Get real. If someone was shooting rockets into your house trying to kill you... by DukKati

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Don't play games with me; you leapt from one guy doctoring photos to the Lebanese death toll being doctored, not me.

I implied that if photos can be doctored, the death toll can be as well. Never said it was.

Quote:

Yes so why is it guilty until proven innocent for any of the 'wrong' sources for you?

I do not know what you are asking here, please elaborate. What 'wrong' sources are you refering to?

Quote:

Quote:
Let me clarify. If someone is willing to doctor a photo, is it really inconceivable that civilian death tolls could be 'exaggerated' as well?
"Maybe so, but it is still innocent until proven guilty is it not."

Still never said civilian death tolls were not accurate. I implied that they could be though.

Quote:

If the Israeli's are willing to try and prevent and cover up the circumstances of a British citizen's death is it not conceivable that they'd do the same here?

So Israel is in charge of counting dead Lebanese citizens. Or are you implying that Israel is not being truthful regarding their own civilian casualties?

Quote:

Now you are confusing the difficulty of getting accurate casualty reports from a war zone and purposefully doctoring the evidence.

The Lebanese Government maintains higher civilian deaths than Human Rights Watch. This could be for a number of reasons including the difficulty of geting accurate reports and purposely falsified information.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 12:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I implied that if photos can be doctored, the death toll can be as well. Never said it was.

Oh come on the implication of holding up the evidence of one thing and then saying "what about this" is not an implication of possibillity but an implication of probabillity.

Quote:
I do not know what you are asking here, please elaborate. What 'wrong' sources are you refering to?

The sources that do not support Israels altruistic view?

Quote:
So Israel is in charge of counting dead Lebanese citizens.

Are you saying that the IDF is the first military in history not to release enemy casualty assesments?

Quote:
Or are you implying that Israel is not being truthful regarding their own civilian casualties?

Either, both.

Quote:
The Lebanese Government maintains higher civilian deaths than Human Rights Watch. This could be for a number of reasons including the difficulty of geting accurate reports and purposely falsified information.

But this shows a certain bias which is what I was talking about, not saying it's the case but it's also possible that Human Rights Watch's estimates are wrong.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Oh come on the implication of holding up the evidence of one thing and then saying "what about this" is not an implication of possibillity but an implication of probabillity.

Now you are talking semantics which could seriously derail this thread, let's leave it at you say potato...

Quote:

The sources that do not support Israels altruistic view?

Has anyone in this thread provided a source contrary to 'Israels altruistic view' which I dismissed out of hand?

Quote:

Are you saying that the IDF is the first military in history not to release enemy casualty assesments?

No.

Quote:

Quote:
Or are you implying that Israel is not being truthful regarding their own civilian casualties?

Either, both.

Do not see a point behind Israel misrepresenting their civilian casualties. You would think they might report more dead to lessen the gap and calm outside opinions.

Quote:

not saying it's the case but it's also possible that Human Rights Watch's estimates are wrong.

So who is the be all and end all in civilian casualty rates. Who has the least at stake and can be trusted to provide the most accurate figures as possible?

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 1:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Now you are talking semantics which could seriously derail this thread, let's leave it at you say potato...

It is merely how I read your quote and how such a quote is most often meant, but differing here is probably the best option.

Quote:
Has anyone in this thread provided a source contrary to 'Israels altruistic view' which I dismissed out of hand?

You've whole heartedly supported the idea that just about everything from Lebanon is propaganda (or implying it’s possible) and you go on to say you can't see a reason for Israel doing the same, is this not a lopsided view?

Quote:
No.

Then what was the point in your question?

Quote:
Do not see a point behind Israel misrepresenting their civilian casualties.

The Lebanese are prepared to use propaganda but the Israelis are not?

Quote:
You would think they might report more dead to lessen the gap and calm outside opinions.

Who said they aren't? Less of theirs more of yours, it’s a common practice, I believe you are the one implying only the Lebanese may be doing it.

Quote:
So who is the be all and end all in civilian casualty rates.

The last one hundred years of media covered warfare says no one, I believe this is my point.

Quote:
Who has the least at stake and can be trusted to provide the most accurate figures as possible?

Now you're back to assuming the only way the figures could differ is because they are doctored.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 2:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
You've whole heartedly supported the idea that just about everything from Lebanon is propaganda (or implying it’s possible) and you go on to say you can't see a reason for Israel doing the same, is this not a lopsided view?

I am speaking of Hezbollah not Lebanon, and I do have a lopsided view when comparing Israel to Hezbollah.

Quote:

The Lebanese are prepared to use propaganda but the Israelis are not?

Hezbollah is not only prepared to use propaganda, they are using it. There is less documented proof of Israel's propaganda machine, but it is still churning away. Speaking of which, how did the investigation of the bombing of the UN outpost by Israel turn out?

Quote:

Quote:
You would think they might report more dead to lessen the gap and calm outside opinions.
Who said they aren't? Less of theirs more of yours, it’s a common practice, I believe you are the one implying only the Lebanese may be doing it.

Once again let me change Lebanese for Hezbollah.
My point was out of the thousands of missiles launched by Hezbollah, Israel is reporting 50 or so civilian deaths. The Lebanese Government is reporting their civilian deaths at approx. 500. If Israel was 'doctoring' their figures, why not report them much higher to closer mirror those of Lebanon.

Quote:

Quote:
Who has the least at stake and can be trusted to provide the most accurate figures as possible?
Now you're back to assuming the only way the figures could differ is because they are doctored.

That was not my intention. Hezbollah can report high civilian casualties to create anti-Israeli sentiment. The Lebanese Government can report high civilian casualty rates to increase pressure on the UN and increase foreign aid. Israel can report low civilian casualty rates (in Lebanon)to keep the UN off their backs and improve their world wide optics. Human Rights Watch seems to have no interest other than factual reporting. Not sure how you got doctoring out of that.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 2:47 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I have only one thing to add, since it's pointedly obvious this is just gonna degenerate further, and that thing is something for CTS, as reference, and not something imma bother debating with obvious shills.

Another point against, CTS - is their proven history of spying on us.

Jonathan Pollard.

The Comverse Infosystems/Comverse Technology scandal.

David A. Tenenbaum

Ariel J. Weinmann

Shortly after 9-11, Fox news ran a four part special on more spying activity, but it was quickly yanked, and they've done everything in their power to expunge even a hint of its existance - a stupid move which drew far more attention than simply airing it and leaving be.

AIPAC and current investigations.

These are not isolated incidents, simply a quick once-over highlight of an aggressive espionage campaign on behalf of our so-called allies.

While no doubt all countries spy on each other to some degree (and we pulled some doozies via submarine in our time, mind you..) if, for example, Iran had stolen nuclear technology secrets from us and sold em to the Russians, our reaction woulda been a little different, wouldn't it now ?

The logic of supporting someone who treats US as an enemy escapes me.

You may now resume nitpicking.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 2:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I'm betting you'll go the rationale route. But I hoping I'll lose money.

As a general rule, I will always seek to go the rational route. I carefully rationalize and evaluate all of these matters. That’s the only way that I believe a fair and intelligent person can come to a thoughtful conclusion. I’m not going to condemn Israel because of an accusation, only their actions and their reasons for those actions.

