I think that taking a hammer to a device designed solely to annoy all of those within a certain demographic within and beyond its range is an entirely proportionate response.
I disagree. You escalate from annoying eachother to damaging property. You should always let the other party escalate unless you can be absolutely sure your escalation is going to resolve the problem completely.
As others suggested, stopping it from operating while not destroying it seems entirely proportionate however...
Defending yourself is not wrong untill the moment you use 'disproportional means'. Without keeping that in mind, people will use your reasoning as a 'good reason' to kill someone who happened to commit some minor wrong against them.
That will put an end to crime so is a good idea you say?
I suggest you go look a bit at how often throughout history that has been proven wrong, for the exact reason that 2 wrongs do not make a right.
You're forgetting that battles fought without a concequence of death are almost always fun.
Not really, but battles without serious consequences can be a lot of fun.
There is a reason we have snowball fights as children and play semi-violent sports as you adults. Neighborhood battles are just one of the many fun things adults do with their time.
It is fun untill it gets out of hand.
There is a reason why any such games as you talk about have a set of rules attached to them, either implicitly (snowball fights) or explicitly (most 'violent' sports and games)
Or do you just walk around battling your inner deamons?
It would give most a bigger job then they can handle in their lifetime, but taking on the biggest ones (bias in judgement and greed to just name a few) might be a very good idea indeed.
You won't survive without knowing how to fight, but neither will you if fighting is your answer before exhausting any other options.
Creating a bigger monster to fight a monster will work for fighting the monster.. Only problem is you are now left with a bigger monster then what you started out with, hence having made the situation worse, not better, despite the original 'monster' being gone.
Not exactly, let me give you the 'desired' answers to those questions to show the difference..
What do you think Israel stands to gain by attacking arabs (bearing in mind they're outnumbered on every side)?
Security
Why is Israel firing missiles into civilian locations in Lebanon? What else could be there?
Hezbollah and their rockets
Where are the "return" rockets being fired from?
Civilian areas in Southern Lebanon.
Why do you think it is that Hezbollah exists? Where does it come from? What is its mission statement?
It comes from Iran, its purpose is to further the Islamic revolution in Arab controlled areas, and its mission statement is wiping Israel from the map.
Which small country was missing from a huge map of the Middle East displayed at a UN (yes, UN) meeting with Palestine? Why do you think this is?
No clue since as already argued there is no country of Palestine, so there can not have been such a meeting.
What is one of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's favourite topics?
He has 2 actually.. Getting rid of Israel, and arguing about the non-existance of the holocaust. I'd rather say however his favorite subject is whatever will piss off the western world in general..
Why is footage and photos we saw of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2002 now appearing in news stories about heavy civilian casualties in Lebanon?
To infuriate those who see the footage.
Why is Pallywood producing bulk footage of injured people on stretchers for sale to news networks? (especially when the injured people get up and walk off in the uncut footage)
See above
However answering the following question will answer most of the above:
You know what is both funny, sad, and very telling for the entire situation...
I have no clue on whoms side you are arguing here because both have done the (kidnapping people part and both have responded violently to the other side doing this...
Current actions however do not qualify for defending itself, and hence are not justified by 'being allowed to defend itself'.
The 'thousands of innocent people' are Hezbollah's victims.
When you drop a bomb, you are responsible for it falling, hitting whatever it hits, it exploding, and the damage that results. There is NO WAY to blame anyone else for this.
What do you think Israel stands to gain by attacking arabs (bearing in mind they're outnumbered on every side)?
Judging from the last 40 years, more land to colonize.
Why is Israel firing missiles into civilian locations in Lebanon? What else could be there?
Not a valid excuse to bomb a civilian airport (air blockade can easily be kept without this, so no, it does in no way whatsoever serve any military purpose), harbors (sea blockade can be maintained without this destruction easily), foundations of already destroyed bridges (they are already destroyed, want to make it very difficult to rebuild them afterwards as well obviously), civilian vehicles leaving southern lebanon etc etc etc etc.
Or how about hitting a UN post, being told you are firing at a UN post, responding to it saying you'll stop, then not stopping, getting told the same thing over and over for another 6 hours, refusing to hold fire, and then afterward claim it is an accident?
Not being carefull to hit valid targets is not being carefull to hit valid targets. That Hezbollah hides among the population in no way validates the targets mentioned above, and in no way removes the requirement for proper targetting.
Where are the "return" rockets being fired from?
So get those. They weren't being fired from the TV towers in northern Lebanon however...
Why do you think it is that Hezbollah exists?
Hezbollah exists as a response to the 1982 Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon. Incidentely, the people who started Hezbollah were initially happy with that Israeli invasion. It is only after Israel failing to protect the population of that occupied territory and failed to provide for them, that the local population of southern Lebanon started feeling they had to kick Israel out of there and Hezbollah was born.
Where does it come from?
You want to hear Iran, right? guess what: YOU ARE WRONG. Yes, it definitely gets support in many ways from Iran, but Hezbollah originates in Lebanon
What is its mission statement?
