil services and protection in poor neighborhoods/regions

      We recently had two separate visitors, one a professor from New Jersey, the other a businessman from South Africa.
      Whenever a car would drive by our house in the woods or the postman would come up the driveway they'd jump; "someone is there!", "what do they want of us?".

      For us it'll be the neighbour, passer by's or indeed the postman, for them they were a potential threat.
      The thought of going into town by bus scared the shit out of them; "what kind of people are on it?"
      When we went by car they wanted the doors locked, we consider it odd to lock an occupied car, they they feel exposed.

      Now who is living in a civilised country/society, us in Europe or them in SA or the USA?

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    3. Re:more proof of a troll's idiocy by lgarner · · Score: 1

      Incumbents have an advantage because the electorate is too lazy to consider alternatives. "The devil you know is better than the one you don't" seems to be the general consensus. Well-oiled political machines only work as long as the voting population permits them to.

    4. Re:more proof of a troll's idiocy by MickDownUnder · · Score: 1

      You might want to add wake up and realise that if you're in the US you're living inside a propaganda bubble. It's not so much that you are fed dis-information, it's what you don't hear in the popular media, but what you do discover with just a little digging. The article mentioned in Johnathon Cook's very inciteful article can be found here see "Gaza Strip arrests".

    5. Re:more proof of a troll's idiocy by maxume · · Score: 1

      So I can't complain about the hundreds of thousands of other people that keep voting for the same idiot, even if I attempt to choose good candidates?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:more proof of a troll's idiocy by richdun · · Score: 1

      Well-oiled political machines only work as long as the voting population permits them to.

      Rousseau would be proud. Every once in a while, people get fed up enough with their government and realize that only if they allow it to can the government exist. That's why free speech, press, etc., is so important, because without them, it would be almost insurmountable to get enough free thinkers together to make a charge against the status quo (a la 1984) without violence.

      We haven't had a good change of thought in a while (communism, but that got corrupt/didn't work in a hurry). And movements like these usually follow some great invention or technological leap (the printing press, the colony, the factory, the assembly line, etc.). The Internet hasn't yet spawned a revolution (politically, or at least not wholly), but it will. Bloggers might be 90% ignorant drivel, MySpace one of the worst saps of youthful intelligence in decades, etc., but as long as there's always hope for something to come, we might got out of this.

      Wait, never mind. Now that I think about it, we're screwed. :)

    7. Re:more proof of a troll's idiocy by richdun · · Score: 1

      What, you mean the American Idol contestants visiting the White House doesn't constitute a front page story?! Blasphemy! Why should we need to hear other things?

    8. Re:more proof of a troll's idiocy by c0reboarder · · Score: 1

      Wow, way to form an opinion of two nations based on the actions of 1 guest from each. I shared an office with a guy from the Netherlands before, and based off of his actions (and your logic), man do all the people from the Netherlands like to get into the office early!

    9. Re:more proof of a troll's idiocy by Teun · · Score: 1
      man do all the people from the Netherlands like to get into the office early!

      Let me single handedly compensate for that flaw :)

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    10. Re:more proof of a troll's idiocy by SaDan · · Score: 1

      Go ahead and complain, but you'll get more accomplished if you try to do something positive and create change.

  46. Terrorists make a choice by amightywind · · Score: 1
    No, that just creates more terrorists.

    Reasoning with Hezbullah is pointless. Trying to win the heart and minds of their recruitment ranks through passive response to provocation is pointless. Hezbullah's raison d'etre is to kill Jews. They have no other legitimate reason to exist. Peace didn't work. If that means some lebanese will be manufactured into junior Hezbullah, so be. All the rats in one trap.

    I see that argument a lot. If they're using civilians as "shields", but those "shields" don't stop the attacks, then why are they still using them as "shields"?

    The civilian deaths have much of the international community in an uproar. That is hezbullah's goal: to increase the cost of Israeli action.

    And when you kill an innocent civilian, you've just given his/her family and friends a reason to join the "bad guys".

    A Christian, Sunni, or Druse will never join Hezbullah, only Shia. There is nothing to be done about it except let them fight until there is a clear winner.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  47. You're right, you don't. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    I'm sure a greater number of americans than 6 have been abducted or killed by canadian criminals on our northern border, maybe we should attack canada?..

    At least use a better analogy (since that isn't even close). There is no political party in Canada that has a formal platform specifically calling for the destruction of the United States. The UN didn't pass a resolution years ago demanding the disarmament of a group of thousands of militarized Canadians that have been launching flesh-shredding ball-bearing-laden, imprecise missiles randomly over the border for years. Any cross-border murders/killings from Canada don't appear to be well organized by a militia that doesn't allow that country's police and military into the southern part of the country, and which receives a continual flow of arms, cash, and weapons training from Iran and Syria.

    If Michigan had been continually hit with rockets from Canada, would you think any differently? If the RCMP was afraid to enter the entire southern half of Quebec to stop hundreds of members of a group dedicated to the deaths of all Americans from launching missles from schoolyards, would you expect the U.S. to just shrug and let it keep happening? If an armed incursion from that area came across the border, shot up a bunch of our border guards and kidnapped some, and the Canadian government just said, "Oh well - we can't stop it or do anything about it," would that feel the same?

    And if you knew that the group doing that stuff was receiving millions of dollars and truckloads of weapons from another country that's also talking in terms of "wiping your country from the face of the earth" (um, while also scrambling to build a nuke program) ... still no reason to deprive that group of their entrenched position along your border?

    Israel sustained 1,500 missile attacks from Hezbollah in the period preceeding the abductions that were the last straw. That group's willingness to park their Iranian and Chinese weapons in the basements of residences and apartment buildings, and to set up launchers under the cover of a UN peacekeeping station specifically to draw fire towards targets they hope will further inflame the situation - that's hardly the same as your random Canadian sociopath, is it? Would you recommend that every time Hezbollah uses "their" part of Lebanon to launch a made-for-terror-and-only-for-terror ball-bearing bomb into where it will randomly land in Israel, that Israel should just be "porportionate" and do one of the same? How about just ending that Iranian-backed group's ability to hijack the Lebanese land, infrastructure, and convenient human-shield population, once and for all? The Lebanese government hasn't been willing to do it. The UN's toothless resolution has accomplished nothing. What would you do? Just have Israel take the missle hits, for years and years, and not act to end it? Assume that a certain number of cross-border raids and Hezbollah-inflicted deaths are just going to happen, and not mind it?

    Really: you don't see the difference between that scenario, and your counter example? Israel doesn't call for the destruction of any country. They scatter pamphlets in areas where they're about to attack Hezbollah missle-launching sites to warn civilians to get out of the fight. They use very expensive precision weapons to minimize damage beyond what they're shooting at. The Hezbollah militants, on the other hand - whom you've just compared to a few hypothetical individual murderers from Canada - attack without warning, directly against civilians, and routinely proclaim that only the destruction of Israel as a country will suffice - and they're taking action to try accomplish it. Use a different analogy, or brush up on the background, here. If the same thing did happen to US citizens near the border with another country, for years on end, putting a stop to it wouldn't feel "disporportionate" at all.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:You're right, you don't. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      Again, an argument appealing irrationally to emotion.

      if they park a missile platform below a peacekeeping station, then you use a team of special forces to kill the crew and disable/disarm the truck, you dont just shell the peacekeeping station.

      The same for all these other civiallian centers.

      Sure it's not as quick, but it's more precise and less of a catalyst for public and international ire.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    2. Re:You're right, you don't. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Again, an argument appealing irrationally to emotion.

      Exactly, precisely incorrect. You're ignoring actual practicalities that make your position unworkable.

      if they park a missile platform below a peacekeeping station, then you use a team of special forces to kill the crew and disable/disarm the truck, you dont just shell the peacekeeping station.

      Hezbollah's speciality is arriving at a location with a launcher, setting up, firing, and being gone in a matter of minutes - no way for a team of people to helicopter in and catch them in the act. The only way that "special forces" could deal with Hezbollah's intermittent appearance on the grounds next to a UN post (that should have been abandoned - what were they thinking?) would be to have said special forces sitting there, waiting for them. What: for days? With what sort of support? That's not a "surgical strike," it's re-occupation of that piece of Lebanon. And Hezbollah simply would have set up shop somewhere else along the border for that round of launches.

      Only immediate (within moments) attack from the air or from long-range big guns can catch the guys with the launchers on the spot, and prevent them from ever doing it again. That, or you prevent that piece of land from being used in that way at all - and the only way to enforce that is to station troops on it... and remember that that's exactly what Israel used to do, specifically to prevent these exact sort of attacks. And, when they pulled their troops out of southen Lebanon, it just started right back up. It would appear that they're done putting up with it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:You're right, you don't. by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      No, Israel doesn't have any obligations to risk any more of it's citizens in the name of it's own defense than it absolutely has to. I'm sorry, you're wrong.

      The entire fault here lies with Hezbollah putting the lives of Lebonese citizens in danger.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  48. They do spread, don't they? by r00t · · Score: 1

    If you think Bush and the christian fundies are bad, you just wait until there are enough muslims to start a serious call for sharia law. You have not yet begun to suffer.

    (unless you'd be one of the people calling for sharia law)

    It's damn easy to predict that islam will take over the world.

    1. Re:They do spread, don't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I wasn't expecting that reply.

  49. Chicago, this ain't. by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then maybe we should have done the same to the chicago mafia in the 30's...

    just shelled their places of business and damn the consequences...


    Again, a non-workable analogy. The people smuggling whiskey and evading taxes in the 30's weren't launching missles from Chicago into Toledo, or proclaiming that only the destruction of Illinois is acceptable to them. They didn't randomly kill women and children, year after year, just to stoke things up (they just killed each other in a turf war over the smuggling market and related "industries").

    The mafia wasn't a militant front for an oil-rich retrograde fascist theocracy that was shipping them millions of bucks and thousands of missiles.

    It doesnt make sense to use millitary weaponry when surgical strikes on the ground would get things done.

    If the Israelis stopped using precision weapons, you'd see the civilian deaths in the areas where Hezbollah keeps parking their weapons and launchers go from a few hundred to thousands and thousands over night. You do understand that you can't just march Israeli troops back into all of Lebanon and surgically remove Hezbollah weapons and infrastructure from the middle of the civilian presence in which they hide without an enormous invasion, right? It takes a gigantic supply chain, tons of armour, and thousands of soldiers - and it would take months and months, and many more Israeli deaths, which is exactly what Hezbollah would like to force them to have to do.

    Hezbollah has had an uninterrupted six years to build bunkers, to booby-trap and mine their weapons storage sites, and to make sure that their personnel are woven completely into the fabric of the civilian population of Lebanon. Israel is being smart, and taking out the tools Hezbollah will need to re-supply themselves with weapons. Eventually they will run out, or Iran will have to more clearly show their hand by visibly pushing new weapons into the area by air - and they don't want to have that light shown on them just now. In the meantime, when Hezbollah pops out of a basement with a missle launcher, Israel hits that spot immediately, to destroy the cache that's there. They have no choice, other than to just tolerate more missles raining down on Haifa and beyond.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  50. Re:Um, military sattelites by richdun · · Score: 2, Informative

    Even more than that, NASA has put up every single US military sattelite

    Wrong. Military satelites are launched by the Air Force, not NASA, at Vandenburg AFB or Cape Canaveral AFB. NASA is strictly civilian launches, even if many astronauts (especially commanders and pilots) are former Navy or Air Force.

  51. Since you ask by Darri · · Score: 1

    Yes, you are missing something, but it's ok, you were meant to miss it.