Civilian deaths are always tragic, and they are even more tragic when, in hindsight, they appear to be in vain, but does that constitute a policy of targeting civilians or just a mistake? Part of the rule of warfare is that targets must be chosen for their military value, which is widely understand claim from the Geneva Conventions, that even your cited article references. However, if your enemies don’t follow the rule of war, it can be difficult or even impossible to evaluate a military target. When your enemy dresses in civilian clothes, how do you distinguish a military target from a civilian? When the military target reveals itself by killing you? When your enemy hides behind civilians (which is a war crime) how do you pick the military target without hitting a civilian target? Do you just let your enemy fire rockets at you ad noseum, from behind their abuse of Geneva Conventions, until you run out of civilians or they run out of rockets? When your enemy blends with civilians and doesn’t identify themselves with a banner, who is really to blame when you make a mistake and hit a civilian target you thought was an enemy?

Okay, so maybe Israel intended to kill civilians in this case. I’ll consider it, for the sake of argument. My first question is why?

I know why Hezbollah is doing it. Hezbollah is firing missiles into Israel from heavily civilian areas in the hopes that Israel will defend itself and fire on their position, thereby killing Lebanese civilians which they will quickly blame on Israel and you’ll believe every word of it. It works well for Hezbollah, because they're just that insdious, and most people don’t bother to think about what’s going on, they just emotionally respond to the dead bodies and draw the simplest (often irrational) conclusion. You see a dead body and you think you know all there is to know and that attitude is a terrorist’s best friend.

But why is Israel doing it? What could they possibly have to gain by intentionally targeting soft targets with no military value? They are loosing the propaganda war, so why would Israel go and intentionally target civilians to help Hezbollah’s propaganda campaign? Does that make sense to you? Citizen couldn’t answer this; he simply decided they were doing it for no apparent reason. But “go ask them” is not a good enough answer for me. I’m not prepared to simply dismiss logic and rational thought and just assume that Israelis kill civilians because that’s what Israelis do. It’s just not a satisfying answer. So do you have a better answer then “go ask them?” If not, then I would say that you really don’t have a convincing case for Israeli’s targeting civilians either, just an accusation, because targeting missile batteries mistakenly, might be tragic, it might even by negligent homicide if there was reason to believe that the shooter didn’t follow orders and wasn’t cautious enough or even had a grudge, but it’s not a policy of targeting civilians, and unlike any of the civilians killed by Hezbollah and Hamas, Israel has prosecuted such derelictions of duty that result in civilian deaths.

Hezbollah and Hamas on the other hand have well defined military targets in the Israeli Defense Force. They simply choose to target civilians as a matter of policy. And it works well for them, but it doesn’t work very well for Israel.

And once again, I'm not saying that Israel doesn't or hasn't targeted civilians, I'm simply saying that by far, Hezbollah is the worse of the two and there is no moral equivalence.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 3:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Hey citz, you frog faced limey. Glad to see I haunt you in your dreams. I think I'll be nice today...So I'll have to ignore you posts...But before I go into positive mode, Eat me. Oh, not all Americans that call Brits...limeys or French.......frogs are rednecks, psst...read a poll on American feelings towards France........ I read your posts and can't believe you don't live hear in the states. All you do is sit around and bash the US and our policies(even domestic policy), you are a pompous ass idiot. You have a comment on anything from the state sales tax in Utah to proposition 56 in Hartford, CT........Give it a fu*king rest. OOOOH, Gotta go ...Tea time.
Where as you haven't got an opinion at all. It's hardly surprising I comment on American FORIEGN policy (rarely on domestic if at all) since such things effect me and most the threads around here are or end up being about American foriegn policy.

I called you a redneck because you are a redneck, go back to stringing up the 'blacks' you racist little prick .

That and another give away is that you couldn't string a sentence together if your life depended on it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

HaHa...is calling someone a redneck any different than calling someone a nigger? a spic? a chink? limey? For some liberal douche bag to stoop so low, WOW. What is your definition of a redneck anyway?..A southern white male? ignorant American? And why would you ever have a comment on American domestic policy anyway...Where is RiveR with pictures of your ugly mugg ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 3:35 PM

ANTIMASON

im curious what your opinions are of this clip of OReilly

now im sure a lot of you know already that Isreal occupied s. Lebanon for many years back in the early 80's..but i really had no idea to what extent. were you aware that since then, Israel has launched 11,000+ rockets into Lebanon, as compared to 100+ from Hezbollah? that was a statistic i was unaware of, but i find curious

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 3:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I'm betting you'll go the rationale route. But I hoping I'll lose money.
As a general rule, I will always seek to go the rational route.

You misunderstood me. That wasn't a typo. I said, I am betting you'll go the "rationale" route, not rational route. That means, you'll accept Israel's "rationale" for killing civilians as legitimate (as opposed to seeing it as an excuse). I'm sorry I wasn't clear.

Then you asked why. You want a motive for murder to distinguish it from manslaughter. (Personally, I think the pattern of repeated homicides, despite the many "rationales" given, indicates premeditated intention to kill and is sufficient for murder charges...but ok, I'll go along.) How about money? And power? And hate? And survival?

Israel gets paid billions of dollars by the USA in support of their "defense" against common enemies. That doesn't count defense contracts. That doesn't count loans and economic aid. What would happen if the war were to end tomorrow and geez, their civilians are now walking on safe streets? What would happen if they were no longer fighting for their lives and at the verge of being cornered into the Mediterranean Sea? I'm guessing they'll still get some money, but not billions. So yeah, they want to add fuel to the fire same as the Hezbollah--it's a very lucrative fire.

Being able to strike at civilians, and get away with it without so much a slap on the wrist because you're best friends with THE Superpower, is a lot of power. It sends a message to all their enemies--yeah, we can kick your ass however we want, wherever we want, and there is nothing you can do about it. Nah nah nah. It's old-fashioned mafia bullying to show who is the alpha male in the Mideast.

Then there is old-fashioned hate. Yeah, they HATE their enemies. They have dehumanized their enemies every bit as much as they have been dehumanized themselves. When they look at a house full of Arab civilians, they only see the "Arab" and not the "civilians." They don't see people anymore--just enemies. This is supported by the pattern of abuse and humiliation the IDF dishes out to Palestinian civilians going about their lives in the occupied territories. There is no more distinction between military and civilian target than there is in a RISK game. In addition, you throw in the long history of murder and mayhem between the Hatfields and the McCoys, and you got yourself a very deep-seated hatred.

I believe this dehumanization started right after WWII. After the details of the holocaust came out, many Jewish leaders decided they would never willingly walk into a gas chamber again--and rightfully so. They were determined to extirpate their enemies before they themselves were exterminated. And I think, there is some displaced vengeance at play as well. They are going to unleash all their stored up fury at the next group of people who questions Israel's right to exist. For them, everything is about survival now. EVERYthing can turn into another Auschwitz. Ironically, their hypervigilance and paranoia are self-fulfilling--they aggravate an already tense situation into a disastrous one that requires hypervigilance and paranoia.

Obviously this doesn't apply to all Jews or even all Israelis. I am taking an educated guess at the possible motives of their leaders throughout Israel's history. In absence of a confession, educated guesses are all we got.

You can dismiss all this as speculation, and in truth, that is what you asked me to do: speculate on the motives. But if you really want to know if there is even a motive, you can look at the pattern of their targets, military or civilian, throughout their history. The info is out there, from many sources besides Arab propaganda machines. You'll see, they don't distinguish between legitimate or illegitimate targets--all are fair game if the target stands in their way.