It has many, but if you mean destruction of Israel, that is one of them.
Which small country was missing from a huge map of the Middle East displayed at a UN (yes, UN) meeting with Palestine? Why do you think this is?
Excuse me? there is no country or nation called Palestine, so its representatives cannot be having meetings with the UN.
Palestine is a territory, containing Israel and some areas around it.
What is one of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's favourite topics?
He is dangerous lunatic, no more and no less. However, if the USA and its friends don't understand that all they are achieving with their attitude is to drive people into the arms of such idiots then they have themselves to blame for the problem. You may not realize this, but much of the US hatred in Iran originates in US support for the Sjah before the Islamic revolution.
Why is footage and photos we saw of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2002 now appearing in news stories about heavy civilian casualties in Lebanon?
Why is Pallywood producing bulk footage of injured people on stretchers for sale to news networks? (especially when the injured people get up and walk off in the uncut footage)
Just like the Israeli press center has readily prepared material for all who want to pick it up, quite a bit of it of high propaganda and low truth value. Its all rubbish from both sides.
However answering the following question will answer most of the above:
What are the core tenets of Islam?
You are just about as bad as that Iranian president. The difference is that he knows what he is talking about and doesn't believe a word of his own statements, whereas you seem to truely believe in the hatred and dis-information you are spreading.
Unfortunately it's not quite so simple. The situation can be summarised as follows:
If the X put down their weapons there would be peace.
If the Y put down their weapons there would be genocide.
And the problem is that X is always us and Y is always them, and everyone believes this to be true, and so won't put down their arms.
Matter of fact is, both sides are extremely wrong and beyond any legitimacy in the mentioned conflict. Just cut it off and start trying to actually take your obligations seriously.
I strongly disagree. This is one of those little things that is best solved without getting the justice system involved.
Typical case of confusion between cause and effect..
This started because of someone thinking exactly what you suggest and going the 'lets fix it myself' route. Without that attitude that device wouldn't be there to begin with.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that taking a hammer to a device designed solely to annoy all of those within a certain demographic within and beyond its range is an entirely proportionate response.
I disagree. You escalate from annoying eachother to damaging property. You should always let the other party escalate unless you can be absolutely sure your escalation is going to resolve the problem completely.
As others suggested, stopping it from operating while not destroying it seems entirely proportionate however...
Defending yourself is not wrong untill the moment you use 'disproportional means'. Without keeping that in mind, people will use your reasoning as a 'good reason' to kill someone who happened to commit some minor wrong against them.
That will put an end to crime so is a good idea you say?
I suggest you go look a bit at how often throughout history that has been proven wrong, for the exact reason that 2 wrongs do not make a right.
You're forgetting that battles fought without a concequence of death are almost always fun.
Not really, but battles without serious consequences can be a lot of fun.
There is a reason we have snowball fights as children and play semi-violent sports as you adults. Neighborhood battles are just one of the many fun things adults do with their time.
It is fun untill it gets out of hand.
There is a reason why any such games as you talk about have a set of rules attached to them, either implicitly (snowball fights) or explicitly (most 'violent' sports and games)
Or do you just walk around battling your inner deamons?
It would give most a bigger job then they can handle in their lifetime, but taking on the biggest ones (bias in judgement and greed to just name a few) might be a very good idea indeed.
You won't survive without knowing how to fight, but neither will you if fighting is your answer before exhausting any other options.
They do, in nearly all cases.
Only for those who disregard the consequences.
Creating a bigger monster to fight a monster will work for fighting the monster.. Only problem is you are now left with a bigger monster then what you started out with, hence having made the situation worse, not better, despite the original 'monster' being gone.
Not exactly, let me give you the 'desired' answers to those questions to show the difference..
What do you think Israel stands to gain by attacking arabs (bearing in mind they're outnumbered on every side)?
Security
Why is Israel firing missiles into civilian locations in Lebanon? What else could be there?
Hezbollah and their rockets
Where are the "return" rockets being fired from?
Civilian areas in Southern Lebanon.
Why do you think it is that Hezbollah exists? Where does it come from? What is its mission statement?
It comes from Iran, its purpose is to further the Islamic revolution in Arab controlled areas, and its mission statement is wiping Israel from the map.
Which small country was missing from a huge map of the Middle East displayed at a UN (yes, UN) meeting with Palestine? Why do you think this is?
No clue since as already argued there is no country of Palestine, so there can not have been such a meeting.
What is one of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's favourite topics?
He has 2 actually.. Getting rid of Israel, and arguing about the non-existance of the holocaust. I'd rather say however his favorite subject is whatever will piss off the western world in general..
Why is footage and photos we saw of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2002 now appearing in news stories about heavy civilian casualties in Lebanon?
To infuriate those who see the footage.
Why is Pallywood producing bulk footage of injured people on stretchers for sale to news networks? (especially when the injured people get up and walk off in the uncut footage)
See above
However answering the following question will answer most of the above:
What are the core tenets of Islam?