    You are missing the fact that on the day prior to Hezbullah kidnapping that IDF soldier, the IDF had entered the Gaza Strip for the first time in almost a year, and detained a palestinian doctor and his brother, claiming they were members of Hamas, thereby starting this last wave of violence.

    See: The British Media And The Invasion Of Gaza

  52. Choose your own definitions. by khasim · · Score: 1
    Reasoning with Hezbullah is pointless.

    You do not "reason" with the group. You deny them new recruits.
    Trying to win the heart and minds of their recruitment ranks through passive response to provocation is pointless.

    There is some reason those recruits are joining them. Remove that reason and you remove the recruits.
    Hezbullah's raison d'etre is to kill Jews. They have no other legitimate reason to exist.

    Why do their recruits want "to kill Jews"?
    If that means some lebanese will be manufactured into junior Hezbullah, so be. All the rats in one trap.

    That approach has failed in the past. Why will this time be different?
    The civilian deaths have much of the international community in an uproar. That is hezbullah's goal: to increase the cost of Israeli action.

    So they aren't "shields" as such.
    A Christian, Sunni, or Druse will never join Hezbullah, only Shia. There is nothing to be done about it except let them fight until there is a clear winner.

    Historically, Christians and Sunni have both fought against Jews. So you're argument is little more than hair-splitting. And there is no reason that Sunni militants could not again fight against Israel.
  53. WRONG by pallmall1 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    So what you're saying is that "hacktivism" is only "legit" when the government it is undermining isn't your own?

    The Chilean hackers blocked the flow of information from the websites attacked to the users wishing to access it. This is what the Chinese government is doing to their citizens.

    Efforts to overcome Chinese censorship are directed at allowing information to flow to internet users. There is a difference.

    --
    3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
    1. Re:WRONG by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      The Chilean hackers blocked the flow of information from the websites attacked to the users wishing to access it. This is what the Chinese government is doing to their citizens.

      And if you get around their block, these Chilean hackers have the power to throw you in prison, right? :P

    2. Re:WRONG by tigga · · Score: 1
      The Chilean hackers blocked the flow of information from the websites attacked to the users wishing to access it. This is what the Chinese government is doing to their citizens.



      And if you get around their block, these Chilean hackers have the power to throw you in prison, right? :P



      It is completely different issue. Denying free information access is possibly only action which relates hackers to China government.

    3. Re:WRONG by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1
      It is completely different issue

      That's rather the point, isn't it?

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
  54. Mod parent up! by SaDan · · Score: 1

    Right on.

  55. Re:Doesn't make sense by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Informative

    All this anti-Israeli and 'anti-Zionism' talk around the world is just anti-semitism resurfacing and trying to pretend not to be.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism
    "Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled antisemitism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism
    "Anti-Zionism is often characterized by opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish state"

    The Anti-Zionism != Anti-Semetism, though the two do get mixed together.

    The Israelis are great people that are surrounded by millions of people who have surrendered their minds to a death cult.

    Not to burst your bubble, but the Israelis have heaps of fanatic (relegious) nutbags too. You seem to be confusing and conflating ideological extremism with religion. They are not the same, in the exact same sense that Anti-Zionism & Anti-Semetism are not the same, even though people mix them together.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  56. Because he doesn't want you to see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Because if you see images of children bleeding, perhaps you wouldn't support the war. Perhaps you'd stop the shipment of arms, perhaps stop sending them $3 billion a year, or stop the latest shipment of $120 million worth of fighter jet fuel, or cancel the shipment of cluster bombs.

    It's difficult to demonsize an enemy when you can see the bleeding faces of their children.

    1. Re:Because he doesn't want you to see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I am reminded of the Republicans clamoring bloody murder for the brief showing of U.S. flag draped coffins (of our killed in Iraq coming home to rest) in a television spot about the costs of war. Of course the Republicans scream bloody murder and do not want you to see the flag draped coffins of our fallen soldiers: that might turn your mind on the war.

      And this is just recently. During 2003 and 2004 up until the election Bush personally disallowed any press to be present during the transportation of the flag draped coffins of our dead. Taking pictures was classified as a violation of national security (funny how everything the U.S. president does not want done gets classified that way -- it sure is easier than passing a law through the two legislative houses).

      Part of propaganda is not just making up the message people will hear, but also suppressing the message you do not want them to hear. The Republicans do not want you to hear, or actually see, that our U.S. soldiers are dying in the war in Iraq.

    2. Re:Because he doesn't want you to see it by Vlad2.0 · · Score: 1

      I am so fucking sick of people always bringing up children dieing as the ultimate cause to not have war.

      People die in war. I don't care if it's women, children, whatever. Shit happens. People die. There's no way it's not going to happen, especially when civilians are pretty much used as a human shield, which is pretty despicable but seems to be more or less overlooked by most anti-israeli groups.

      I'm sure THOUSANDS of children died when the Allies bombed the shit out of Germany near the end of WW2. Why do people keep thinking women/children wont die during an armed conflict? I'm not sanctioning it, I'm not denying it happens, but seriously, no shit children die, now move on to more important topics, like stopping more children from dieing.

      It's difficult to demonsize an enemy when you can see the bleeding faces of their children.

      You'd think so, until you get passed the shock value (that's the only real reason for showing this.) Then the huge "DUH, they're being used as human shields" kicks in and you realize how fucking stupid all this shit really is.

    3. Re:Because he doesn't want you to see it by Billosaur · · Score: 1
      Because if you see images of children bleeding, perhaps you wouldn't support the war. Perhaps you'd stop the shipment of arms, perhaps stop sending them $3 billion a year, or stop the latest shipment of $120 million worth of fighter jet fuel, or cancel the shipment of cluster bombs.

      And perhaps if instead of defacing the NASA website, which is probably only of intrest a small minority of the population in the United States they instead sent the image to CNN, MSNBC, Reuters, etc., it would get more play and might actually change some opinion.

      Do not confuse the method with the message.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    4. Re:Because he doesn't want you to see it by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1
      Part of propaganda is not just making up the message people will hear, but also suppressing the message you do not want them to hear. The Republicans do not want you to hear, or actually see, that our U.S. soldiers are dying in the war in Iraq.


      I agree that the whole case of flag-draped coffins issue was questionable (at the least). But let's not kid ourselves in to thinking propaganda is a Republican mechanism.
    5. Re:Because he doesn't want you to see it by sethstorm · · Score: 1


      People die in war. I don't care if it's women, children, whatever. Shit happens. People die. There's no way it's not going to happen, especially when civilians are pretty much used as a human shield, which is pretty despicable but seems to be more or less overlooked by most anti-israeli groups.


      Then you see all the criticism against Israel, with little if any regards to legitimacy of complaint, be dismissed as an antisemitic hate crime on the order of real hate crimes. No "shield" there, right? When you can just say "hate criminal!" or "Anti-Semitic!", then stand behind US/Israeli Imported US weaponry, the US's UN ambassador, various European laws, and misguided people who dont mind Israel not being held accountable beyond Pollard; are those not shields of values equal or better than your "human shields" you attribute?

      You might have had a valid point if not for what already exists to shield Israel from doing wrong.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    6. Re:Because he doesn't want you to see it by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1
      Because if you see images of children bleeding, perhaps you wouldn't support the war.


      Which is exactly the point of the propaganda war being waged in the Middle East. Whenever some group suffers retribution for whatever acts they commit, out comes the images of dead children.

      I'm torn on the issue. On one hand, I do believe that such imagery is important. If the fact that innocents die in war is news to anybody, then by all means this should drive home the truth of the matter. We should never be lulled in to thinking any war is bloodless; that any war is not marred with inhumane acts and dire consequences for those trapped in the fighting. However, on the other hand the use of these images to sway opinion speaks of a cynical ploy rather than genuine concern for those depicted in these images.

      It's not that everyone involved doesn't have a genuine care for the victims involved. But rather major actors and parties to these conflicts believe that these images can be used to gain tactical advantage. Propagating this imagery plays in to these tactics far to well for my taste. And it rewards the use of suffering innocents as pawns.
    7. Re:Because he doesn't want you to see it by enrevanche · · Score: 1

      These sources have plenty of pictures like this. They chose not to show them.

    8. Re:Because he doesn't want you to see it by enrevanche · · Score: 1
      These are the consequence of war and the public, especially in a country that starts war or supports those that do, must be aware of this. They can only be responsable for the actions of their government if they are aware.

      Are you against the world knowing and feeling the consequences of war making and especially war mongering?

    9. Re:Because he doesn't want you to see it by stuntpope · · Score: 1

      Are you equating the morality of using the lives of innocents as shields for your forces, and for your propaganda gains when they get killed (after you herded them into your areas of operations or moved your operations into their neighborhood) with the use of a conceptual phrase "anti-semetic" as a defense against your critics? I don't think using the anti-semetic shield inappropriately (in your views, at least) in any way justifies the other side's shield of using civilian populations as quasi-combatants in a propaganda war.

  57. Re:Doesn't make sense by Stalyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sorry but when you try to justify the killing of innocent civilians you have already lost the argument. Surely war is war and civilians becoming victims of "collateral damage" can be explained. But it can never be justified. Once you claim that killing innocent lives is morally right you have lost all moral authority.

    --
    The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
  58. Re:Um, military sattelites by blueflash2o · · Score: 1
    NASA has put up every single US military sattelite.
    Do you have proof for that because i think the military contracts to many different companies like Boeing and Lockeed Martin. Those companies may use NASA or military launch sites to launch it.
  59. What's the reason? by pallmall1 · · Score: 1

    Remember, Hezbollah only EXISTS because of Israel's invasion of Lebanon decades ago.

    So, after the Israelis left, why did Hexbollocks build undergound bunkers beneath mosques, missile storage facilities in civilian apartments, ammo dumps in hospitals, and launch missile attacks against civilians from schoolyards?

    The reason that this conflict is taking more of a toll on Lebanese civilians than on Israeli civilians is that Israel is doing everything it can to protect its citizens, while hezbollah is doing everything it can to make targets of civilians. That is why the hez are called terrorists -- it is what they are.

    The Lebanese civilians are reaping what hezbollah has sown.

    --
    3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
    1. Re:What's the reason? by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

      "So, after the Israelis left, why did Hexbollocks build undergound bunkers beneath mosques, missile storage facilities in civilian apartments, ammo dumps in hospitals, and launch missile attacks against civilians from schoolyards?"

      Perhaps they mistakenly assumed that Israel had any regard whatsoever for the lives of anyone other than themselves.

      Seriously though, this is the kind of rhetoric I would expect from someone who watches Faux News or who lives under Israeli wartime press censorship. I have personally seen no documentary evidence of any of the charges made in the above post. It is easy to rationalize atrocity when it supports your own worldview. I'm sure the Germans under Hitler were equally facile in their ability to justify the murder of millions of Jews and other minorities. In a nutshell, what the above poster is saying is that "they deserved to die." Tell that to the shades of the folks who died in the death camps. A pox on your house.

    2. Re:What's the reason? by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1
      The deaths resulting from someone using a human shield are the fault of the group USING THEM AS A SHIELD. Of course the other side is going to value the lives of their own people more.

      Seriously though, this is the kind of rhetoric I would expect from someone who watches Faux News or who lives under Israeli wartime press censorship. I have personally seen no documentary evidence of any of the charges made in the above post. It is easy to rationalize atrocity when it supports your own worldview. I'm sure the Germans under Hitler were equally facile in their ability to justify the murder of millions of Jews and other minorities. In a nutshell, what the above poster is saying is that "they deserved to die." Tell that to the shades of the folks who died in the death camps. A pox on your house.


      You just managed to Godwin the discussion without even being relevant. Congrats. The poster didn't say that the civilians "deserved to die"; he said that it's foolish to blame Israel for the deaths instead of Hezbollah.