-------
"Maybe she's a lazy hooker. They can't all have hearts of gold and good work ethics." -- Jaye in Wonderfalls

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 4:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The logic of supporting someone who treats US as an enemy escapes me.

Right, spies.

I don't believe Israel can see anyone but as an enemy. (See my previous post to Finn about hypervigilance and paranoia.) I think Israel, as a nation, was badly damaged psychologically and cannot trust anyone. She has no friends, seeing only assets to be used and threats to be disposed of.

And I think we feel sorry for her. I believe America, at heart, is an extremely generous nation. So we stand by her, hoping one day she'll heal.

But when she starts torturing and killing people, I also believe it is time for us to say, "OK, too dysfunctional. No more enabling from us."

We need to cut the bitch loose. She's bringing her enemies to our front door and our kids are dying.

-------
"You may be the universe's butt-puppet, but I'm fate's bitch" -- Mahahdra in Wonderfalls

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 6:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
You misunderstood me. That wasn't a typo. I said, I am betting you'll go the "rationale" route, not rational route. That means, you'll accept Israel's "rationale" for killing civilians as legitimate (as opposed to seeing it as an excuse). I'm sorry I wasn't clear.

I understood what you meant. What you want me to do is ignore Israel’s rationale and condemn them for your accusations. But I’m not going to condemn Israel (or Hezbollah) because you accuse them of something. I want to know what their reasons were. I want to know what their rationale is, and so should you. It’s wrong to condemn someone (or a political entity) without first knowing their side of the story, but that’s what you want me to do with Israel.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Then you asked why. You want a motive for murder to distinguish it from manslaughter.

No, I want you to explain to me what Israel gains for following a policy of intentionally targeting civilians. I didn’t ask you to speculate. I asked you to justify your accusation. What you’ve provided is just more accusations. So I assume you can’t provide an answer, which doesn’t surprise me. Being seen as intentionally targeting civilians doesn’t do anything but hurt Israel and helps Hezbollah. So I really can’t provide an answer to that either, which is why I’ve considered other explanations instead of lingering on the same hackneyed anti-Israeli accusations.

The US is not more likely to give Israel aide for killing civilians. Collateral damage as a result of Israeli attacks has done far more to strain US-Israeli relations then help. Furthermore, the accusation flies in the face of some accepted events, namely that Hezbollah started this conflict, not Israel. Israel’s not perpetuating the violence, Hezbollah is.

Accusing Israel of following a policy of targeting civilians because it makes them feel powerful or to satiate their hatred is an accusation that would seem to invoking broad generalizations and personal judgment calls. Essentially you’re telling me that Israelis kill civilians because that’s what Israelis do. That’s an accusation that can easily be construed as an ethnic slur.

Israel uses reduced warhead guided missiles to target Hezbollah missile batteries. If they wanted to kill civilians why not fill their warheads with ball bearings as Hezbollah does?

Israel demanded that all Lebanese civilians leave cities that Israel was prepared to target. Why provide such warnings if they just want to kill civilians, especially when doing so tips off the enemy?

Israel withdrew from Lebanon. Couldn’t they kill Lebanese civilians easier and with less fanfare if they were in control on the ground? They could have set up death camps and silently marched Lebanese to their death cheaply. So why withdraw from Lebanon.

And if “educated guesses” instead of solid reasoning is all we’ve got to explain why Israel has a policy of targeting civilians, it might be a likely indication that Israel doesn’t have a policy of targeting civilians. Maybe you’re trying to fit a square peg into the circle. In any event, I hope you can understand my reluctance to accept your guesses as your rationale for your accusations against Israel. It simply doesn’t hold water. There are better, more rational reasons, to explain the civilian deaths, then trying to perpetuate some stereotype of an evil Israeli.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 7:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
What you want me to do is ignore Israel’s rationale and condemn them for your accusations. ... It’s wrong to condemn someone (or a political entity) without first knowing their side of the story, but that’s what you want me to do with Israel.

Uh... no. That isn't what I said or want.

When detectives don't have a confession from a suspected murderer, they have to speculate about the suspect's motives. There is no other word for guessing what was inside the mind of another human being than "speculation"--esp when that human being denies the motives. It is all inference from a few facts and educated guesses.

Let's just examine that first motive I gave.

Fact: Israel gets paid a lot of money for military defense.
Fact: Despite "strained relations" with the US and any posturing and disapproval by the US, Israel keeps getting that money.
Educated guess: If Israel weren't at war, she would not get nearly as much money for its military defense.
Possible motive: Israel wants to fuel the war in order to keep making money.

The simple fact of financial gain is admissible as motive in criminal court. You asked me "Why would..., what do they have to gain...." I answered. Like I said, short of a confession, motive is not one of those indisputable things that come in black and white.

Just out of curiousity, what would you accept as "justification" as opposed to mere "accusations"? A secret internal memo? A written policy? A confession from a former PM's memoir? What would you consider to be "solid reasoning"? What would you have to see to convince you that Israel practices terrorism?

-------
"Maybe she's a lazy hooker. They can't all have hearts of gold and good work ethics." -- Jaye in Wonderfalls

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I am speaking of Hezbollah not Lebanon, and I do have a lopsided view when comparing Israel to Hezbollah.

So if a report supports Israels claims you're more likely to believe it and assume it is correct?

Quote:
how did the investigation of the bombing of the UN outpost by Israel turn out?

All I know is that Israel doesn't want a joint investigation with the UN, they want it all done in house so to speak.

Quote:
My point was out of the thousands of missiles launched by Hezbollah, Israel is reporting 50 or so civilian deaths. The Lebanese Government is reporting their civilian deaths at approx. 500. If Israel was 'doctoring' their figures, why not report them much higher to closer mirror those of Lebanon.

Because Israel isn't stupid, they're fighting people whose most sophisticated weapons are WWII rockets while they're fielding the latest and greatest in US military technology.

Quote:
That was not my intention. Hezbollah can report high civilian casualties to create anti-Israeli sentiment. The Lebanese Government can report high civilian casualty rates to increase pressure on the UN and increase foreign aid. Israel can report low civilian casualty rates (in Lebanon)to keep the UN off their backs and improve their world wide optics. Human Rights Watch seems to have no interest other than factual reporting. Not sure how you got doctoring out of that.

You do realise what you've just written right? Lebanon releases high counts, that's doctoring, Israel low counts, that's doctoring too, then you say how do you get doctoring from that? I got it because thats what you said, I mean huh?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Just out of curiousity, what would you accept as "justification" as opposed to mere "accusations"? A secret internal memo? A written policy? A confession from a former PM's memoir? What would you consider to be "solid reasoning"? What would you have to see to convince you that Israel practices terrorism?

That's the kicker, in order to call Hezbollah terrorists all we need do is say they're targeting civilians (not arguing that they aren't BTW), but Israel we have to justify it, but then when we do it's not good enough, when you show evidence they target civilians it's dismissed out of hand, seems fairly biased to me.

Maybe I'm an anti-Semite

.

I think I'm with you, from Israeli’s POV they aren't targeting civilians they’re targeting the 'enemy'. Seeing popular attitudes expressed by Israeli youth (while there were cameras present making a documentary, so surely a time they'd moderate their views?) they expressed the idea that all Arabs were terrorists, all Arabs were the enemy. That if a bus load of school children were killed it wouldn't matter because they'd just become terrorists eventually anyway.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Let's just examine that first motive I gave.