To bring the entire world under Islamic rule.
Gandhi and Buddha are dead and didn't accomplish much with their life other than providing an opposite end to the spectrum of 'violence solves all
Hmm, somehow I think India got its independence mostly thanks to mr. Gandhi. I also seem to recall Buddha has quite a few followers..
I guess it depends on your definition of accomplishment.
You know what is both funny, sad, and very telling for the entire situation...
I have no clue on whoms side you are arguing here because both have done the (kidnapping people part and both have responded violently to the other side doing this...
Israel's is allowed to defend itself.
Definitely.
Current actions however do not qualify for defending itself, and hence are not justified by 'being allowed to defend itself'.
The 'thousands of innocent people' are Hezbollah's victims.
When you drop a bomb, you are responsible for it falling, hitting whatever it hits, it exploding, and the damage that results. There is NO WAY to blame anyone else for this.
What do you think Israel stands to gain by attacking arabs (bearing in mind they're outnumbered on every side)?
Judging from the last 40 years, more land to colonize.
Why is Israel firing missiles into civilian locations in Lebanon? What else could be there?
Not a valid excuse to bomb a civilian airport (air blockade can easily be kept without this, so no, it does in no way whatsoever serve any military purpose), harbors (sea blockade can be maintained without this destruction easily), foundations of already destroyed bridges (they are already destroyed, want to make it very difficult to rebuild them afterwards as well obviously), civilian vehicles leaving southern lebanon etc etc etc etc.
Or how about hitting a UN post, being told you are firing at a UN post, responding to it saying you'll stop, then not stopping, getting told the same thing over and over for another 6 hours, refusing to hold fire, and then afterward claim it is an accident?
Not being carefull to hit valid targets is not being carefull to hit valid targets. That Hezbollah hides among the population in no way validates the targets mentioned above, and in no way removes the requirement for proper targetting.
Where are the "return" rockets being fired from?
So get those. They weren't being fired from the TV towers in northern Lebanon however...
Why do you think it is that Hezbollah exists?
Hezbollah exists as a response to the 1982 Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon. Incidentely, the people who started Hezbollah were initially happy with that Israeli invasion. It is only after Israel failing to protect the population of that occupied territory and failed to provide for them, that the local population of southern Lebanon started feeling they had to kick Israel out of there and Hezbollah was born.
Where does it come from?
You want to hear Iran, right? guess what: YOU ARE WRONG.
Yes, it definitely gets support in many ways from Iran, but Hezbollah originates in Lebanon
What is its mission statement?
It has many, but if you mean destruction of Israel, that is one of them.
Which small country was missing from a huge map of the Middle East displayed at a UN (yes, UN) meeting with Palestine? Why do you think this is?
Excuse me? there is no country or nation called Palestine, so its representatives cannot be having meetings with the UN.
Palestine is a territory, containing Israel and some areas around it.
What is one of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's favourite topics?
He is dangerous lunatic, no more and no less. However, if the USA and its friends don't understand that all they are achieving with their attitude is to drive people into the arms of such idiots then they have themselves to blame for the problem. You may not realize this, but much of the US hatred in Iran originates in US support for the Sjah before the Islamic revolution.
Why is footage and photos we saw of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2002 now appearing in news stories about heavy civilian casualties in Lebanon?
Why is Pallywood producing bulk footage of injured people on stretchers for sale to news networks? (especially when the injured people get up and walk off in the uncut footage)
Just like the Israeli press center has readily prepared material for all who want to pick it up, quite a bit of it of high propaganda and low truth value. Its all rubbish from both sides.
However answering the following question will answer most of the above:
What are the core tenets of Islam?
You are just about as bad as that Iranian president. The difference is that he knows what he is talking about and doesn't believe a word of his own statements, whereas you seem to truely believe in the hatred and dis-information you are spreading.
Unfortunately it's not quite so simple.
The situation can be summarised as follows:
If the X put down their weapons there would be peace.
If the Y put down their weapons there would be genocide.
And the problem is that X is always us and Y is always them, and everyone believes this to be true, and so won't put down their arms.
Matter of fact is, both sides are extremely wrong and beyond any legitimacy in the mentioned conflict. Just cut it off and start trying to actually take your obligations seriously.
I strongly disagree. This is one of those little things that is best solved without getting the justice system involved.
Typical case of confusion between cause and effect..
This started because of someone thinking exactly what you suggest and going the 'lets fix it myself' route. Without that attitude that device wouldn't be there to begin with.
For anyone who has moral concerns over smashing the property of an elderly person, said person should take into consideration the fact
Blahblahblah.. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Content (books, movies, etc) shipments through snail mail will decrease.
Most likely.. but it won't be anytime soon if it is upto content producers it seems.
Hardware will stabilize after the major Vista upgrade.
Don't worry, there will be a new reason for hardware upgrades once most people can run Vista.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
I personally don't believe there are innocent civilians.
What you believe is fine, as long as you apply it equally to both sides.
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.
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.