      Comparing the Holocaust to the attacks on Lebanon doesn't make any sense (unless you believe the Jews were trying to destroy Germany?), because Lebanon is definitely trying to destroy Israel.
    3. Re:What's the reason? by operagost · · Score: 1
      Let's not forget his "argument from ignorance."
      I have personally seen no documentary evidence of any of the charges made in the above post.
      Maybe he needs to get his TV fixed because the Israelis' tape of the rockets shooting out from behind apartment buildings are all over it.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  60. Photos you did not see on CNN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://209.67.212.138/~lebanon/

    It hurts. Sure, you can find similar photos from Israel too, but these are a small group of extremists vs. a government who really should know better.

    Fuck Hizbollah, and fuck the Israeli government.

  61. Re:Doesn't make sense by rbannon · · Score: 1

    Actually, if you believe some, they, the terrorists, did warn many to stay away on 9/11.

  62. Whoosh by magetoo · · Score: 1

    I thought their business was things that go whoosh over people's heads?

  63. Not a very effective location by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    What is funny is that the kinds of people who would visit a website like NASA are the kinds of people who probably are against the conflict in Lebanon. Also I wonder why people would blame the US for this war. The US has an army of diplomats trying to encourage all sides to agree to a ceasefire. Do they think the US enjoyed evacuating it's people from Lebanon? Everything is the US's fault, unless it was something positive.

    Lebanon has the best looking flag, it's like the Canadian flag only better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Lebanon .svg

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Not a very effective location by magetoo · · Score: 1
      What is funny is that the kinds of people who would visit a website like NASA are the kinds of people who probably are against the conflict in Lebanon.
      And, arguably, the most likely to speak up when they see something that's wrong. That would likely be the motivation, assuming they didn't just pick the first vulnerable high-profile target that came along.
      Also I wonder why people would blame the US for this war. The US has an army of diplomats trying to encourage all sides to agree to a ceasefire.
      Since you asked: Because the US is blocking proposals for UN resolutions against Israel's attacks, which is seen as implicitly giving permission to continue. That's pissing off a lot of people.
    2. Re:Not a very effective location by Wizard+Drongo · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would say that USA is at fault here, since the USA has totally bankrolled Israel's wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians. That's right, your tax dollars are paying for Israel to butcher innocent civilians. And has been for years. In my mind there is virtually no difference between the gutless cowards that blow up isreali children and the gutless cowards that blow up palestinian/lebanese children, all in the name of their Gods. Oh, wait, there is one difference; one of the party's fighting for it's very survival and existence against one of the largest and well-funded armies in the world, fighting against a country that invaded and took over an entire state, all with the backing of the worlds largest superpower. The other is a tiny guerilla group that has minimal backing from dubious and inconsistent funding sources. The welsh in me says to root for the underdog, all things being equal. And believe, they are equal. The Jews and the Arabs are gonna continue to name-call over this for decades, possibly centuries to come (if we survive that long), but at the end of the day, anyone who can bomb and kill innocent human beings, including children for fucks sake, deserve neither pity, support nor encouragement. Nor do those who fund these atrocities. I'm looking at you Syria, Iran, USA. It's sickening. So yeah, thanks America. Nice 'ethical foreign policy'. As far as I can understand, that means 'back the winner, and sell them guns'. Sick.

      --
      The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
    3. Re:Not a very effective location by iogan · · Score: 1
      Also I wonder why people would blame the US for this war. The US has an army of diplomats trying to encourage all sides to agree to a ceasefire.


      Dude, do you have any idea how much money the US government and weapons industry is making right now? Do you think they made all those bombs in Israel? The US is making a killing out of this war, literally. And American diplomats are doing what they can to prolong the war, not end it. The rest of the security council want a resolution demanding an instant end to hostilities -- the US vetoes... who profits?
    4. Re:Not a very effective location by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      On the otherhand Western culture can peacefully coexist with Jews, while the jury is out on our ability to adapt and coexist with Hezbollah (Party of Allah/God).

      True be told the US sold both sides guns. And when the US wasn't selling one side guns, it was Russia and occationally France. Maybe them Arabs are right, Westerners should die. Your problem is that I don't think Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc really can tell the difference between a Welshie, Canadian and American/USian.

      You should probably blame the UN for creating/exaggerating the situation by creating Israel against the wishes of the Arabs who occupied and made up the majority of the people in that region of the World. Oh and by the way, it was the UK in the UN who pushed for this Israel creation plan, no the US. imagine the. Apparently the Welshie's hands are as red as mine.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    5. Re:Not a very effective location by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I would argue with you, but you never presented a complete argument. Only a rhetorical question and a loosely associated statement.

      I'm going to attempt to extract what you are implying, forgive me if I assume too much. You are trying to say that the US is supporting this war because it is profitable to do so, thus making the entire situation the US's fault. thanks for your conspiracy theories, you can pick up your tin foil hat at the door.

      Just because it is profitable for me to steal your car, does not mean I will steal your car or that I was the one who did steal your car. Your logical statement has a beginning and an end but no middle to link the two together. Let me attempt to pick things apart so it is easier for you to understand.

      The US foreign policy is influenced by special interests: true.

      The actions of Israel are the responsibility of the US: false. Israel is not a territory of the US. Nor does the US control the Israeli government (they are still pissed at us for capturing and [illegally] holding one of their "spies")

      The US sells arms to Israel: true, many US corporations have contracts with my foreign countries. As do French and UK corporations.

      You must use all your bombs before you have to buy more: false, businesses are more than willing to sell you more bombs even if you haven't used them all. You can also use up bombs quickly in training exercises. Preparations for war and constant state of alert is peaceful AND profitable for the defense industry. I would go as far to say that because a company's credit rating is dramatically better during peace time than war time, that it implies that a country is far more likely to pay its debts during peacetime. And if training and practice can consume a significant amount of bombs, ammunition, equipment, etc then it follows that sustainable at-the-ready peace is way more profitable. If this is true (which I am certain it is), then it seems it is in the best interest of corporations (and the governments they influence) to maintain a constant state of near-war at-the-ready peace.

      Motive is proof: false. this is a basic tennant of law in all civilized nations. just because you have motive does not make you guilty. actual facts need to be present.

      The US profits directly from the sale of arms: false. the US collects very little taxes from corporations that sell products outside of the US. the influence here is really powerful defense contractors lobbying politicans. Surely it's a powerful industry, but Microsoft is a far more wealthy company than any of the defense companies. and see how well that has worked out for Microsoft they still end up in court, they usually win but not always. so it follows that their influence is not proportional to the amount of money they have.

      If you really want to be mad. Why not blame Israel? They are adults, they can take responsibility for their own actions. Perhaps instead of bombing Israel should have just sent in assault teams to cut Beirut off from Lebanon and then placed the city under marshall law and then interviewed everyone in the city, releasing those they suspect are not Hezbollah. (easy thing is to just arrest everyone with a rocket launcher).

      How do you propose Israel address the rockets-over-the-border problem? Personally I think bombing civilian buildings is the wrong way to go about it, but I honestly have no solution. I certainly wouldn't find just-take-rockets-up-the-arse to be agreeable either. Maybe Israeli could just execute all the Hezbollah members they have in custody to eliminate the possibility of a prisoner exchange, and Hezbollah can execute their two prisoners and then we can call it even.

      1. the UN has no authority to declare a ceasefire unless it believes there can be long lasting peace. despite that some think the UN is a world government, it is not.

      2. the US will not *demand* a ceasefire until the root problems of this war can be resolved. The US is indeed working for a ceasefire, but unlike the UN the US is not dema

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    6. Re:Not a very effective location by Wizard+Drongo · · Score: 1

      True. Well, the english. We get very little input on what the english do. That said, fairs fair, we did create Israel. But then we've mostly left it alone. America has been bankrolling, like america does. Annoying really. Like the IRA or the BSM. Maybe what we need is the UN to say, 'enough' and send in some non-partisan troops. So, maybe Japan, South America and possibly eastern europeans. Everyone else is too involved. Either that or we should totally stop funding both sides, and let them fight it out. Then after Israel's gotten totally stomped, we can negotiate with the Arabs to create peace.

      --
      The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
  64. Mod this guy up!!! He's right! by Black-Six · · Score: 1

    This guy is right. The American populus in general needs to quit moaning about someone they elected and start to use their power in government to get what they want done, done. As far as countries go, the citizens of the U.S. have more power over their gov't than people in any other nation. All we need to do is quit with the "I'm to poor, weak, ect." bullshit excuses and go back to the "Well I don't have much but I'll try anyway" or the "Damn the torpedos, full steam ahead!" attitudes that founded and formed this nation and lead us through a civil war and 2 world wars successfully. Case and point, I'm currently building a PC. My friends have all told me that it can't be done because I don't have money. But I've researched, saved, and planned and now am ready to build. By taking the time and having faith I've readied myself for the task at hand. One could also say that the current state of affairs in the U.S. is due its secular movement and liberalism spreading and taking over and ruling out the good Christian values once held so dear in this nation.

  65. What the f**k have you been smoking? by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    So what you're saying is that hypothetically if I am going to bomb the s**t out of your house, by giving you an advance warning makes it okay? What the f**k have you been smoking?

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:What the f**k have you been smoking? by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1

      If he's willfully harboring criminals that regularly raid a neighbor's house, and has a weapons arsenal stashed in his basement, then YES. In fact, it would be okay even without the advance warning...All that does is give them a chance to get away.

    2. Re:What the f**k have you been smoking? by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

      You presume that the neighbors of Hezbollah has a say in what they have as neighbors. Do you honestly thinks that had they asked Hezbollah to leave the neighborhood, Hezbollah would comply? Would YOU ask a heavily armed neighbor with questionable sanity to move away?

      With Israel bombing convoys on roads, where do you propose these people to evacuate to?

      --
      ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  66. Re:Um, military sattelites by cunina · · Score: 1

    See, posts like this are why we need a "-1, Wrong" mod option.

  67. Then Again by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

    You don't suppose that dropping cluster bombs on civilians deprives them of their rightful access to information, do you?

    1. Re:Then Again by pallmall1 · · Score: 1

      You don't suppose that dropping cluster bombs on civilians deprives them of their rightful access to information, do you?

      Do you mean the hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians living in bomb shelters? I don't know if the shelters have internet access or not.

      I do know that hezbollah deprived the Lebanese civilians of their safety when hez started using them as cover for their terror attacks, hoping that more civilians would be killed than hez terrorists. The hez knew that there would be sanctimonious people that would cry "Israeli atrocity!"

      Nice try, though, on trying to sound really cool, enlightened, and noble. What you really mean is that as long as it's only a few Jews being killed and the rest penned up in underground chambers, it's an acceptable situation. Think about it.

      --
      3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
    2. Re:Then Again by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

      "hez"

      I love the American ability to denigrate others by butchering their names. Veetnaam. Eye-Rack....

      "Nice try, though, on trying to sound really cool, enlightened, and noble. What you really mean is that as long as it's only a few Jews being killed and the rest penned up in underground chambers, it's an acceptable situation. Think about it."

      I am a Jew. You can find my family tree here: www.lordbalto.com. Go accuse somebody else of being an anti-Semite. It won't fly with me, Sonny. The Israelis continue to go out of their way to inflame their Arab neighbors while making no serious attempt to actually find solutions. They continue to look down their noses at the Arabs, both Moslem and Christian and Druze, and have the bloody nerve to use the equation they learned from the Nazies of ten dead Lebanese civilians for every dead civilian Israeli. As for trying to sound cool, you obviously have me confused with somebody who gives a shit about your idiot opinion.