Fact: Israel gets paid a lot of money for military defense.
Fact: Despite "strained relations" with the US and any posturing and disapproval by the US, Israel keeps getting that money.
Educated guess: If Israel weren't at war, she would not get nearly as much money for its military defense.
Possible motive: Israel wants to fuel the war in order to keep making money.

And this is imagination, not motive, because it does not fit the facts. Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon, and they did not instigate this current war, Hezbollah did. If you want to argue that Hezbollah wants to fuel the war then you might have something, because they started the conflict. Furthermore, this doesn’t offer any explanation at all for why Israel would have a policy of targeting civilians. If Israel wants to fuel a war, they could do so just as easily by not having a policy of targeting civilians. In fact, if money from the US is the reason why they are supposedly fuelling this war, then why would they have a policy of targeting civilians, when such actions strain that very relation? Not only does it fail to fit the facts, but it explains nothing. It’s nonsense.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Just out of curiousity, what would you accept as "justification" as opposed to mere "accusations"? A secret internal memo? A written policy? A confession from a former PM's memoir? What would you consider to be "solid reasoning"? What would you have to see to convince you that Israel practices terrorism?

A reason why such actions benefit them would be enough. Killing civilians, even unintentionally, has devastating effects on Israel’s image. When this conflict started, practically everyone except Iran and Syria were on Israel’s side. Even most of the Arab states, including Lebanon were outraged at Hezbollah, for intentionally started a war with Israel. Egypt and Jordan declared that Israel should destroy Hezbollah. But as the collateral damage mounted, the tide began to turn against Israel, now even the United States is demanding a cessation to the war, which is basically a victory for Hezbollah. So killing civilians, even unintentionally, has caused Israel to loose this war. I'm not asking for TS internal memos, just a reason why it benefits them, one that is not based on stereotype.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 2:53 AM

Finn: What do they gain?
CTS: Money. Power. Acting out their hatred. Survival.
Finn: That's nonsense.
CTS: Well, what would convince you?
Finn: Show me what they have to gain.

OK...see, I still don't know what would convince you. Cause I tried showing you what they have to gain, and it wasn't good enough.

So, what is your standard? What would I have to SAY, that would not sound like nonsense? Is there anything I CAN say that wouldn't sound like nonsense? What would "fit the facts"? Could you give me an example, so I know what I should shoot for?

You know, I never said Israel has a "policy" of targeting civilians. I said she is a terrorist state with a PATTERN of targeting civilians. If you wouldn't mind reading my posts again, you'll see that I tried to explain how Israel doesn't make a distinction between military and non-military targets--there is just enemy target. Not making a distinction is what terrorists do--cause if you remember, terrorists think of themselves as freedom fighters in a just war. For them, they are also striking the enemy. The difference between terrorists and other freedom fighters? For terrorists, everyone of "them" is an enemy.

And also as I said before, if you want proof of a pattern, just research Israel's targets from 1946 on up to the present. The decision point is, after seeing the pattern or even a handful of incidents, will you believe Israel's explanations or will you decide they aren't justified?

Having clarified about that "policy" bit, I'll address this.

Quote:
If Israel wants to fuel a war, they could do so just as easily by not ...targeting civilians.

But civilian deaths make their enemy MORE angry. The civilian fuel burns brighter and hotter and longer than other fuels. Losing civilian family members drills that hatred deep through the next generation and ensures the war won't relax when this generation dies. (Incidentally, the "war" started way before this recent conflict in Lebanon. I'm talking about a much longer history and much bigger picture.)

Quote:
In fact, if money from the US is the reason why they are supposedly fuelling this war, then why would they ...targeting civilians, when such actions strain that very relation?

Because strained relations have never kept the money from coming before? (See Fact #2.) Targeting civilians has never resulted in financial consequences for them. Strained relations is inconsequential. If they didn't care about "strained relations" resulting from deliberately sinking a US battleship (see USS Liberty), they sure don't give a damn about any posturing resulting from a few innocent Arabs dying.

BTW, I am also curious what you make of the USS Liberty incident. Does it bother you that we kept on giving them just as much money as ever after they sank our ship unprovoked, killed 34 and wounded 173 American soldiers unprovoked, and said, "Ooops. That was a mistake?" Decision point. Do you buy Israel's explanation, or do you think the action wasn't justified?

-------
"Maybe she's a lazy hooker. They can't all have hearts of gold and good work ethics." -- Jaye in Wonderfalls

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 4:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
So if a report supports Israels claims you're more likely to believe it and assume it is correct?

Yes. More likely to believe and assume it is correct than a report from Hezbollah. What are you going for here Citizen? You want me to say I am biased towards terrorists? Well I believe I stated earlier that I am.

Quote:

Quote:
how did the investigation of the bombing of the UN outpost by Israel turn out?
All I know is that Israel doesn't want a joint investigation with the UN, they want it all done in house so to speak.

So you are saying that you do not trust the Israeli's to investigate on their own? Why don't you give them a chance and see what happens.

Quote:

Because Israel isn't stupid, they're fighting people whose most sophisticated weapons are WWII rockets while they're fielding the latest and greatest in US military technology.

Many of those rockets you admited to see fall harmlessly in the desert. I guess Israel's propaganda war is not up to par yet with Hezbollah's.

Quote:

Quote:
That was not my intention. Hezbollah can report high civilian casualties to create anti-Israeli sentiment. The Lebanese Government can report high civilian casualty rates to increase pressure on the UN and increase foreign aid. Israel can report low civilian casualty rates (in Lebanon)to keep the UN off their backs and improve their world wide optics. Human Rights Watch seems to have no interest other than factual reporting. Not sure how you got doctoring out of that.
You do realise what you've just written right? Lebanon releases high counts, that's doctoring, Israel low counts, that's doctoring too, then you say how do you get doctoring from that? I got it because thats what you said, I mean huh?

It's amazing how you can twist one's argument by taking things out of context. I admited earlier that there were different reasons for differing civilian casualty rates. The point I was making was to try and find the most unbiased source. What finding the most unbiased source has to do with doctoring the civilian casualty rates, I have no idea.

If you want to continue this discussion could you please keep it relevant. Call into question my facts or the points of my argument based on the larger discussion. Try not to 'nitpick' the way I phrase things, unless you really cannot follow my argument and need clarification of course.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 4:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Yes. More likely to believe and assume it is correct than a report from Hezbollah. What are you going for here Citizen? You want me to say I am biased towards terrorists? Well I believe I stated earlier that I am.

No I'm saying you're biased with Israel, if Israel says it or it supports them it must be true, otherwise it must be false.

Quote:
So you are saying that you do not trust the Israeli's to investigate on their own? Why don't you give them a chance and see what happens.

They've had plenty of chances to investigate similar incidents and they either don't or they brush it under the carpet, why are they so determined not to allow the UN in on the investigation if they plan on doing it properly?

Give them a chance? They've had plenty of chances.

Quote:
Many of those rockets you admited to see fall harmlessly in the desert. I guess Israel's propaganda war is not up to par yet with Hezbollah's.

I have really no idea what you're going on about here since you're stating things that support my argument as if they refute it.

Do you just not understand these things or are you deliberately twisting it around? Israel can't get away with inflating casualty reports as much as you say they would have too, because no one in their right mind would believe that Hezbollah's antiquated equipment would be capable of inflicting comparable damage on Israel as Israel’s state of the art can inflict on Lebanon, it's really quite obvious. So no, Israel not saying "Three hundred dead from Hezbollah rockets" is not proof they aren't using propaganda.

And the rockets that fall harmlessly to the desert are Hezbollah’s not Israel’s, that’s something that was stated quite clearly.

Quote:
It's amazing how you can twist one's argument by taking things out of context. I admited earlier that there were different reasons for differing civilian casualty rates.

Bullshit. You are assuming that because they are unbiased they can't be wrong, all I said was that the biased reporting isn't the only way the reports can differ, and that unbiased sources are just as susceptible to these factors. You admit that there are different factors then accuse me of twisting your statements when I point out that biased reporting isn't the only possible cause?

The only way a biased source can change it's data in a way that wouldn't equally effect a biased source is by doctoring it.

Well frankly I'm getting tired of you making obvious accusations phrased just so, then saying "no I didn't!" If you want to continue this discussion please keep it relevant and cut the bitchy schoolgirl crap.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Yes. More likely to believe and assume it is correct than a report from Hezbollah. What are you going for here Citizen? You want me to say I am biased towards terrorists? Well I believe I stated earlier that I am.
No I'm saying you're biased with Israel, if Israel says it or it supports them it must be true, otherwise it must be false.

If Israel says it or it supports them I am more willing to believe it and support it than if Hezbollah says it or it supports them. When did I say Israel True all others False?

Quote:

Quote:
So you are saying that you do not trust the Israeli's to investigate on their own? Why don't you give them a chance and see what happens.
They've had plenty of chances to investigate similar incidents and they either don't or they brush it under the carpet, why are they so determined not to allow the UN in on the investigation if they plan on doing it properly?

The UN has taken a more biased stand regarding the Middle East than perhaps they should have. 4 UN soldiers were killed, can the UN keep the investigation unbiased? And if so, will the Israeli's trust the UN? Besides, if Israel tries to sweep it under the rug the UN can always launch their own investigation.

Quote:

Quote:
Many of those rockets you admited to see fall harmlessly in the desert. I guess Israel's propaganda war is not up to par yet with Hezbollah's.
I have really no idea what you're going on about here since you're stating things that support my argument as if they refute it.

Sorry to sneak that in there to confuse you. That was my attempt to show the Israeli's may be more even handed. Why show missles missing their targets? Why not just broadcast the civilian hits?

Quote:

Do you just not understand these things or are you deliberately twisting it around? Israel can't get away with inflating casualty reports as much as you say they would have too, because no one in their right mind would believe that Hezbollah's antiquated equipment would be capable of inflicting comparable damage on Israel as Israel’s state of the art can inflict on Lebanon, it's really quite obvious. So no, Israel not saying "Three hundred dead from Hezbollah rockets" is not proof they aren't using propaganda.

Fair enough. Let's look at this from another angle. You seem to enjoy picking apart my examples as to why I think Israel is using less propaganda than Hezbollah. Why don't you give me some examples as to why you think Israel is using just as much propaganda as Hezbollah. Recent examples mind you. Don't just re-hash the whole nuclear secrets spy thing or the U.S.S. Liberty thing.

Quote:

And the rockets that fall harmlessly to the desert are Hezbollah’s not Israel’s, that’s something that was stated quite clearly.

Glad you cleared that up, though I was unaware that it needed to be.

Quote:

Quote:
It's amazing how you can twist one's argument by taking things out of context. I admited earlier that there were different reasons for differing civilian casualty rates.
Bullshit. You are assuming that because they are unbiased they can't be wrong...

I said the least biased IMHO would have the best chance at not being wrong.

Quote:

The only way a biased source can change it's data in a way that wouldn't equally effect a biased source is by doctoring it.

Biased source more likely to doctor.
Un-biased source less likely to doctor.

Quote:

Well frankly I'm getting tired of you making obvious accusations phrased just so, then saying "no I didn't!" If you want to continue this discussion please keep it relevant and cut the bitchy schoolgirl crap.

Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, I said it. A little less personally though.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 8:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
4 UN soldiers were killed, can the UN keep the investigation unbiased? And if so, will the Israeli's trust the UN? Besides, if Israel tries to sweep it under the rug the UN can always launch their own investigation.

Israel dropped the bombs, can Israel keep the investigation unbiased? And if so, will/can the UN trust Israel? It's not like the UN can conduct it's own investigation without Israeli cooperation.

Quote:
Sorry to sneak that in there to confuse you. That was my attempt to show the Israeli's may be more even handed. Why show missles missing their targets? Why not just broadcast the civilian hits?

Enemies incompetence? Besides it's not like it's Israel that's releasing all this information is it? Most of the sources for information are nothing to do with either Lebanon, Hezbollah and Israel, yet you *seem* to want to paint the only sources that are worth listening to as those that support Israel.

Quote:
Fair enough. Let's look at this from another angle. You seem to enjoy picking apart my examples as to why I think Israel is using less propaganda than Hezbollah. Why don't you give me some examples as to why you think Israel is using just as much propaganda as Hezbollah. Recent examples mind you. Don't just re-hash the whole nuclear secrets spy thing or the U.S.S. Liberty thing.

Remember how this line of debate started, specifically with a statement that seemed to suggest that because one guy had doctored to photos more information on the Lebanese side can be brought into question. I believe my original statement was that this brings Israeli information as much into question as Lebanese.

Quote:
Biased source more likely to doctor.
Un-biased source less likely to doctor.

Great so are we on the same page now? That doctoring is the only thing a biased source is effected by that an unbiased source is not is doctoring? Which was what I said in the first place.

Quote:

Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, I said it. A little less personally though.

I'm sorry about that, you ticked me off by accusing me of twisting your words when I'm doing nothing of the sort is all.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 2:55 PM

DUKKATI

Yeah yeah yeah... I gots no edumacation sos I cant writ long wordid thangs. One thang is I can shoot the eyes outa knat from 700 yards. I knowed them jew people are My Gods chosen folks and he said "You like them and I likes you. You go screwin wid'em and I spank that ass of yern."

Most times I be thinkin thats whats got some folks up in arms.
Anyhoo my rifle an mes bout all I gots ta give ta help them Jew people.
Sos yall makea list of who wants onea them hesbolas put down for'em and when I gets over thar I do my best ta getcha one each.

OH by the way 700 yards is on them bigole bullknats not them damnedable muleknats. I gots ta get widin 500 yards for them.

I've been through the system.
It don't work.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 3:04 PM

DUKKATI

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 3:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Just out of curiousity, what would you accept as "justification" as opposed to mere "accusations"? A secret internal memo? A written policy? A confession from a former PM's memoir? What would you consider to be "solid reasoning"? What would you have to see to convince you that Israel practices terrorism?
That's the kicker, in order to call Hezbollah terrorists all we need do is say they're targeting civilians (not arguing that they aren't BTW), but Israel we have to justify it, but then when we do it's not good enough, when you show evidence they target civilians it's dismissed out of hand, seems fairly biased to me.

Maybe I'm an anti-Semite .

I think I'm with you, from Israeli’s POV they aren't targeting civilians they’re targeting the 'enemy'. Seeing popular attitudes expressed by Israeli youth (while there were cameras present making a documentary, so surely a time they'd moderate their views?) they expressed the idea that all Arabs were terrorists, all Arabs were the enemy. That if a bus load of school children were killed it wouldn't matter because they'd just become terrorists eventually anyway.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

*clears throat..jumps into thread hoping to keep it non-personal*

Are you kidding? Hezbollah has been listed as a terrorist organization by the UN! As far as civilian casualties..Didn't the first attack come from the Lebanese side? Compared to the civilian casualties in WW2, Vietnam, Korea...this whole Mid east thing is a joke...Without civilian casualties there is no pressure on a country to allow this crap to continue! War is hell...ask your grandmother.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 4:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Finn: What do they gain?
CTS: Money. Power. Acting out their hatred. Survival.
Finn: That's nonsense.
CTS: Well, what would convince you?
Finn: Show me what they have to gain.