    3. Re:Then Again by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

      You may want to watch The War and Peace Report with Amy Goodman at DemocracyNow.org if you can drag yourself away from Faux News.

      You also may want to go to Google News and type in "Israeli cluster bombs" and see what you get. Were you born a compleat idiot or did someone drop you on your head when you were three?

    4. Re:Then Again by pallmall1 · · Score: 1

      I am a Jew. You can find my family tree here: www.lordbalto.com.

      That's great. Why don't you "fly" on over to Tehran, oh noble Lordy, and tell them that. Then see how far you get with the rest of your diatribe. Maybe you can discuss your enlightened ideas for the "final solution" to the "Israeli problem."

      As for my statement -- "What you really mean is that as long as it's only a few Jews being killed and the rest penned up in underground chambers, it's an acceptable situation." -- it's got nothing to do with being anti-semitic. Look at what Israel is faced with -- constant attacks from terrorists (do you like that better than "hez", oh noble one?) who use children as human shields and who are not constrained by any concern with who they kill; hundreds of thousands herded into underground bunkers because the terrorists are raining random missiles into homes, schools, hospitals, parks, hotels, restaurants, and other civilian areas. More missiles are striking Israel than the Germans launched against London in World War II; what are the lessons there? Would you accept this situation?

      So, the people who demand that Israel suffer this fate are saying that as long as it's only a few Jews being killed and the rest penned up in underground chambers, it's an acceptable situation.

      Oh yeah... it's also cool that you have a website dedicated to... yourself.

      --
      3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
    5. Re:Then Again by pallmall1 · · Score: 1

      You also may want to go to Google News and type in "Israeli cluster bombs" and see what you get.

      I did, and the only references were from Iran, The Peoples Republic of China, Lebanon, and some obscure websites. And those reports were brief to say the least. Here's a link to the People's Daily Online . If you go to the homepage, you can help celebrate the 85th birthday of the Communist Party of China.

      --
      3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
    6. Re:Then Again by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

      Fool.

    7. Re:Then Again by deceased+comrade · · Score: 1

      Don't take everything Amy Goodman says at face value either. As liberal as I am, she sometimes has bad or hypocritical ideas, but they may be her own method of forcing people to listen to both sides of the story.

  68. Nice blanket statement by Infonaut · · Score: 1

    NASA has never been anything but an R&D branch of the US Military.

    Facts?

    The NASA/DoD connection is obvious, but saying that it's sole role is R&D for the military is simplistic at best. Think about the commercial satellites launched into space by NASA; the massive amounts of pure science research on the Venus, Mars, and the moon; Skylab and the ISS; exploration of the outer solar system; the Hubble space telescope; the list goes on.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  69. Re:Doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Once you claim that killing innocent lives is morally right you have lost all moral authority.
    It may surprise you to learn that the Geneva Conventions allow for attacks on "innocent lives" (i.e. civilian non-combatants) in certain situations. (The Geneva Conventions are widely accepted as the basis for international law pertaining to war crimes, and makes an excellent benchmark for determining what is widely accepted as justified or not justified in war.) For instance, in Convention IV, hospitals are given explicit protection above and beyond that of the civilian populations:

    Art. 18. Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

    Seems pretty clear-cut, doesn't it? Keep reading.

    Art. 19. The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.

    Enemy hospitals are, by default, not targets. However, if an enemy hospital has a SAM site on the roof and machine gun nests on every balcony, it becomes a legitimate military target. Any innocent civilians inside are undoubtedly aware of the military nature of their otherwise civilian location, and just in case they aren't, they are warned explicitly by the opposing forces that they are now considered hostile. If they continue to defend their position, they are no longer innocent -- they have become enemy combatants, whether they pick up a gun or not.

    In this example, conducting air strikes on the hospital would be completely justified. That's why the Geneva Conventions explicitly make it legal to do so. If you don't want your civilians to get hurt, you keep them out of the fighting. You make it clear that your fight is between your army and their army. On the other hand, if you use civilians to hide your army, if you use civilians as human shields, if you use civilians to conduct suicide bombings, if you set up armories in hospitals and mosques, you leave the opposing force no choice but to kill civilians.
  70. Re:MLK wasn't Muslim by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Ditto to that dup.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  71. Shocking photos by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 1

    http://209.67.212.138/~lebanon/

    I don't have mod points for you, but I have Karma to burn.

    Bush refuses to call for an immediate ceasfire.

    1. Re:Shocking photos by JWallyR · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you have karma to burn, because you are swallowing the line that 3/4 of the rational posters have already shown to be false: that the killing of civilians is:
      A) Solely being continued by Israel, and not by Hezbollah
      B)The fault of Israeli forces, rather than the fault of Hezbollah, whose members choose to stage operations from populated civilian areas as a way to generate sympathy from ignorant people like yourself

      As many prior posters have quoted, the difference between Israeli citizens and Lebanese citizens is that "Israeli citizens are sleeping in bomb shelters; Lebanese citizens are sleeping with bombs."

      Yes, the pictures are gruesome. What makes you think that equivalent pictures of Hezbollah "victories" (children wrapped in bombs walking into Israeli markets, rather than fired missiles going at particular places, whose civilians were warned, and which had been used by Hezbollah operatives as staging grounds?

      Bomb-wrapped Lebanese children into Markets = Okay, but Israeli missiles into Hezbollah staging grounds = not okay?

      Get real.

  72. other defacements? by slack_prad · · Score: 1

    Other defacements by the same group

    --
    Sent from my desktop computer
  73. Re:Yes we do by symbolic · · Score: 1

    We don't need to see it -- just report the story.

    The term 'war' is so nebulous to most Americans. After all, everything is a war. The war on drugs, the war on porn, the war on terrorism....the term 'war' is being used as a catch-all term to describe anything that has required government intervention. When you get right down to it, few people know what is actually going on when it comes to the real thing. How many people, for example, have seen the horrific consequences from the use of white sulphur? This was commonly used against innocent civilians in Iraq. More recently, I saw a clip of a Lebanese mother sitting with her infant and nine-year-old son- the son had been horribly injured by an explosive device that was targeted at a nearby car. It was very difficult to watch, but that's what's happening.

  74. Re:Tsahal and its minions by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    I won't feed this little prick of a troll.

  75. Re:Doesn't make sense by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 3, Insightful
    All this anti-Israeli and 'anti-Zionism' talk around the world is just anti-semitism resurfacing and trying to pretend not to be. The Israelis are great people that are surrounded by millions of people who have surrendered their minds to a death cult. The Israelis do what they must. They don't get any pleasure from it. But they don't shrink from it, either.
    I'm greatly saddened to see your comment modded up to +5, Insightful, given it is a fairy tale trying to pose as reality.

    So, in your mind, anything critical of the policies of Israel is anti-semitism. Because that is what you have written. The Israeli people are no different from the palestine or lebanese people: Mother Theresa and that serial killer Manson belong to the same human race. There is of course ideology flung around, but labeling all arabs as being part of a death cult is "anti-arabicanism". If you think that anti-semitism is bad, then why do you exercise "anti-arabicanism"? The sole reason I put quote marks around that phrase, is because it is not even in common use to describe a behaviour that is exhibited in your own post.

    I don't think the Israelis are doing what they must. I think they keep voting in politicians that act as if they and only they could protect them from a not lifethreatening (on a national scale) enemy (doesn't that sound familiar?). What the Israelis need to do is vote for less comforting, less "black-and-white" world viewed politicians, who can do their best to solve the problems on the middle east. While it might not look so good, because there are many compromises to be reached, both the israelis and palestinian/lebanese people would end up safer. If history ended up teaching something, is that unilaterialism end up in empires, and that empires fall.
    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  76. MOD PARENT UP (but feel free to read it first) by magetoo · · Score: 1
    As a sidenote, make a regular habit of visiting the english version of Al-Jazeera. You may find that it is the wrong point of view - but when half the world follows the 'wrong' point of view it is no longer 'wrong' - it is 'relevant'.
    Indeed.

    You absolutely have to understand that not everybody have the same basic worldview as you do, and that other people are also simply trying to do what's right. And if you don't, you'll never really understand "why they hate us".

  77. Natural Selection by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

    Oh, natural selection still works. Unfortunately, the world is so interconnected now that these modern day knuckle draggers threaten to take the rest of us with them. Society really needs to develop a mechanism for weeding out those who would do it irreparable harm. In the interim, I would suggest a constitutional amendment preventing anyone who has spent more than six months in Texas during his entire life from running for national office.

    1. Re:Natural Selection by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      Huh...what should we call tbat mechanism? wait..I think I have one... Social darwinism. Oh wait - that doesn't work.

      please, people, tone down your rhetoric a little bit. I'm on your side, but thanks to this kind of discourse we're starting to look really crazy now. i know it's because we're frustrated, but is "He should really die" and "We should let everyone whom we think stupid or disagrees with us die" (I assume this is what you mean by "weeding" out) going to help us change things? It's just going to provide fodder for the radical right to throw at us, sucking the life and meaning out of any debate with them(as if there was any to begin with.) I don't think you would being saying these things if the people in power were people you agree with.

    2. Re:Natural Selection by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

      "I don't think you would being saying these things if the people in power were people you agree with."

      Now that's a wingding of a statement!

      If the people I agree with were in power they wouldn't be draining the national treasury, making my country the laughing stock of the world, murdering people by the thousands as well as supporting those who would do the same, destroying the very fabric of the U.S. government, loosing the religious fundamentalist fanatical nut jobs on the rest of us, destroying the constitution and throwing our rights to winds--do I need to go on? You are seriously worried about what the rightwing nutjobs are going to think about us? Screw the bastards. When I say these folks need to be prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned, I'm not being hyperbolic. How many elections do these idiots have to steal before you characters grow some testicles?

    3. Re:Natural Selection by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was worried you might misunderstand me. I'm worried about what the people we need to persuade to land-slide an election in our direction will think of us if they associate us with that kind of utterance. No matter how reasonable your position is, we need to show that we're more rational than the people we're moving against, and openly discussing social darwinist positions, ones that involve "weeding out" the crazies is not going to accomplish that. The crazies are irrelevant as long as they're not in power. Unfortunately, they are in power, and we actually have to debate them in the public forum. Don't give them any more ammunition than they already have. The point is you wouldn't be this frustrated if people you agreed with were in power - and frustration is not really an appealing thing to watch from the outside, especially if people don't understand where you're coming from.

      The people who are relevant are those whose consent we need to govern. "We" in this case means moderates or liberals.

      Anyway, feel free to shoot your mouth off anytime you please, as you probably aren't running for office. I'm just saying, providing a stimulus and excuse for knee-jerk, red-faced rage among us moderates or liberals is not going to help any of us get elected.

    4. Re:Natural Selection by edumacator · · Score: 1

      Wow. Good post monoqlith.

      Exactly my sentiments. I'm actually a little to the right of you, but I'm impressed with your comment. <soapbox>The trouble is we have lost the ability to disagree without assuming the ones on the other side are complete morons. The ones at the ends of the spectrum tend to be a little, well, overzealous, but I know smart, honest, and moral people on both sides of the politcal debate and have had fascinating discussions that have broadened my perspective both ways.</soapbox>

      We need that kind of discussion on a national level. I think many moderates are so afraid of being labeled by both extremes they keep their mouths shut, when their voices are needed to find a middle way.

    5. Re:Natural Selection by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      I wish it were like your soapbox speech says. But the Bush administration's policies are neither right nor left, they're just wrong. I have trouble discussing them without wanting to find a small furry animal to kick in the ribs. Examples:

      I can disagree rationally with people who want taxing and spending, and I agree with people who want less taxing and less spending. But people who support an indefinitely increasing national debt because the rich aren't paying taxes anymore? How can I rationally discuss with people who honestly think that's the best fiscal policy?