OK...see, I still don't know what would convince you. Cause I tried showing you what they have to gain, and it wasn't good enough.

Just because you believe that something is true, doesn’t mean that I should believe it in the absence of evidence. You’ve not demonstrated that Israelis have anything to gain from following a policy of targeting civilians.

First of all, your assertion that Israel as a people holds a policy of targeting civilians to satiate their collective hatred seems to close to an ethnic slur for me to be comfortable with. It sounds too much like the “baby-killing Jew” popularized by the Nazis and currently heavily employed by anti-Semitic groups in the Middle East, like early Americans/British calling Africans savages. This is a circular argument that doesn’t demonstrate anything gained and doesn't sit well with me.

The other part of your argument is based on money from the US. Your claim, essentially, is that Israel holds a policy of targeting civilians because they want defense money from the US, but the US doesn’t want them targeting civilians, so why would Israel decide that defense money from the US is something they would gain for targeting civilians? You could say that they hold a policy of targeting civilians in spite of US sentiment, but not because of it, assuming such a policy exists. You could say they get defense money from the US in spite of their alleged policy of targeting civilians, but not because of it. Even if you assume the US would continue to send money to Israel, they’ve gained nothing, and probably lost some US respect and political favor, which in turn does make it less likely that the money will continue coming in. (In fact, I’m pretty sure they would loose a lot of US political favor.)

And survival? Any policy of targeting civilians will make it more difficult for the US (or anyone) to support Israel, and much easier for Arab states to attack them. How does that secure their survival? In fact, targeting civilians, even unintentionally, has a detrimental effect on Israeli survival, which is why groups like Hezbollah and Hamas work so hard to make sure Israeli collateral damage is so high.

In effect, none of your arguments work. It appears that your willingness to accept tenuous circular reasoning stems from the preconception that Israelis are savages and then, from your point of view, it makes perfect sense that they would lust for human blood in spite of an inability to identify any benefit to Israelis for such blood-lust. Taking the argument without the preconceptions leaves it with little substance, as regardless what you claim, US aid or Israeli survival are not gained by targeting civilians.

For the sake of argument, I considered your reasoning, and it doesn’t work, but I appreciate your responses and your opinion.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
You know, I never said Israel has a "policy" of targeting civilians. I said she is a terrorist state with a PATTERN of targeting civilians. If you wouldn't mind reading my posts again, you'll see that I tried to explain how Israel doesn't make a distinction between military and non-military targets--there is just enemy target. Not making a distinction is what terrorists do--cause if you remember, terrorists think of themselves as freedom fighters in a just war. For them, they are also striking the enemy. The difference between terrorists and other freedom fighters? For terrorists, everyone of "them" is an enemy.

You may not be talking about a policy of targeting civilians, but I am. And in fairness, I don’t believe these accusations can stand without such a criterion. To say that there is a pattern of collateral damage with Israeli attacks could simply mean nothing more then that the military enemies that Israel is fighting hide themselves within civilian populations, something that is a well documented practice of Hezbollah and Hamas. Therefore any “pattern” of civilian deaths provides no insight into whether Israel is a terrorist state and in fact, given the documented practices of Israels’ enemies, implies that instead it is their enemies that are the terrorists, not Israel. And it turns out to be the case that both Hezbollah and Hamas (not Israel) are listed as terrorists by the US and Britain. (In fact, as far as I know, no country lists Israel as a terrorist state or organization.)

Accusing Israel of being a terrorist state because civilians have been killed by air strikes would make every nation on earth a terrorist state, and it would also play right into the hands of real terrorists. Hezbollah, for instance, hides their missile batteries among civilian populated areas in order to force Israel to make air strikes that will maximize collateral damage. If you insist that Israel is a terrorist state regardless of Israel’s own policies, then you are allowing real terrorists to define Israel and everyone else and in fact, helping to facilitate the murder of civilians by terrorists. Hezbollah would not hide behind civilians if they did not believe that you and others would blame Israel for the civilian deaths.

Has it occurred to you that if Hezbollah would not hide behind civilians that Israel would not fire on these locations? It’s funny that some people insist upon condemning Israel for not using some magical defense against Katyusha batteries that would result in no civilian casualties, but never bother to condemn Hezbollah for putting those batteries among civilians in the first place, an act that is a war crime. Moving the batteries to coincide with international rules of war would be a much simpler and easier way of avoid casualties then Israel being expected to come up with some magical anti-Katyusha fairy dust, wouldn’t you think?

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
But civilian deaths make their enemy MORE angry. The civilian fuel burns brighter and hotter and longer than other fuels. Losing civilian family members drills that hatred deep through the next generation and ensures the war won't relax when this generation dies. (Incidentally, the "war" started way before this recent conflict in Lebanon. I'm talking about a much longer history and much bigger picture.)

Which says nothing about Israel unless you first assume they want to perpetuate war, something for which there is little evidence. Israel’s stated position is that they want peace with the Lebanese government; they have even called for an international force to patrol the border in order to assure peace. And this statement is further supported by their withdrawal from S. Lebanon. So until you can first demonstrate that Israel wants to perpetuate war, as you claim, then your rationalization for why they would want to kill civilians is probably your imagination.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
BTW, I am also curious what you make of the USS Liberty incident. Does it bother you that we kept on giving them just as much money as ever after they sank our ship unprovoked, killed 34 and wounded 173 American soldiers unprovoked, and said, "Ooops. That was a mistake?" Decision point. Do you buy Israel's explanation, or do you think the action wasn't justified?

Yes. What benefit does attacking the US offer Israel?

I can also assure you that I am as enraged by the attack as anyone, but as an army threat analysis, I can further assure you that such blue on blue attacks occur far more frequently then many realize, especially when the military activities are confused, as they frequently are in the Middle East. As a general rule between 10% and 30% of US casualties since World War II, have been the result of friendly fire. In fact, the US has attacked and sunk its own boats, so when placed in a rational context without the preconceptions, the USS Liberty incident is not unlike many such incidents, including some that the US has perpetuated on itself. These are mistakes, and I’m not prepared to classify a nation as a terrorist state for making mistakes, especially, when no one can tell me what they gain from the deliberately committing the act. Such classification would make every nation on earth a terrorist state.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 4:48 PM

This never happened!

On mange des glace de toutes les couleur!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:02 PM

ANTIMASON

may i suggest as a motive for targeting civilians, that Israel is provoking WW3 as the final phase of the NWO agenda?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
the USS Liberty incident is not unlike many such incidents, including some that the US has perpetuated on itself.

Well, it's been nice talking to ya.

-------
"Maybe she's a lazy hooker. They can't all have hearts of gold and good work ethics." -- Jaye in Wonderfalls

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Well, it's been nice talking to ya.

Always a pleasure!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
may i suggest as a motive for targeting civilians, that Israel is provoking WW3 as the final phase of the NWO agenda?

Sure, you can suggest it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:50 PM

Wow. What a rant.

Okay. Begrudgingly, I came back. I have to say I got a lot of work done in the interim of not being here, which I hope is no offense to anyone here.

Zionomics 101. Feel the hate.

Do I even have to dignify that post with a counter-argument? I suspect not.

So for those who don't know me, I'm from the paleo-con right, and I'm going to throw my lot in with everyone else here and say that dukkati has gone on a lunatic rant that makes lyndon larouche sound sane by comparison.

And, now, for the record:

The senseless and unprovoked war on aggression of Israel against Lebanon and Hezbollah, a legitimate political body within the sovereign state of lebanon is one of the most blatant acts of pure unadorned agression we have seen in the wealthy nations of the world since WWII.

It's not surprising that the zionists have learned well from their master, or that the US press lauds the accomplishments of the aggressors to please the oligarchy, or the singular proxy shareholder.

What astounds me is that anyone falls for it at all. Hero was never particularly quick on the uptake, no offense.

Anyone who thinks that Hezbollah struck first has their chronology completely screwed up, and was clearly not reading the news, but just came in late in the story to read the spin.

When Israel arrested the entire democratically elected govt. of Hamas, the committed an act of war, as it would be in an nation on Earth. In retaliation to Hamas' attempted response (capturing israelis,) Israel hit/captured Hezbollah forces as well as Hamas, and in response to Hezbollah's attempted response (capturing israelis,) Israel bombed lebanon. In response to that, Hezbollah bombed Israel.

This is the really indisputable timeline of actual events. Israel launched an unprovoked attack against a sovereign nation, two of them as far as 90% of the world's nations are concerned (they recognize Palestine.)

Israel is actually 100% in the wrong here, in a way that Germany was 100% in the wrong in 1938 in spain and austria. The failure of the global community to respond as it should resulted in disasterous consequences. I think the people of earth are wiser for it, and will not make the same mistake again.

And for those few (two?) who may be on the "Oh let's go nuke Iran" side, the everyday populous of the world is solidly on one side. Even countries whose govts. strongly support israel, the people are solidly against this action against lebanon and palestine.

If I were the US I'd threaten to cut off the tap if Israel didn't start playing nice

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:59 PM

Oh yipee, more posts.

I want to interject a comment here about Israel targetting civilians deliberately.

Even though I'm appalled by Israel at the moment, I don't have any reason to suspect that this is so.

Think about it. Hezbollah fighters are party of a party militia, which is how they do things in the ME. As such, they're no easier to identify than the michigan militia of timothy mcveigh fame. Israel has to more or less guess where the enemy is, and given their prefered tactic of heavy air assault, they are going to be wrong a fair percentage of the time.

It's sloppy warfare, but it's not reason enough to think that they are deliberately targeting civilians. If that makes them less evil, then it makes them less evil, but they're still very wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:03 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Finn et al,

In reading the thread, there is a clear consensus that the deaths of Lebanese civilians due to Israeli military action helps Hezbollah (and is exactly what they are hoping for). So should Israel have done anything differently?

I guess I'm trying to get a feel for what are the different ways to target an asymmetric threat that is embedded in a civilian population. And is force the best option or just the most straight-forward to implement?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:08 PM

Yep..Israel arrested the "entire Democratically elected gov. of Hamas" capturing Hezbollah members while doing so...Because unlike Israeli soldiers or any legitimate nation's army. No-one knows who is a soldier for Hezbollah. There is a reason they are not the Lebanese army..They are terrorists and do not want people to know who they are... How many "members" make up Hezbollah? 2000? 2500? 30000? Good luck finding out..Ask the same question about any other army. Quite easy to answer. so who is slow on the uptake?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:03 PM

They're an organization with a militia. I think that the terrorist thing is a handy stick on label. I'm pretty familiar with the spin.

What I love most is when people start tirading against the arabs and muslims, which shows the true colors of this conflict. I'm a little shocked at how many American are willing to goose step into this new world order. I'm not planning on wasting a lot of time on it.

When you lose the war, we'll watch your war crimes trials on tv. I just hope in the meantime the people of lebanon have a chance to get out. I really do suggest they come here, apply for citizenship and then maye set up an oil company so they can start lobbying washington.

BTW, I'm sorry that the existance of Islam seems to offend people, or the arab political system:

Here's a tip. The reason arab political parties have militias is not that "they are all a bunch of terrorists." It's that they don't have a stable political system like we do, and they can't trust their opponents to follow their orders, not assassinated them, etc.

Here in America, it's quite different. If a republican soldier happens to be in the army when a democrat gets elected, he will follow him orders anyway. It was not always the case. As people might recall when a republican was elected and a large number of democrats got behind their candidate Jefferson Davis, and a civil war ensued. But 150 years of peace and prosperity has given us a level of stability that the lebanese and syrians do not have the benefit of.

I'm sorry, I'm all out of animocity towards arabs. I think they've had a rough break, and we're handing them a rougher one each day, in what essentially does seem to amount to a genocidal campaign to exterminate their race and abolish all remnants of their culture, and while we're at it steal their wealth. Occassionally rape and torture them along the way. So, that sort of thing can make people a might cranky. I understand.

ps. so much for spreading democracy, I see no one in looney jesus rapture land was willing to accept hamas as a govt. once they were voted into office by the majority of the people. Oh well. Maybe we should spread military dictatorship instead, it seems to be what we've got a knack for lately. I think we've haven't had a successful nation build in 50 years, I guess we're out of practice, or maybe we've just started to suck at it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 10, 2006 10:17 PM

Hi Dream, good to see you back.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 8:11 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Without a preference for either combatant, I note:

Israel claims to not target Lebanese civilians.

Hezballah claims to be attacking Israeli civilians.

Of the 120 or so Israelis killed so far, 2/3 have been military.

Of the 1000 or so Lebanese killed so far, between 60% and 80% have been civilians (depending on whose numbers you use).

Seems like neither side is prosecuting their stated battle plan very well.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 5:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It's sloppy warfare, but it's not reason enough to think that they are deliberately targeting civilians. If that makes them less evil, then it makes them less evil, but they're still very wrong.

There is deliberate, and there is deliberate. Do I think they deliberately point their guns at Qana, rub their hands with glee, and say, "Oh goodie! Unarmed women and children"? No. Do I think they deliberately point their guns at Qana, see that there are unarmed women and children, don't give a cowchip before firing? Yes.

You can say anything you like about the IDF, but you can't call them incompetent. They know what they are doing. Their excuse is that they are sloppy, to ease the intolerance for civilian deaths of their allies. But a close examination of their history show simply that they themselves have no such intolerance. They (the IDF leaders) want to destroy their enemies, and if unarmed women and children are in their way, so be it.

Let's say they (leaders) find that village used to have guns firing on Israel, but now has been abandoned by enemy terrorists. It used to house them, it could house them again--it doesn't matter that only unarmed civilians are there now. They will target it. Then they say, oops, our intelligence was wrong, sorry, collateral damage. In the sense that they didn't make a targeting mistake, the attack is deliberate. But the attack is not deliberately hunting for civilians, like the Hezbollah would. You see? They usually don't go out looking for civilians to kill, but they don't try to avoid them either. At least, that is the way I interpret their pattern of targeting civilians.

However, if some psycho-trigger-happy idiot gets behind the gun and DOES hunt for civilians (like the Hezbollah) the powers appear to be lenient and tacitly tolerant of such aberrant behavior. In this respect, I don't think civilian casualties are just acceptable collateral damage to them. To me, it appears to be more of a perverse perk.