      I can disagree rationally with people who want prayers read in public school. I agree with people who want no religion in public schools. But people who want to force everyone to sit and listen to their creationist horseshit? How can I rationally discuss with people who honestly think that's the best way to educate our children?

      I can disagree rationally with people who want a (moderately) interventionist foreign policy, and I agree with people who want an isolationist foreign policy. But people who lie (and the people who chose to ignore those numerous lies) to go to war with Iraq just to get Republicans reelected? How can I rationally discuss with people like that?

      --
      ResidntGeek
    6. Re:Natural Selection by edumacator · · Score: 1

      Now, now...No kicking of furry animals.

      Check back over my post. I never, ever, ever, mention the Bush administration. I'm talking about people closer to the middle. The syndrome I was referring to is the knee-jerk reaction many people are developing which lumps anyone to the right or left of them politically into the "Must be an idiot" column.

      I understand the frustration. I'm a public high school teacher. You want to talk about a group of people with preconceived notions...high schoolers fit the bill. But I don't stop discussing issues with them because they have irrational, poorly thought out ideas. I listen to them, suggest alternatives, and try to convince them that there is at least another side, and maybe they should think about it. You'd be surprised how often that works with anyone, student or not.

      We are reaching a level of polarization that is difficult to overcome. In fact, I would suggest you were a little reactive to my post and assumed the people I said you should deal with are the extreme right. I would submit that most people who supported going to war, are frustrated with the Bush administration for lying, (or maybe they see it as an honest mistake.) and shake their heads at it. But, to assume anyone who believe it was an honest mistake is ignoring blithely ignoring lies is unfair. The truth is muddled in the media, and most people are trusting and want to believe in their government. It's not good, and our forefathers would be spinning in their graves to see it, but writing them off is also contrary to the idea of democracy. We need to show them evidence, not rant at them for not believing us.

      I think we need to make a concerted effort to reach out to those nearer the middle. The idealogues at each extreme are unlikely to ever agree, but they are the minority. Most people are willing to discuss things calmly, like we are doing.

    7. Re:Natural Selection by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      Well, perhaps I am a bit pessimistic. I went to a high school with 7 intelligent people in my class. I spent most of my junior year calmly discussing politics with people all over the spectrum, as well as many uninitiated, and very few of them understood the issues. Even when they tried, they just couldn't. I really hope my class isn't a representative sample of the US population.

      By the way, props on being a high school teacher. I wish I'd had teachers like you. I though about being a teacher, but I don't think I could handle the education system.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    8. Re:Natural Selection by edumacator · · Score: 1

      and very few of them understood the issues

      Remember, they went home and said, "Dad, Mom, What should I believe?" And then believed arbitrarily whatever the parent said. So hopefully, some of them might be able to think for themselves now. Well, maybe I'm being too optimistic.

      I wish I'd had teachers like you. I though about being a teacher, but I don't think I could handle the education system.

      That's the best kind of compliment. Thanks. The education system is, IMHO, ruined. But if you and people you loved were on a boat that was leaking faster than you could bail, would you jump off, or do everything you could to give them the least bit of a chance?

  78. Re:Doesn't make sense by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

    It's Israel's attempt to allow the civilians to leave before the start of bombing. Obviously, it's a risky thing to do for the reason you state: it gives advance warning to the terrorists also. However, the alternative, to just bomb civilian-occupied areas without warning, is rejected by Israel.

    In part, this is justifiable by Israel's limited goals in Lebanon. If the terrorists leave the south, and move to a distance beyond which they can no longer land their rocket bombs into Israel's cities, it would meet the primary goal of the incursion.

    However, Hezbollah thrives on civilian casualties and deaths. The term for this is "radicalization". Simply stated, Hezbollah is betting that if "the world" sees that civilians are suffering at the hands of Israel, then "the world" will become angry at Israel, and not at Hezbollah, despite the fact that Hezbollah has located their arsenals and fighters smack in the middle (and underneath, in bunkers) of the civilian population of Lebanon. Hezbollah fires their rockets from the civilian areas. Ambulances have been used in the past to secretly transport their munitions.

    As expected, this strategy is working for much of "the world", which is calling for Israel to stop their "aggression", rather than calling for the immediate disarming, arrest, and trial of the Hezbollah terrorist groups.

    Hezbollah targets Israel's citizens; it promises to destroy Haifa and Tel Aviv. Remember that there are numerous civilians, including women, children, and elderly living in Haifa and Tel Aviv. Those are Hezbollah's stated targets.

  79. Re:Oh, those wacky Arabs! by shenanigans · · Score: 1

    Actually, I would say the ones actually firing the bombs on civilians (and on the rec cross, and on UN positions, and on evacuation cars that are evacuating on Israeli orders, but I digress) are the ones most responsible for the civilian deaths. And even more so, given that Israel had no legitimate reason to attack Lebanon AT ALL.

  80. Re:Doesn't make sense by mpcooke3 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The difference between the Israelis killing Arabs and Arabs killing Israelis is that the Arabs wrap their children in high explosives and send them off to blow themselves up in crowded public areas without warning and without mercy.

    A large number of those Arabs have been involved in a long running war with Israel whom they consider to have stolen their land and destroyed their livelihoods. They are fighting an enemy massively better funded and armed (by the United States) who employ tactics deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice and condemned by the Secretary General of the United Nations.

    As a British person I accept that Israel exists and we must practically do everything we can to stop the violence. However, I also accept that Brtiain broke a lot of promises to Arabs in the Balfour Declaration and today the US and the UK continue to supply weapons to Israel that kill innocent women, children and now UN workers, despite the fact that Israel is in breach of international law.

    Looking at the history of it and the current situation, I would have to say "we" (US/UK in particular) are responsible for a lot of deaths on both sides.

  81. On the other hand by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

    "Wrong. Defaceing (sic) something is a violation of the law. I don't need to see what some moron did to know it's wrong, and I certainly don't want the guy pasting it in his scrapbook and being emboldened because he got some cheap and free publicity for his illegal act. Same way I wish the news media in Los Angeles would stop following car chases -- it takes something dangerous and gives it creedence (sic). There's no need for it."

    Oh, well, if it's illegal. Gee, I guess that means that the administration will have to stop spying on Americans and Israel will have to stop colonizing land conquered in war. And maybe, while we're all so hopped up on obeying the law, we can all start observing the speed limit.

    Perspective, son. Perspective.

    1. Re:On the other hand by Billosaur · · Score: 1
      Oh, well, if it's illegal. Gee, I guess that means that the administration will have to stop spying on Americans and Israel will have to stop colonizing land conquered in war. And maybe, while we're all so hopped up on obeying the law, we can all start observing the speed limit.

      Well, either we're going to start coming to terms with laws being broken, or we're going to sit back and say "Gee, that's a shame." Where do you think the war in Iraq came from? It came from the fact that we in America have become lackadaisical about law and its enforcement. If the American people are really and truly outraged about what's happening in Iraq, then how come we're not seeing the level of protest we saw in Vietnam? How come there are not daily demonstrations in front of the White house by hundreds of thousands? How come the people have not held the President accoutnable for the mistakes he has made?

      This whole thing is symptomatic of a greater evil in this country -- complacency. We elect people and don't follow their actions to make sure they're doing we want. We don't hold them to account when they do things we know are wrong. We do not vote them out of office even when they are doing a horrible job. And then this complacency spreads to other things, and pretty soon we hear "It's all right, they did it for a good cause."

      Maybe we should all start obeying the speed limit. Each individual has the capacity to obey or flaut the law. It shouldn't require enforcement, but it does, because our society is increasingly filled with people in positions of power in business and government who do not feel the law applies to them, and that is because we have stopped making people accountable for their own actions.

      That's what I want: accountability.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
  82. Same... by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    The same grief, the same youth, the same mourning, the same casualties, the same destruction, the same fear. When will it stop?

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  83. Re:Oh, those wacky Arabs! by Aaron+England · · Score: 2, Informative
    Let's not play your game. Your commentary is so one-sided, lacking both accuracy and context, that it's laughable.

    Question: Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons? Answer: Israel. (Ignore this, lameness filter bypass)

    Yeah, except for that one nation called Pakistan. Oh and Iran in 10 years if we let them.

    Q: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections?

    Except for that country called Iran. Yeah, they signed it, but they certainly haven't lived up to the treaty. Not to mention that Syria has not signed the CWC or BTWC.

    You know I was intending of going line by line on your commentary, but it's obvious from your first two "points" that you did not intend to add a well-researched comment to this discussion and I know better ways of spending a Sunday afternoon than exposing trolls.

  84. Re:Doesn't make sense by Stalyn · · Score: 1

    The Geneva Conventions cover the so called "rules of war". It is not the end-all of ethical discussion. What about civilians who are unable to recognize the warnings and understand the military uses of the hospital? Such as the elderly, mentally handicapped, children, and those in a vegetative state? Sure attacking such a hospital may seem "justified in war" but it doesn't seem right nor does the use of such civilians to shield military operations.

    War is hell because we lax our morals in order to achieve a goal that in the end will hopefully improve the overall situation (cause more good then harm). Yet it rarely does and we should reserve conflict only when it is necessary. Even when it is in self-defense it should only be against the inital aggressors. There is a paradox is claiming the justification in killing innocent cilivans in order to protect the innocent.

    --
    The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
  85. Re:Oh, those wacky Arabs! by kz45 · · Score: 1

    And even more so, given that Israel had no legitimate reason to attack Lebanon AT ALL.

    uh-huh. How about lobbing bombs into their towns un-announced. Syria, Iran, and Lebanon are all at fault here.

  86. a side effect of the new war by Punto · · Score: 2

    Why do we assume that an attack on a US 'target' (NASA) is protesting a war between israel and lebanon?
    Last time I checked, iraq was still at war..

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

  87. Re:Oh, those wacky Arabs! by infaustus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wouldn't consider South Asia the Middle East. And our very different treatment of Iran and Israel's nuclear weapons programs just prove the GPs point.

    --
    Frosty piss posts are worthless, GNAA posts are worthless and hurtful, but they are the least of this site's neuroses.
  88. Yup, one million marched by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1
    And how many million elected blair again? Well at least your claim for massive support against the war(s) is indeed based on a large number. Not like here in holland were a similar march barely had a few hundred protestors. On several occasions. Mostly muslims.

    The goverment makes the laws you say. This is true but the public gets to elect them. Last time I checked your country had three major parties with at least some political differences. The conservatives (disgcraced but basically sorta of left to the americans), labour (used to be socialist but it is hard to tell these days) and the libdems (the eternal losers). There are smaller parties but not as many and certianly not as powerfull as in mainland europe.

    Coalition goverment (were more then one party form the goverment) is unknown in england, winner takes all.

    Correct so far?

    While the conservatives are not much of a choice if you are anti-iraq/afghanistan (anti the war that is not the countries) the libdems I thought were. So why did they loose? Why did blair win? Although labour suffered losses this cannot be explained by the war. The conservatives were the ones who got more votes, not the anti-war parties.

    So at least when it came to choosing their next leader your vast majority does not seem to be all that vast.

    The simple fact is that it was not one million, a google return a BBC report claiming a figure somewhere between 700.00 and 2 million. In London.

    London has about 7% muslims on a total population somewhere between 6 and 12 million depending on how you select the area. To keep the math simple lets make it ten million. 7% muslims that makes, oh say 700.000 muslims. What do you know, the exact number the police say walked in that march.

    But not all the marches are muslims. Indeed, so not even all muslims give a shit about this war. After all for a londoner all it would take to march is to take a day off from school or work. Not exactly an a huge sacrifice.

    The problem with such big protests is always that if you really start to count the numbers it just ain't that big a percentage. 7% of the london populatin, a fraction of the total english population.

    The reason they are ignoring you is simple. You are just one tiny voice. As hard as it may be to accept the majority of britsh, indeed the world are not against the war in Iraq/Afghanistan. No you won't hear about them in the news because they are the SILENT majority who either just don't give a shit or are in support.

    It is what democracy such a bitch for activists. To get public opinion to swing your way you have to overcome a gigantic mass of people who have completly different concerns. Even getting a million people to march is insignificant. Even if you got 10 million to march you would still only have a small portion of the people who can vote. And just because they take part in a march does not mean they will vote the way you want them too.

    Democracy is the dictatorship of the masses. If england was a dictatorship of a minority were say the lords wanted to start this war you have would at least have a chance but what are you going to do against the masses telling you that they are not opposed to this war?

    Well your answer is clear, deny this is the case.Hang on to your tiny march and ignore the evidence of the election. The goverment is not doing what you want so they must not be listening to the people. They did, at the last election, the people spoke. War is on.

    Welcome to the adult world.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Yup, one million marched by Cederic · · Score: 1


      >> ignore the evidence of the election

      The evidence of the election is that two-thirds of the voting public do not want Labour running this country.

      So 1 million people march - that's well over 1% of the population, if you don't think that's significant then you've never tried mobilising a public campaign - and two thirds of the voting public vote Blair out of power. And yet he's still there, and the Government is still trying to increase police powers, reduce civil liberties and swing the balance of power between the state and the populace.

      Just what would you have us all do? Lie down and take it?

      NO.

    2. Re:Yup, one million marched by vandan · · Score: 1
      As hard as it may be to accept the majority of britsh, indeed the world are not against the war in Iraq/Afghanistan. No you won't hear about them in the news because they are the SILENT majority who either just don't give a shit or are in support.

      That's not the case at all. In every single country in the world, the majority of people now agree that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were wrong, and sold to us by lies and deception. In addition, a majority of people in a majority of countries want to see an immediate end to the occupations of these 2 countries ( amongst others ). Sure, the US, UK and Australia lag behind on this count - instead of a clear majority, we are in a large minority.

      The problem for those in the coalition of the killing is that we don't live in a democracy, so what the majority of people want dosn't matter. Quite literally, our views on these issues were not counted. There are opinion polls, sure ... and they all confirm what I've just said. But in a democracy, there are valid method for taking such opinion polls and achieving a materialisation of people's wishes. However our ruling class has no interest in such bullshit, and are far more interested in waging illegal wars and shoving lies, racism, intollerence and extreme right-wing propoganda down our throats via the media moguls.

      With this in mind, it's no surprise to me that people are confused over the facts regarding so-called 'popular' support of the occupations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, etc, etc.
    3. Re:Yup, one million marched by Instine · · Score: 1

      What ARE you on about. Were you there? Have you seen large crowds before? It had little to do with Muslims as you keep suggesting. Yes there were some Muslims there, and Christians, and Jews and Hindus, and atheists. Infact I personally know someone from each of those denominations that was there. I've seen a crowd of 250,000 at Glastonbury. It was huge. The crowd in London was harder to juge as it was spread over many large roads, but it was many times the size of the Glasto crowd. And the majority were not Muslim. Wheather that has ANYTHING to do with this... And yes a Million is a huge number to turn out in protest! NOTHING has every brought such a crowd to british streets apart from the end of the second world war! Seriously, your way off there.

      --
      Because you can - or because you should?
  89. Re:Oh, those wacky Arabs! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    Yeah, except for that one nation called Pakistan. Oh and Iran in 10 years if we let them.

    Pakistan isn't in the middle east. Pakistan is in asia.

    Except for that country called Iran. Yeah, they signed it, but they certainly haven't lived up to the treaty.

    Iran is developing a nuclear power program. Can you produce any evidence that they are doing anything else?

    You know I was intending of going line by line on your commentary, but it's obvious from your first two "points" that you did not intend to add a well-researched comment to this discussion and I know better ways of spending a Sunday afternoon than exposing trolls.

    With the exception of the last item, those are taken verbatim from an Orlando Sentinal article.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  90. Both sides... by penix1 · · Score: 1

    Both sides have radicals that have no use for peace in the region. It is a self fueling situation when attacks are involved. The situation won't get better until the violence ceases and both sides learn to control their radicals. The violence won't cease as long as other nations (the US included) keep choosing sides and fanning the flames of war. This war by proxy (Iran & Syria vs the USA) is a direct result of US cowboy policy this administration enjoys. Unless the UN got some balls about it and condemns the fighting AND ALL THOSE WHO SUPPORT IT, it won't stop.

    B.

    --
    This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
  91. Lessons from Northern Irish IRA by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "As many prior posters have quoted, the difference between Israeli citizens and Lebanese citizens is that "Israeli citizens are sleeping in bomb shelters; Lebanese citizens are sleeping with bombs."

    Nice soundbite, it makes it sound like the children are complicit in missle launches, but of course they were just innocent victims. Did they choose or even know who was next door? You are using the vague phrase 'Lebanese citizens' to try to blanket transfer blame from SOME terrorists to A WHOLE COUNTRIES POPULATION.

    This strategy can never work. Consider the case of the IRA in Northern Ireland. We faced their bombs regularly in Britain, yet we never did anything so foolish as to bomb huge sections of ireland in the hope of flushing them out. It would be counter productive, it would simply create more terrorism.
    In the same way this strategy can't possibly ever fix the problem Israel has with its northern border. It will simply increase the terrorism, and decrease their security.

    1. Re:Lessons from Northern Irish IRA by Kuroji · · Score: 1

      You didn't have bordering countries full of more than a half billion Irish sympathyzers giving them bombs and rockets to launch at London either.

  92. Re:Doesn't make sense by magetoo · · Score: 1

    Your comment is now on page five of this whole mess of a discussion (for me at least), but I hope at least some people get this far and can read it. Thank you.

  93. Re:What's so hard to understand? by thelizman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    MacOS = BSD based = 'nix.

    It's unfortunate that the world is full of so many morons who (a) cannot tell propaganda from bullshit, and (b) can't creatively channel their frustrations. Hacking a NASA website won't stop a single Israel bomb or Hezbollah rocket from falling on civilians.

  94. Re:Doesn't make sense by capologist · · Score: 1

    So if the 9/11 hijackers had warned us they were going to destroy the WTC, it would have been OK?

    If the WTC had been a legitimate military target, yes.

  95. Re:Morons by ems2 · · Score: 1

    The White House has said Israel should stop only once Hezbollah stops firing rockets into Israel.

  96. Re:Doesn't make sense by ems2 · · Score: 1

    There is a HUGE difference. America wasn't firing at the hijackers before-hand. The attack of 9/11 was totally uncalled for. While Hezbollah have been asking for war since their first attack against Israel.

  97. NASA? by ultramrw21 · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one that finds it stupid that these "cyber terrorists" attacked sites associated with NASA? Sure, it's a .gov, but why not hit a site that will get more notice or is at least somewhat related to what is happening in the middle-east. Not like something like this matters, america backs isreal no matter what they do, some momentary annoyance isnt gonna stop that.

    1. Re:NASA? by DarkProphet · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one that finds it stupid that these "cyber terrorists" attacked sites associated with NASA? At first glance I have to agree! But, well, it was enough to get it displayed to the 1 million+ slashbot army!

      I wouldn't be THAT surprised to see this story on CNN.com or MSNBC.com to tell the truth.

      Now, when it makes ABC World News Tonight or hell, even FOX News, I'll be impressed.

      --
      What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
  98. Unbelievable. by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 1

    Flamebait? Honestly? Sounds like it's time for the mods to pull their collective heads out of their collective asses, or at least out of the sand. Isreal is the kid who talks funny in a schoolyard full of bullies. Anyone who has ever witnessed this knows that there are only two outcomes: Either the kid resigns himself to victimhood or he learns to speak the bullies' language, and by language I mean violence in quantity when the line is crossed.

    Israel is a Jewish nation surrounded by arabs, many of whom seek actively to destroy Israel by any means. The arabs' current and favorite method is to pick fights until Israel responds and then cry to the "international community". Considering the common thread of anti-semitism that runs through much of the world's governmental bodies, this is a can't-lose strategy.

    Just because you disagree with something or you have some political/religious/whatever axe to grind does not mean you can mod something Flamebait, Overrated, or whatever. If you want to bitch-slap someone for their beliefs, do it in your own damn blog and leave the real discussion to the adults.

    --
    Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
  99. OT, I'll take the karma hit... by DarkProphet · · Score: 1

    Okay, look gfxguy. In your previous few posts you talk about RIGHTS. First, Chilean people that are not naturalized U.S. Citizens have virtually no rights in the U.S. outside international law and treaties, certainly not in the context of the First Amendment of the Constitution. So talking about legal rights in the context of this very specific occurance is just dumb and borderline trolling. Second, the posters that you are arguing against are mostly referring to MORAL rights, which is a very different thing than LEGAL rights. There is a lot more gray area there, if you haven't noticed from the replies you have received thus far. Hypothetically speaking, if Congress outlawed the 1st Amendment, would you then call someone a jerk for breaking the law and asserting their inalienable right to free speech?

    ...but I'll fight against anybody who defaces somebody elses property (thus taking away their free speech)

    Obviously there was a security hole. The owners of the site are now aware of it. They will be better off for having it exposed, assuming there is no data loss.

    ...and I'll fight against anybody who thinks they have a RIGHT to a forum for their speech.

    Like yourself, for instance? Perhaps you should excercise better judgement in picking your battles. I guess I've been had by a troll, so I should take my own advice. But lastly, FWIW, I agree with you in principle but the way of the world is not so black and white. You've had ample opportunity to chime in on this subject, so do me a favor and STFU.

    --
    What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
    1. Re:OT, I'll take the karma hit... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I WAS talking about moral rights. I believe everybody should have the right to free speech, but never at the expense of someone else, and that no one is guaranteed a forum or to have anyone pay attention to them.

      So these people are being repressed by their own government, and think the most helpful thing they can do is deface the websites run by someone elses government... this is clear cut, morally wrong action taken by somebody who thinks they are, and what they say is, more important than anyone else.

      Obviously there was a security hole. The owners of the site are now aware of it. They will be better off for having it exposed, assuming there is no data loss.

      You're actually justifying hacking. Haven't we discussed this a million times on Slashdot? If I notice your car is unlocked, I'll be sure to steal your stereo so that you realize you have a security problem.

      [I wrote] "I'll fight against anybody who defaces somebody elses property (thus taking away their free speech)"

      Like yourself, for instance?

      You're a moron, but I'll admit I'm an asshole when you show me whose property I defaced or whose free speech I took away.

      Perhaps you should excercise better judgement in picking your battles. I guess I've been had by a troll, so I should take my own advice.

      Given the context, this makes no sense, but I guess when somebody agressively argues against your ridiculous assertations, it's just too easy to call them a troll.

      But lastly, FWIW, I agree with you in principle but the way of the world is not so black and white.

      No, I don't think you do. You think me coming here and writing how I feel, in response to someone else writing how they feel, that somehow I expect I have a right to do it... I've been censored by slashdot before, and I was really pissed off because I was not the one name calling (that time), or making any sort of personal attacks, but it's their site. Contrary to what we think about it, it's not a "public" forum, it's privately owned and operated and they can do whatever they want. It's just good business not to.