Going back to my example of the ex-terrorist village, now with only innocent civilians. If they (leaders) had to choose between an empty ex-terrorist village and a civilian-filled ex-terrorist village to target, they would pick the one with civilians. Here, everything I said about what they gain with targeting civilians applies. They get some vengeance, drill the hate a little deeper, make a show of power, make sure their money will keep coming in because the war will go on that much longer.

And before anyone implies that I am an anti-semite, again, please note that I am talking about the shit-for-morals who rise to power--not about all Israelis, let alone all Jews. Anyone who thinks I have a veiled prejudice against Jews should read my posts again and notice I say, LEADERS.

(This post has been edited.)
-------
"Maybe she's a lazy hooker. They can't all have hearts of gold and good work ethics." -- Jaye in Wonderfalls

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Without a preference for either combatant, I note:

Israel claims to not target Lebanese civilians.

Hezballah claims to be attacking Israeli civilians.

Of the 120 or so Israelis killed so far, 2/3 have been military.

Of the 1000 or so Lebanese killed so far, between 60% and 80% have been civilians (depending on whose numbers you use).

Seems like neither side is prosecuting their stated battle plan very well.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Israeli soldiers do not hide behind civilians. What is a Hezbollah "militia member"? Any guy in a beret? Hezbollah just launches rockets into Israel to hit ANYONE. Israel follows suit...just happen to be better at it! Thats news.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 7:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Finn et al,

In reading the thread, there is a clear consensus that the deaths of Lebanese civilians due to Israeli military action helps Hezbollah (and is exactly what they are hoping for). So should Israel have done anything differently?

I guess I'm trying to get a feel for what are the different ways to target an asymmetric threat that is embedded in a civilian population. And is force the best option or just the most straight-forward to implement?

I think force is the only option, unless you intend to surrender.

There are various tactics that a military like the IDF can exploit depending on the assessed CONOPS. I’m not familiar enough with the theater to say whether they’ve made the appropriate choices, or what choices they should make. And I’m not privileged to that information anyway.

You really can’t use counter-terrorism special operation forces that far outside your control, without air support, which is tactical bombing. There isn’t anyway to avoid the bombing. And there isn’t anyway to avoid the civilian casualties either. Israel’s goal is to diminish Hezbollah’s arsenal and capability, which means Israel is going to be targeting MRLs and depots and Hezbollah leadership. Targeting leadership is perhaps one of the best ways to deal with an asymmetric threat.

Hezbollah makes certain, however, that military targets will always be in civilian areas. And Hezbollah never wears uniforms in combat. Typically the demographic of the civilian casualties the IDF inflicts are disproportionately young men, which suggest that many, if not most, of these civilian casualties are actually Hezbollah militants and their supporters. Hezbollah carefully controls the media, so that what you read in the news paper or see on CNN about casualties in Hezbollah controlled areas, you can be assured that you’re seeing or reading exactly and only what Hezbollah wants you to see. There is no free press in Lebanon as there is in Israel.

You probably can’t eliminate a terrorist organization with force alone, but you can’t negotiate except from a position of strength. As long as Hezbollah is so well armed, Israel will probably not be able to gain that position of strength unless there is a change in the way the international community perceives the Arab-Israeli conflict. We really have to implement a realistic campaign to disarm Hezbollah.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2006 11:53 PM

Quote:
Israel’s goal is to diminish Hezbollah’s arsenal and capability, which means Israel is going to be targeting MRLs and depots and Hezbollah leadership. Targeting leadership is perhaps one of the best ways to deal with an asymmetric threat.

And the houses around the depots or launch sites/ex launch sites...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 12, 2006 2:25 AM

Since I still believe that Israel is carrying out an unprovoked offensive, force is the only option to that end. Hezbollah would not be a threat to israel if israel weren't genocidally exterminating arabs. Even if the zionists, american and israeli, are not intentionally trying to torture and kill arabs, that's still what a surface scan of the operations throughout the ME would appear to be, certainly when viewed from an arab perspective. Invert the situation, there plenty of jews who didn't analyze the situation in germany as "the germans are helping to resettle us to a new jewish homeland for us" which was the stated goal.

Citizen,

good to be back

Geezer,

Glad to see you've made a shift towards a more sane (less bush?) position in my absence I saw a couple of posts back there which made sense.

About Israel, Israel has no way of knowing who its enemy is. If they really want to route out hezbollah, which imho is an insane agenda, sort of like going to war with the united states to wipe out democrats, but they can't possibly know their enemy on sight.

For Hezbollah, every israeli is a solider, and so they view the opposition as possessing no civilians (an indefensible claim, but I'm not hezbollah's apologist) Nortern israel has been pretty much evacuated except for active soldiers and some of their family members, and hezbollah has only short range WWII era rockets, and can't hit anywhere else. This is actually what they're using, I say a reference to hezbollah actually using Katies as there main weapon, and there were a bunch of other ones from that period.

Given the situation, I can see no possible achievement of goals for anyone. Obviously Israel will kick the ass of the lebanese, but they will never make a dent in hezbollah. Every dead hezbollah member is worth two new hezbollah recruits. What a pointless confict.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 12, 2006 10:06 AM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think force is the only option, unless you intend to surrender.

There are various tactics that a military like the IDF can exploit depending on the assessed CONOPS. I’m not familiar enough with the theater to say whether they’ve made the appropriate choices, or what choices they should make. And I’m not privileged to that information anyway.

You really can’t use counter-terrorism special operation forces that far outside your control, without air support, which is tactical bombing. There isn’t anyway to avoid the bombing. And there isn’t anyway to avoid the civilian casualties either. Israel’s goal is to diminish Hezbollah’s arsenal and capability, which means Israel is going to be targeting MRLs and depots and Hezbollah leadership. Targeting leadership is perhaps one of the best ways to deal with an asymmetric threat.

Hezbollah makes certain, however, that military targets will always be in civilian areas. And Hezbollah never wears uniforms in combat. Typically the demographic of the civilian casualties the IDF inflicts are disproportionately young men, which suggest that many, if not most, of these civilian casualties are actually Hezbollah militants and their supporters. Hezbollah carefully controls the media, so that what you read in the news paper or see on CNN about casualties in Hezbollah controlled areas, you can be assured that you’re seeing or reading exactly and only what Hezbollah wants you to see. There is no free press in Lebanon as there is in Israel.

You probably can’t eliminate a terrorist organization with force alone, but you can’t negotiate except from a position of strength. As long as Hezbollah is so well armed, Israel will probably not be able to gain that position of strength unless there is a change in the way the international community perceives the Arab-Israeli conflict. We really have to implement a realistic campaign to disarm Hezbollah.

Thanks, Finn.

I guess it's a little late for attempting solutions that do not involve military forces. There's a whole lot of history and animosity on both sides of the border and maybe too much to come back from (which is what really concerns me).

In my ideal world there would be a viable way to convince the Lebanese and Israeli civilians to not support military action as a first option. I was engaging in some blue-sky thinking last night that sort of resolved itself into more of a capitalist approach (granted, my vision of capitalism is a very regulated one). Economic zones on both sides of the border, sort of a Lebanese-Israeli mass market, filled with small businesses so that any disruption by either Hezbollah or the IDF hit thousands of families directly in the pocket book. Shifting the base of support, so to speak.

In other words, totally unrealistic.

* edited to add: Hmmmm. Although calling it the Greater Middle-East Co-Prosperity Sphere would probably not be a good idea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 13, 2006 7:43 PM