      Now this is extremely black and white: these "hactivists" could have just as easily made their own website or, failing that, posted on blogger.com or some other website. There's plenty of resources available - and don't give me baloney about the government restricting what they can do, if they can hack NASAs website, they can figure out a way to post on slashdot or elsewhere. Let's cut to the chase: the reason they did it because no one would pay attention to them otherwise. Nobody has the moral right to be heard, only the moral right to speak freely.

      You've had ample opportunity to chime in on this subject, so do me a favor and STFU.

      And I'm the troll... well, can't argue with that logic.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  100. Well... by Admiral-Bell · · Score: 1

    I am sure that the NASA websites are well traveled and poorly defended government website. What website would you have them hack instead?

    --
    The sun never sets on Admiral-Bell's empire.
  101. Re:Oh, those wacky Arabs! by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

    "And even more so, given that Israel had no legitimate reason to attack Lebanon AT ALL."

    Well, Lebanon is a part of Eretz Yisrael Haslemah, as promised to Abraham by God. God promised the Nation of Israel all the lands of the Canaanites as described in Genesis 15:18-21.

    This would mean that many people from Israel would consider it their right to do what they want with those lands; they would consider people not of the Nation of Israel to be trespassers on those lands. This is an unalienable right they would say, as it is described in Abraham Stern's 18 Principles of Rebirth, which is also describes Israel's right to use any force necessary to secure all the lands promised to them by God.

    So it's not exactly right to say they have no right to bomb them: because apparently God gives them that right.

  102. some how oddly appropriate... by wjeff · · Score: 2

    That stupid lazy "hacktivist" attack NASA websites, to protest the atrocities in Lebanon, because they are easier targets than say for example cia.gov, while Israel pummels Lebanon, because they are easier to make war with than the real villians behind Hizbollah, i.e. Syria and Iran.

    --
    my old sig is obsolete, and I haven't come up with a stupid enough new one yet
  103. Disarm Hizbollah? That worked so well in Iraq by theolein · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First off, I want to add my voice to those that say: Fuck Israel and Fuck Hizbollah. Fuck Hizbollah for dragging Lebanese civillians into a war where they are utterly defenseless. Fuck Israel for so utterly disregarding civillian lives (accidents my fucking arse).

    Fuck Israel for being so fucking dumb as to not have learnt its lesson from the last time they invaded Lebanon. Hizbollah won then and Hizbollah is no weaker now. Fuck Israel for being so stupid as to always make disgustingly bad excuses for the wholesale slaughter of civillians. Fuck Israel again for being so numbingly stupid as to not realise that every bomb that falls on Lebanon makes Hizbollah more popular in the Arab world. And again, fuck Israel for achieving what no Iranian Mullah or politician could: unifying the Shia and Sunni sects against Israel and the west.

    You think Israel can disarm Hizbollah? You must have also thought that the US could pacify Iraq. Look how well that turned out and how "disarmed" they are.

    And Fuck Bush and his cabal of poodles in the UK who are too stupid to see where this is going: Destroying whatever miniscule amount of credibility the US and the UK had in the Arab world and dragging us one step closer to World war 3.

    And you know who must be laughing so hard at all of this that they must be pissing themselves: The Russians and the Chinese.

    1. Re:Disarm Hizbollah? That worked so well in Iraq by wjeff · · Score: 1

      I used to joke that we should just nuke the capitols of every country in the region, including Israel.

      These days I am not joking...

      --
      my old sig is obsolete, and I haven't come up with a stupid enough new one yet
  104. Re:Yes we do by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

    Modern warfare is nothing compared to what both soldiers and civilians went through in previous wars.

    It's amazing to me that people in America get upset when 3,000 soldiers are killed. There were INDIVIDUAL BATTLES in World Wars I and II where 50,000+ soldiers were killed. While this war is horrific, it's nothing compared to real full-scale combat. Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe it shows that technology is making war less bloody. Of course, that doesn't help the thousands of people who still die in Iraq.

    --
    -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
  105. Re:Um, military sattelites by Fordiman · · Score: 1

    Still, I don't get it.

    Hacking a site dedicated to exploration of space in order to protest a war they have no interest in or concerns over (when was the last time you saw NASA troops deployed anywhere?)

    I suppose it was an easy target. That doesn't make it right, clever, effective, or help anyone become sympathetic. It, instead, gives the impression of a bunch of chilean script kiddies who found an exploit and were using it just as the news releases about lebanon came out.

    --
    110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  106. Re:Oh, those wacky Arabs! by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

    You're right, sort of. Hizbollah and Hamas just launch 20 or 30 rockets into Israel on any given day from Lebanon and "Palestine". Funded and supplied by Syria and Iran. Usually fired while surrounded by children in the middle of villages and civilian populations.

    The amount these terrorists surround themselves with children is amazing. The pictures are hard to find, since they're mostly taken by terrorist friendly AP stringers, but they're out there.

    Here are a couple examples.

  107. Rover Over by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    And the hacked rover wrote "I dig Osama" in the Martian sand.

  108. Re:Selective? by amliebsch · · Score: 1

    Because, for all the warm fuzzies, talk is cheap. Actions talk and bullshit walks.

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  109. Re:Um, military sattelites by deceased+comrade · · Score: 1

    Not to mention that at least the NASA employees at Goddard Space Flight Center seem to lean toward the hippie side of things. Honestly I've yet to meet a military type that works at NASA GSFC. Plus, NASA has less control over the administration's policies than most large corporations, why not attack them? I'm sure large corporations also have as easy of targets as NASA.

  110. Re:Doesn't make sense by corbettw · · Score: 1

    It's not a question of whether it would have been "all right". Israel is doing what they can to minimize civilian deaths. Islamist terrorists (like the 9/11 hijackers and Hezbollah) do what they can to maximize civilian deaths. If you can't see the moral difference between those two, you're a completely lost cause.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  111. Re:Um, military sattelites by jackbird · · Score: 2, Informative

    There have certainly been spy sattelites launched from the shuttle, a quick google will reveal stories about those missions that appeared in major newspapers.

  112. Re:You're taking the word of an *IDF* General?!? by Spazntwich · · Score: 1

    I heartily suggest a better education in the fundamentals in logic for you, first.

  113. Re:Think of the Children! by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

    I don't what exactly got "hacked" but odds are it was simply an .htaccess file that didn't have its permissions set correctly. That can happen to any Apache server running on anything, so to point the finger at OS X in this case is just trolling.

  114. Re:Doesn't make sense by OS24Ever · · Score: 1
    Israel is off their collective rockers, and the world is standing by and letting them get away with it. It's insane.


    Me thinks you're either forgetting the rest of the situation or don't care to know.

    This started with kidnapping and ransoming of Israeli soldiers.

    Then, it continues with rockets raining down into Israeli territory.

    Should they just say 'my bad' and let it continue? Do you think if they stop now the other guy is going to go 'cool, we can stop'

    Do you think the solider that was working a checkpoint into his country that was kidnapped will live? He wasn't shooting at anyone, they attacked and kidnapped him.
    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

  115. What kind of picture was it? by iogan · · Score: 1

    Something like this?

    Anything less graphic is Israeli propaganda. This is what their so called self-defence looks like.

  116. Re:Doesn't make sense by cduffy · · Score: 1
    Me thinks you're either forgetting the rest of the situation or don't care to know.

    This started with kidnapping and ransoming of Israeli soldiers.

    Then, it continues with rockets raining down into Israeli territory.
    Of fucking course I know that -- and I acknowledged Israel's need to do something about the rockets in my post. (As for the kidnapped soldiers -- they're two men among thousands. How many people need to die, on both sides, on their behalves? I just don't see it).

    That doesn't justify their actions -- the deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure, the carelessness with regard to civilian casualties. Would carefully targeted strikes on Hezbollah targets be appropriate? Of course! But they're going far beyond that point, and attacking targets which harm not Hezbollah but Lebanon's legitimate government -- which is weak enough as it is.

    If you missed this aspect, I need to ask where you get your info -- Faux News?
  117. Re:Um, military sattelites by Phraghg · · Score: 1

    Not entirely true. The space shuttle was in part built so that the military could deploy larger sattelites + repair existing ones. NASA just got a good chunk of change in the process.

  118. Really do something. by brianthesmurf · · Score: 1

    While I have a certain sympathy for the hackers if you really want to help in Lebanon donate money to the Lebanese Red Cross/Red Crescent.
    Bank details can be found via the list of national sites http://www.ifrc.org/address/rclinks.asp - Lebanese Red Cross Want To Help
    AUDI BANK
    BAB IDRISS
    Account Nb: 841500
    SWIFT: AUDBLBBX

    I've provided the complete HTML trail so people can check that this is not fraudulent.
    Regards Brian

  119. I thought it went more like... by Psycosys · · Score: 1

    Fear leads to Anger, Anger leads to Hate, Hate leads to Suffering...

    Ahhh, Yoda.

    1. Re:I thought it went more like... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      It's a cycle. Yoda and I are just highlighting those shiny points that are more easily seen by our respective novices.

      Higher resolution:

      Ignorance -> Fear -> Hate -> Anger -> Violence -> Suffering -> Alienation -> Ignorance

      What would really help would be spelling out the mechanisms of all those "->" marks.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  120. Re:Doesn't make sense by RagingFuryBlack · · Score: 1

    Think back to WWII. During that war we dropped two atom bombs on hundreds of thousands of innocent japaneese civillians. Before we dropped the bomb, we droped millions of leaflets to warn civillians to leave the area. Does this mean the US was wrong for ending the second world war too? If a country is making a good-faithed effort to warn civillians to get out of an area that is about to be attacked, it should be looked upon as humanatarian, as they could simply just start bombing the piss out of the same building with civillians in it, and would be just as justified in doing so.

    --
    Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
  121. Re:Doesn't make sense by OS24Ever · · Score: 1
    they're two men among thousands. How many people need to die, on both sides, on their behalves? I just don't see it).


    However if you let two die, they can and do take more.

    the deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure, the carelessness with regard to civilian casualties. Would carefully targeted strikes on Hezbollah targets be appropriate? Of course


    How do you know they aren't one and the same? There have been photos and videos of where Hezbolla fighters are wearing civillian clothing firing from civillian buildings.

    There are reports that the 'poor civilians' are being held in the buildings against their will with the express intent of them dying in retalliation and then exploiting it to dupe people just like you to believe that Israel doesn't know how to figure out where a rocket came from. Hell I played Scorched Earth 20 years ago and I can figure out where a rocket or shell came from. Counterbattery launch systems can figure it out while the projectile is still in the air, and over 100 different ones.

    This is a complete and culturally different portion of the world. How you are viewed by the other guy is the most important thing ever. If you're viewed as week, they just want to kick you ass more. If you rain holy hell down on them in response to a single kidnapping they'll think twice next time.

    Plus, Hezbollah was supposed to have been completely disarmed by the wonderful UN in 2000 as a condition of Israel withdrawing from Lebanon. We see how well that worked.

    I'm not a warmonger. I lay awake until the wee hours of the morning thinking of all the people that are dying over one of the dumbest things on earth - organized religion. I wonder how I could protect my family from something that could kill me from over 100 miles away, or 1000 miles, or 10,000 miles. I wonder at what point does a parent have to decide to either die with or abandon a small child because they are screaming and attracting the bad guy, or can't swim when your boat is overturned, or can't get free from a seatbelt when your car is damaged. I can't imagine how I'd react in those situations yet there are people right this very second experiencing them and suffering from the consequences.

    Why is that? If I'd gotten a leaflet rained down on me that said go north of this river and we'll leave you alone my ass would have been out the door in a heartbeat. Yet they're staying, some say against their will. Who is right? Hard to say because everyone reporting the news has an agenda. Either for or against. So the news is tainted. Though can we trust someone 'blogging' from there? Just as hard to say, you can stage anything. The amount of distrust of the reports from that region are so loaded that it's impossible for someone on the other side of the planet to know what really is going on.

    The only way I watch fox news is if someone holds a gun to my head or it's made fun of on the Daily Show. For the record I'm only to Jun 27 of Daily shows so I've not seen their attempt at humor with the current crisis.
    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

  122. Re:Doesn't make sense by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    Thank god. In the U.S. there is such a climate of fear that no one can utter a word even faintly critical of Israeli policy without being labeled an anti-semite. If an American dare suggest that slaughtering innocent Lebanese is not good, in every medium and in the most strident tones pro-Israel apologists immediately throw the slander machine into gear and liken the speaker to a Nazi or at best ignorant. It is vile and profoundly undemocratic, and this American is utterly fed up with it.

    Arabs who slaughter innocent Jews are bad. Jews who slaughter innocent Arabs are bad. Arab terrorists are trying to force the formation of a state. Jewish terrorists (Hagannah) forced the formation of their state. Israel is a state founded by terror, maintained by terror, fighting terror. It's all terror. And the United States should either sit on all parties concerned until they stop the terror, or walk away and let them annihilate each other. I favor the former, but will accept the latter. But the status quo, unequivocal support for Israel, must end.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  123. Why bother with reporting this by Krojack · · Score: 1

    Seems the leet hackers got what they wanted.. media coverage.. If everyone just said "fuck it" and didn't report on this stupid crap then it wouldn't happen.

    -- A snip of some moron on IRC a while back that I had the pleasure of meeting --

    Dec 12 16:44:13 <Hollyweed> do u know to use cc's?
    Dec 12 16:45:28 <Rez> card?
    Dec 12 16:45:31 <Rez> credit cards?
    Dec 12 16:45:34 <Hollyweed> yes
    Dec 12 16:45:41 <Rez> why?
    Dec 12 16:45:50 <Hollyweed> im a big carder
    Dec 12 16:45:53 <Rez> ahh
    Dec 12 16:45:57 <Hollyweed> wanna join our server
    Dec 12 16:46:03 <Rez> well i don't do illegal things
    Dec 12 16:46:10 <Hollyweed> you can make scriptsd
    Dec 12 16:46:14 <Hollyweed> scripts*
    Dec 12 16:46:15 <Hollyweed> for users
    Dec 12 16:46:18 <Hollyweed> that they need
    Dec 12 16:46:20 <Hollyweed> if u want
    Dec 12 16:46:31 <Rez> nope
    Dec 12 16:46:38 <Rez> its illegal stuff
    Dec 12 16:46:41 <Hollyweed> ok its ur choice
    Dec 12 16:46:44 <Hollyweed> ;)
    Dec 12 16:46:50 <Hollyweed> u r afraid
    Dec 12 16:46:51 <Hollyweed> ?
    Dec 12 16:46:54 <Hollyweed> of CIA FBI?
    Dec 12 16:47:58 <Rez> no i'm not
    Dec 12 16:48:02 <Rez> i have morals
    Dec 12 16:48:08 <Hollyweed> ok !
    Dec 12 16:48:09 <Hollyweed> :D
    Dec 12 16:48:10 <Rez> and i work for my living
    Dec 12 16:48:15 <Rez> i don't need to steal things
    Dec 12 16:48:19 <Hollyweed> sorry for inconvinience
    Dec 12 16:48:21 <Rez> get a job and make money
    Dec 12 16:48:32 <Rez> and stop rippin people of
    Dec 12 16:48:50 <Hollyweed> its not for money
    Dec 12 16:48:53 <Hollyweed> its for fame
    Dec 12 16:49:38 <Rez> yeah
    Dec 12 16:49:44 <Rez> get fame from rippin people off
    Dec 12 16:49:58 <Hollyweed> did u see the news from CNN
    Dec 12 16:50:03 <Hollyweed> we got in news
    Dec 12 16:50:28 <Hollyweed> look bro
    Dec 12 16:50:39 <Rez> i don't watch cnn
    Dec 12 16:50:41 <Hollyweed> we do that for Fame to show the world that isnt secure
    Dec 12 16:50:48 <Rez> so
    Dec 12 16:50:48 <Hollyweed> we will always get trough them

    <snip him talking about killing chickens>

    Dec 12 16:53:02 <Rez> just to become famous
    Dec 12 16:53:08 <Hollyweed> yea
    Dec 12 16:53:10 <Hollyweed> to show the world
    Dec 12 16:53:13 <Hollyweed> that isnt secure
    Dec 12 16:53:23 <Rez> sorry to burst your bubble
    Dec 12 16:53:32 <Rez> but everyone knows there are bugs
    Dec 12 16:53:48 <Rez> its created by man then it can be hacked
    Dec 12 16:53:50 <Hollyweed> yea of cours
    Dec 12 16:54:03 <Rez> so all you're doing it making peoples lives hell
    Dec 12 16:54:17 <Rez> and thats what terrorist enjoy doing
    Dec 12 16:54:26 <Hollyweed> heh
    Dec 12 16:54:30 <Hollyweed> no its not what u thing
    Dec 12 16:55:05 <Hollyweed> what u think*
    Dec 12 17:02:01 <Rez> either way its people like you that make the world a shithole all becuase you want to be on the news
    Dec 12 17:02:49 <Rez> if it wasn't for the communist news network (cnn) reporting it all then you wouldn't get anything
    Dec 12 17:02:49 <Hollyweed> we wanna show them asses that they arent the best theres out somewhere always will be someone better
    Dec 12 17:03:23 <Hollyweed> lool
    Dec 12 17:03:37 <Rez> why not stop cracking the code and put your coding to good use and make something better?
    Dec 12 17:03:41 <Rez> everthing about that?
    Dec 12 17:03:46 <Rez> dout it
    Dec 12 17:03:55 <Rez> becuase that wouldn't get your name all over the news
    Dec 12 17:04:05 <Hollyweed> yea of course!

    - - - - -

    ALL about getting in the news media.

  124. Re:Um, military sattelites by richdun · · Score: 1

    And President Reagan cancelled this part of the program shortly after Challenger. NASA does not launch or repair military satellites, at least not any more.

  125. and fuck you too by theolein · · Score: 1

    Fucking moron yourself, nameless (and probably pissed off because I dared criticise his hallowed Israel) chicken fuck. I don't start wars without caring about civillian lives. I don't drop bombs on houses full of children and I don't sell bombs to people who do, so please, cunt face, tell me again why I should be offering solutions?

    Fucking zombie.

  126. The Neville Chamberlain approach by amightywind · · Score: 1
    You gotta wonder what those zionists we're smoking when the succesfully instigated that doomed country of theirs... _It's_ _not_ _working_.

    I am sure 6 million enlightened, prosperous, patriotic Israeli citizens give a crap. Neville Chamberlain held the same view of eastern Europe during the invasion of the Nazis. What is not working is the Muslim fantasy that the state is going anywhere. They stew in their hate and impotence and spawn terrorists, Inevitably their cause is set back. Sadly, your attitude is becoming more common with liberals in the west. I find it interesting that 30 years ago Israel drew much of its support in America from politically progressive left. But with the reconciliation of Catholics with the Jews led by Pope John Paul II, and the realization that Israel is a dependable custodian of the Christian holy sites, the support roles have reversed. Most US anti-Semitism festers on the political left.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  127. Re:Oh, those wacky Arabs! by kz45 · · Score: 1

    "Oh, good grief. If you're going to parrot what some guy said on whichever current affairs program you watch, you could at least do some basic research to make sure you know what the conflict is about."

    oo, do you feel special now?

    "(I do like your rather ludicrous implication that it's fine to lob bombs into someone's towns as long as you announce your intention first, though. Thanks for the laugh.)"

    Your statement is comical at best. There is a difference between attacking a country un-announced with major acts of terrorism and defending your country with force. There is a definite good and evil in this world..but many people such as yourself don't seem to be able to tell the difference. I feel sorry for you.

  128. err what by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    Lebanese have been lobbing rockets onto civilian targets. Did you miss the part where Hezbollah has been firing hundreds of rockets into Israeli cities?

    1. Re:err what by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, you obviously can tell the difference between Lebanese civilians and Hezbollah as much as the IDF.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  129. Re:Doesn't make sense by cduffy · · Score: 1

    You make some good points. Even if the "civilian casualties" aren't, however, that doesn't make it acceptable to destroy such blatantly non-military targets as bridges, power plants and privately owned factories when engaging in what's supposedly less than full war. The attack on a power plant, in particular, has had massive environmental impact -- spilling thousands of tons of fuel oil into the Mediterranean, which the Lebanese government is unable to send ships to clean up due to an Israeli blockade.

  130. that doesn't make any sense by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    You said:
    And Lebanese (quite unlike the Israelis) have not been lobbing explosives and rockets onto civilian targets, so it's obvious where the moral high ground is.

    If the IDF counts as "the Israelis", why doesn't Hezbollah count as "the Lebanese"?

    1. Re:that doesn't make any sense by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      Because Hezbollah isn't the Armed Forces of Lebanon (which Israel also attacked), while the IDF is that of Israel - and one would hope that they follow the orders of the Israeli government.

      But if you insist on likening the IDF to a terrorist organization...

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  131. Shouldn't they be defacing Israeli websites? by Kodack · · Score: 1

    Why are they defacing a NASA website? Different government agency, different government, different continent. We are over there trying to broker a peace deal. If some hacker has a beef with Lebanon then take it out on Israel.

    Both sides are wrong.

    The guys firing rockets into Israel are wearing plain clothes and firing from residential neighborhoods. They know Israel is going to immediately retaliate, and they know that when they do, that residential neighborhood is going to become a smoking wreck full of dead bodies. This will in turn make Israel look like they are baby killers and soul less and re-inforce the muslim sentiments that Israel needs to be destroyed. They know that Israel doesn't have the troops to fight a ground war and that the only response they can make is with their airforce. And they exploit this to force Israel to kill innocent people. If anybody should be pissed it should be the people of Lebanon. If I saw a rocket truck parking in front of my apartment I would be telling them where to fuck off to. And the terrorists certainly know that Israel will strike back yet they continue to attack from residential areas. The reason is they are fighting the only way they can. If they wore uniforms and attacked on the open battlefield they wouldn't stand a chance. So they are using the devils logic and fighting the only fight they can, knowing full well that innocent people are going to be killed because of their actions.

    And Israel has equiped their armed forces in such a way that they use small groups of special forces backed up by overwhelming air power to defend themselves. They don't have enough people to go in on the ground and in any case they are fighting an enemy who dresses in street clothes and can blend into the wood work. The rules of Geneva don't apply here and it's not a conventional war. The enemy could be anybody because they don't wear uniforms and attack from everywhere. So Israel does the only thing it can and they attack back, even knowing that they are going to kill innocent people because it's the only thing that Israel can do.

    You can comment on who's right and who's wrong from the safety of the USA all you want. But the fact of the matter is that if someone were firing rockets at US cities from Mexico or Cuba you can be sure that people would be up in arms demanding retaliation. You can't expect the Israelis to just stand back and take it!

    I'm so sick of hearing about cease fires that are broken, and a new peace process that ultimately falls to shit, and suicide bombers, and tanks rolling through Gaza. Even when they weren't at war it was still a daily war. I'm so sick of it that I wish they would just get it over with. Get the fight out of your system, go to war, re-learn how truly horrible and inhumane it is to kill your neighbors. And maybe when enough people have died, and the site of blood is everywhere, maybe then the offers of peace will be real.

    War sucks, people die, the innocent always suffer the most. But is living a civil life with daily bombings and rocket attacks any better?

    Get it over with.